America v. Boedigheimer
United States of America v. Robert Boedigheimer; Wendi Boedigheimer; Emigrant Mortgage; F&M Savings Bank; Washington County, Minnesota
- Jeffrey Bryan
- 0:25-cv-00895
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In United States of America v. Robert Boedigheimer; Wendi Boedigheimer; Emigrant Mortgage; F&M Savings Bank; Washington County, Minnesota, Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan denied the Boedigheimers' motion to dismiss, finding that the government's amended complaint contained sufficient factual allegations — including details about a certified-mail notice of intent to terminate the installment agreement — to allow the tax collection lawsuit to proceed.
Self-represented taxpayers (Robert and Wendi Boedigheimer) who face a federal lawsuit to collect unpaid income taxes and potentially force the sale of their home in Stillwater, Minnesota. Also relevant to other property interest holders named as defendants (Emigrant Mortgage, F&M Savings Bank, Washington County, Minnesota) and to taxpayers generally who have entered IRS installment agreements.
What happened
In United States of America v. Robert Boedigheimer; Wendi Boedigheimer; Emigrant Mortgage; F&M Savings Bank; Washington County, Minnesota, the federal government sued Robert and Wendi Boedigheimer, who are representing themselves, to collect unpaid federal income taxes for tax years 2013, 2014, 2017, and 2018. The Boedigheimers had reported taxes owed on their returns but failed to fully pay, entered into an installment agreement with the IRS, defaulted on that agreement, and then had the agreement terminated by the IRS in April 2024 after the IRS sent them a certified-mail notice in February 2024. The government is seeking a court judgment for the unpaid taxes, enforcement of federal tax liens on the Boedigheimers' home at 841 Oakgreen Avenue in Stillwater, Minnesota, a court-ordered sale of that property, and distribution of the sale proceeds.
The Boedigheimers moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the government's original complaint failed to allege that the IRS properly notified them of its intent to terminate the installment agreement before doing so. The government responded by filing an amended complaint that specifically alleged it sent the required notice — a form called a CP523 letter — to the Boedigheimers' home address by certified mail before terminating the agreement. The Boedigheimers also argued in their reply that the complaint should be dismissed because it did not allege they had exhausted or waived their rights to challenge the termination, but the court found they provided no binding legal authority to support that argument.
Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan denied the Boedigheimers' motion to dismiss. Applying the standard legal test — which requires a complaint to contain enough specific facts to make a claim plausible, not just possible — the court found that the amended complaint's detailed allegations about the certified-mail CP523 notice were sufficient to allow the case to move forward. The court also declined to convert the motion into a request for summary judgment (an early final ruling on the merits), noting that factual disputes exist that would prevent ruling in the Boedigheimers' favor at this early stage.
The detailed version
- United States of America v. Robert Boedigheimer; Wendi Boedigheimer; Emigrant Mortgage; F&M Savings Bank; Washington County, Minnesota, No. 25-CV-895 (JMB/DTS)
- Jeffrey M. Bryan
Background
The United States, represented by the Department of Justice Tax Division, filed suit against Robert and Wendi Boedigheimer (proceeding pro se, meaning self-represented) along with several other named defendants — Emigrant Mortgage, F&M Savings Bank, and Washington County, Minnesota — who appear to hold interests in the subject property. The government's amended complaint seeks four forms of relief: (1) a money judgment reducing to judgment the Boedigheimers' unpaid federal tax assessments for tax years 2013, 2014, 2017, and 2018; (2) enforcement of federal tax liens on real property located at 841 Oakgreen Avenue, Stillwater, MN (the Oakgreen Property); (3) a court order authorizing sale of the Oakgreen Property; and (4) a court-ordered distribution of sale proceeds according to priority determined by the court.
According to the amended complaint, the Boedigheimers filed joint federal income tax returns for the years at issue, self-reported tax liabilities, but failed to fully pay those amounts. The IRS assessed the taxes and sent notices of assessment and demands for payment. The Boedigheimers entered into an installment agreement with the IRS but defaulted before January 29, 2024. On February 14, 2024, the IRS sent a CP523 letter (a statutory notice of intent to terminate an installment agreement) by certified mail to the Boedigheimers' home address. The installment agreement was formally terminated on April 24, 2024.
Procedural History
The government filed its original complaint in March 2025. The Boedigheimers filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss (which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim on its face, accepting all alleged facts as true). The government moved to amend the complaint; the court granted that motion in part and required the government to respond to the pending motion to dismiss. The amended complaint was filed July 28, 2025. The parties then briefed whether the amended complaint could survive the previously filed motion to dismiss.
Legal Standard
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain enough facts to state a claim that is 'plausible on its face.' Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). Threadbare recitals and conclusory statements are insufficient. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). Courts accept well-pleaded factual allegations as true and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.
Ruling and Reasoning
Judge Bryan denied the motion to dismiss. The court found that the original complaint's identified deficiency — the absence of allegations that the IRS provided the required pre-termination notice — was cured by the amended complaint. The amended complaint specifically alleged that a CP523 letter dated February 19, 2024, was sent by certified mail on February 14, 2024, to the Boedigheimers' home address expressing the IRS's intent to terminate the installment agreement. The court held these specific factual allegations, viewed favorably to the government, were sufficient to plausibly allege notice and to state a claim for relief.
The court also addressed two alternative arguments raised by the Boedigheimers: (1) their request to convert the motion to dismiss into a summary judgment motion (a procedure that would allow the court to consider evidence outside the complaint) — denied because genuine disputes of material fact would preclude judgment in the Boedigheimers' favor at this early stage; and (2) their argument (raised for the first time in their reply brief) that dismissal was warranted because the complaint failed to allege exhaustion or waiver of due process rights to challenge the termination — denied because the Boedigheimers cited no binding legal authority establishing that complaints must preemptively defeat all potential defenses to notice validity, and no authority setting forth substantive or procedural requirements for such notices.
Result
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 18) is DENIED. The case proceeds on the amended complaint.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.