THOMAS J. TUCKER, Bankruptcy Judge.
This case presents the question whether a federal bankruptcy court may issue a writ of execution directing that a state court officer, rather than the United States Marshals Service, execute the writ. The Court concludes that the answer is no.
On September 3, 2014, the Court entered a default judgment against the Defendant in this adversary proceeding (Docket # 7), in the total amount of $478,676.39, plus interest. The default judgment stated that this debt is nondischargeable in Defendant's bankruptcy case.
On September 26, 2014, at Plaintiff's request, the Clerk of this Court issued a writ of execution. (Docket # 8). Before issuing the writ, however, the Clerk struck certain language, at the undersigned judge's direction. As submitted, the proposed writ of execution was directed to the following: "TO ANY SHERIFF, DEPUTY SHERIFF, OR DEPUTY U.S. MARSHALL:" The Court caused the Clerk to strike the words "SHERIFF, DEPUTY SHERIFF" by hand before issuing the writ, to make clear that the writ was directed
On October 6, 2014, the Clerk received a letter and a proposed revised writ of execution from Plaintiff's attorney. (Docket # 9). The proposed writ contains language similar to that which the Clerk struck from the earlier writ of execution. It is addressed to the following: "TO ANY SHERIFF, DEPUTY SHERIFF, OR COURT OFFICER." This language omits the earlier writ's reference to the Unites States Marshal. The letter from Plaintiff's attorney requests that the revised writ be issued so that a state court officer, rather than the United States Marshals Service, can serve and execute on the writ of execution. And the proposed writ names a particular state court officer to serve the writ—it says "Writ to be served by: Michael Jones, Court Officer."
The Court must deny Plaintiff's request to issue the proposed writ of execution, for the following reasons.
Plaintiff's counsel's letter argues, without citing any authority, that "[t]here is no requirement that a U.S. Marshal must serve an Execution Against Property." But the Court concludes that only the United States Marshals Service may serve and execute on a writ of execution issued by this Court. No state court officer may do so. See Branch Banking & Trust v. Ramsey, 559 Fed.Appx. 919, 924 (11th Cir. 2014) (interpreting 28 U.S.C. § 566(c) to mean that "only a U.S. marshal may execute the federal writ of execution by levying on and selling [a judgment debtor defendant's] property").
In his letter, Plaintiff's counsel states certain reasons why he believes it would be faster, less expensive, and more effective for a state court officer to levy on the writ of execution in this case. But if Plaintiff's counsel wants to use a state court officer to execute on a writ of execution, he can only accomplish that by domesticating this Court's September 3, 2014 default judgment in an appropriate Michigan court, and then have that Michigan court issue its own writ of execution, which a state court officer can then serve. Plaintiff can file an authenticated copy of this Court's judgment in the office of the clerk of a circuit, district, or municipal court in the state of Michigan under the "Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act." Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §§ 691.1171-691.1179. That Michigan law provides, in relevant part:
Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 691.1173 (bold emphasis added). As used in this statute, "foreign judgment" includes a judgment of the United States Bankruptcy Court—it "means any judgment, decree, or order of a court of the United States or of any other court that is entitled to full faith and credit in this state." Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 691.1172.
For the reasons stated above,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's request for the issuance of a revised writ of execution in this adversary proceeding (Docket # 9) is denied.