RICHARD F. CEBULL, United States District Judge
Tony Nave ("Nave") is the Yellowstone County Clerk and Recorder. On June 7, 2001, the United States presented Nave with a notice of federal tax lien with the name Henry L. Matthies ("Matthies) and requested that Nave file the notice. Nave filed the tax lien notice, and on May 23, 2002, Matthies sent a letter to Nave in which he requested that the be removed. Matthies asserted that Nave erred in filing the notice because it was not certified by the Secretary of the United States Treasury, and further that there wasn't an abstract of judgment attached to the notice.
On April 25, 2002, the United States presented Nave with a notice of federal tax lien which named Edward H. Blome and Shirley A. Blome ("Blomes"). Nave filed the notice, and on June 14, 2002, Nave received a letter from the Blomes asserting the same arguments as those contained in the Matthies' letter of May 23, 2002.
On March 14, 2000, the United States presented Nave with a notice of federal tax lien which named Jerry E. Burright and Diane Burright ("Burrights"). Nave filed the notice, and on May 29, 2002, Nave received a letter from the Burrights asserting the same arguments as those contained in the Matthies' letter of May 23, 2002.
All three parties filed separate cases in the State Court in the Thirteenth Judicial District. The cases were removed by the United States to the United States District Court for the District of Montana. The three cases were consolidated pursuant to this Court's order on August 27, 2002.
ARGUMENTS
Nave argues that federal law supercedes state law as to notices of federal tax liens. He contends that when state law and federal law conflict, federal law controls. Nave asserts that M.C.A. § 71-3-203 requires that the Secretary of the United States Treasury certify a notice of a federal tax lien before it is filed. However, Nave points out that the Montana statute conflicts with, and is therefore superceded by the Internal Revenue Code and certain Revenue Rulings on the subject. Nave argues that federal law governs the filing of these notices, and he complied with the requirements of federal law, and therefore he is entitled to a judgment on the pleadings. The United States of America ("the government") puts forth arguments that are similar in nature to those of Defendant Nave. They also argue that because the federal tax lien is a federal creation, federal law controls the form and content required for a sufficient notice.
ANALYSIS
The Defendant filed his motion pursuant to Rule 12(c) Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 12 states the following:
(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. After the pleadings are closed but within such time as not to delay the trial, any party may move for judgment on the pleadings, matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56, and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by Rule 56.
Judgment on the pleadings may be granted only when ". . . it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Enron v. Walbrook Ins. Co. Ltd., 132 F.3d 526, 529 (9th Cir. 1997). In other words, a motion for judgment on the pleadings should be granted when, taking all the allegations in the non-moving party's pleadings as true, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fajardo v. County of Los Angeles, 179 F.3d 698, 699 (9th Cir. 1999).
The Plaintiffs point to M.C.A. § 71-3-203 as ammunition for their argument that the lien notices filed in this case were invalid. M.C.A. § 71-3-203 states the following:
Execution of notices and certificates. Certification by the secretary of the treasury of the United States or his delegate, or by any official or entity of the United States responsible for filing or certifying of notice of any lien, of notices of liens, certificates, or other notices affecting federal liens entitles them to be filed. No other attestation, certification, or acknowledgment is necessary.
While the Montana statute provides that the tax lien notice should be certified by the Secretary of the United States Treasury, the federal rules do not contain such a provision. 26 U.S.C. § 6323 contains the following provisions:
(3) Form. — The form and content of the notice referred to in subsection (a)
shall be prescribed by the Secretary. Such notice shall be valid notwithstanding any other provision of law regarding the form or content of a notice of lien.
This statute clearly evinces an intent by the secretary of the United States Treasury to supersede any state laws concerning the form and content of tax lien notices. Because the federal tax lien is wholly a creature of federal statute, federal law establishes the content of a sufficient filing. United States v. Brosnan, 363 U.S. 237, 240 (1960). The proper form of filing for a tax lien is left up to the Secretary of the Treasury by 26 U.S.C. § 6323(f)(3). United States v. Polk, 822 F.2d 871, 873 (9th Cir. 1987).
The federal regulations governing this area further bolster the conclusion that federal law supercedes state law in this area. 26 C.F.R. § 301.6323(f)-(1)(d) states the following:
(d)
Form-(1)
In general. The notice referred to in § 301.6323(a)-1 shall be filed on Form 668, "Notice of Federal Tax Lien Under Internal Revenue Laws." Such notice is valid notwithstanding any other provision of law regarding the form or content of a notice of a lien. For example, omission from the notice of lien of a description of the property subject to the lien does not affect the validity thereof even though State law may require that the notice contain a description of the property subject to the lien.
From the foregoing discussion it is obvious that Montana law conflicts with federal law as to the form and content of the tax lien notices. In such a case, federal law supersedes Montana law. Because federal law does not require the Defendant to have the notice certified by the Secretary of the United States Treasury, or attach an abstract of judgment, the tax lien notice is clearly valid. Both Defendants have established that on the face of the pleadings, there is no material issue of fact that remains to be resolved, and the Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Accordingly pursuant to Rule 12(c) Fed.R.Civ.P. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendant Nave's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is
GRANTED. (Doc. #38).
2. Defendant United States of America's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is
GRANTED. (Doc.# 43).
3. The above-entitled consolidated action is
DISMISSED with prejudice.
The Clerk of Court is directed to notify the parties of the making of this Order.