govinfo:USCOURTS-ksd-6_21-cr-10073-12

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
 
 Plainti
ff, 
 
 
 
 vs. Case No. 21-10073-EFM 
 
MICHAEL R. CAPPS, 
 
 De
fendant. 
 
 
 
 
 
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 
 
 This matter is before the Court on the Government’s Motion for Garnishee Order (Doc. 
326) and Michael Capps’s Request for Hearing on this Motion (Doc. 327). Security 1st Title, LLC 
holds funds in the amount of $74,573.37, and the Govern ment seeks to garn ish those funds to 
enforce a judgment against Capps. For the reasons stated below, the Court grants the Government’s 
Motion, with a slight modification. In addition, it denies Capps’s Request for Hearing. 
I. Factual and Procedural Background 
 This case has a long history. For purposes of the Motion currently before the Court—the 
Government’s request to garnish funds currently being held by Security 1st Title—the Court will 
only set forth a brief recitation of the relevant facts.
1 
 
1 More detail relating to the history of the funds and the arguments over them are set forth in Doc. 192 (this 
Court’s order relating to Capps’s previous Exemption Claim), Doc. 229 (this Court’s order relating to Capps’s son’s 
contention that he was entitled to a portion of the funds held by Security 1st Title), and Doc. 245 (this Court’s order 

 
 
-2- 
 A writ of garnishment, directed to Security 1st Title, was first issued by the Clerk of the 
Court on February 5, 2024. The Government se rved Security 1st Title on February 12, 2024. 
Security 1st Title filed an answer on February 29, stating that it had custody, control, or possession 
of property in which Michael Capps had an intere st, in the form of a cash deposit with the value 
of $74,573.37. 
 On February 14, 2024, the Government mailed a copy of the application for writ of 
garnishment, the writ of garnishment, and the Cl erk’s notice of garnishmen t and instructions to 
Michael Capps and Charles Capps (Michael Capps ’s son). The instructions explained how to 
object to the Garnishee’s answer. On February 28, 2024, Michael Capps filed an exemption claim 
and hearing request. The Court denied Capps’ claim and request. Although Capps filed an appeal 
of this Court’s ruling,
2 he did not raise any issues related to the exemption claim ruling. The Tenth 
Circuit dismissed the appeal on September 5, 2025, finding that it lacked jurisdiction. 
 In addition, on February 27, 2024, Claimant Char les Capps filed a limited appearance to 
object to the garnishment and to provid e notice of a state interpleader action. 3 The Court held a 
hearing on this objection, ultimately ruling against Claimant Charles Capps and finding that he did 
not have a valid, legal right to $50,000 of the Securi ty 1st Title funds. He appealed this ruling to 
the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed on March 22, 2026. 
 
relating to the reconsideration of the earlier orders), Doc. 303 (the Tenth Circuit’s Order/Mandate relating to Capps’s 
appeal of this Court’s Order), and Doc. 322 (the Tenth Ci rcuit’s Order/Mandate relating to Capps’s son’s appeal of 
this Court’s Order). 
2 This Order addressed seven pending motions, including Capps’s exemption request. 
3 The interpleader action was removed to this Court, and the Court dismissed it. See Case. No. 24-1042, Doc. 
12. 

 
 
-3- 
 The Government is now befo re the Court requesting an or der for garnishment of these 
funds held by Security 1st Title. It contends that all claims for exem ption, requests for hearing, 
objections, and other matters relati ng to the Wirt of Garnishment have been resolved by this 
Court’s orders and the Tenth Circuit’s orders. Not surprisi ngly, Michael Capps objects and 
requests a hearing. He claims that he has had no opportunity to be heard specifically on this motion 
and that entry of a final garnishee order would be premature. 
II. Analysis 
 In this case, the Government obtained and re ceived the writ of garnishment on February 5, 
2024. And Security 1st Title filed its answer on February 29, 2024. Purs uant to 28 U.S.C. 
§ 3205(c)(5), after the garnishee fi les an answer to the writ of garnishment, the judgment debtor 
“may file a written objection to the answer and request a hearing” within 20 days from receipt of 
the answer. Capps did not do so. Thus, the Court “shall promptly enter an order directing the 
garnishee as to the disposition of the judgment debtor’s nonexempt interest in such property.”4 
 Previously, Capps filed an ex emption claim and hearing reques t before Security 1st Title 
had filed its answer. The Court addressed Capps’s exemption claim and hearing request in an order, 
finding that he did not m eet his burden in establishing that the property was exempt and that he 
was not entitled to a hearing. He did not appeal th is ruling to the Tenth Circuit. Thus, the Court 
already ruled on his exemption cl aim/hearing. Accordingly, he is now out of time to file an 
objection and request a hearing. 
 
4 28 U.S.C. § 3205(c)(7). 

 
 
-4- 
 Nevertheless, the Court will briefly address Ca pps’s contentions. Capps first contends that 
escrow funds are not static and that Security 1st Title may be holding a different amount than the 
$74,573.37 it previously stated that it was holding two years ago. The Government has verified 
with Security 1st Title that it curren tly holds $74,573.37, the same amount that it held 
approximately two years ago. Thus, there is no issue with the amount of funds. 
 Capps next argues that the Cour t’s previous orders did not address the specific question of 
the form and scope of a final disposition order. In addition, Capps asserts that the Government’s 
proposed Order is overbroad. In response, the Government states that the proposed language is 
standard in garnishment orders to ensure that the garnishee pays over the full account value. The 
Government also states, however, that it has no objection to tailoring the order to the specific 
amount of $74,573.37 because that amount has not ch anged over the past two years and is not 
expected to change in amount. Thus, the Court will slightly modify th e Government’s proposed 
order to specifically state the amount of funds. 
 In sum, all issues related to the funds being held by Security 1st Title have been resolved. 
No person or entity, other than Michael Capps, has an interest in the funds being held by Security 
1st Title in the amount of $74,573.37. And all procedural requirements under 28 U.S.C. 
§ 3205(c)(7) have been met. A ccordingly, the Court grants the Government’s Motion for 
Garnishee Order. 
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Government’s Motion for Garnishee Order 
(Doc. 326) is GRANTED and Michael Capps’s Request for Hearing on this Motion (Doc. 327) is 
DENIED. 

 
 
-5- 
THE COURT THEREFORE ORDERS Garnishee Security 1st Title to immediately 
liquidate and pay over the funds of Defendant Michael R. Capps, being held in the amount of 
$74,573.37, to the United States. 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all payments should be made to the “Clerk, U.S 
District Court,” with a notation of Defendant Michael R. Capps’s name and the Case No. 
6:21CR10073-001-EFM, and be mailed to the United St ates District Court Clerk at Wichita U.S. 
Federal Court, 401 N. Market, Suite 204, Wichita, KS 67202. 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that once Garnishee Security 1st Title no longer has 
custody, possession, or control of the $74,573.37 in which Michael R. Capps has an interest, 
Garnishee Security 1st Title is hereby released and discharged as Garnishee in this action. 
 IT IS SO ORDERED. 
Dated this 3rd day of June, 2026. 
 
 
 E R I C F . M E L G R E N 
 U N I T E D S T A T E S D I S T R I C T J U D G E 
 
 

Passage view · GavelSight