Federal National Mortgage Assn v. Jonathon Bell

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to strike [999322912-2]; granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999287511-2] Originating case number: 3:13-cv-00039-DJN-MHL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999380706]. Mailed to: appellant. [14-1014]

Appeal: 14-1014

Doc: 24

Filed: 06/23/2014

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1014

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JONATHON P. BELL,
Defendant - Appellant,
and
CG BELLKOR, LLC,
Defendant,
KYLE A. STEPHENSON,
Receiver.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
David Novak, Magistrate
Judge. (3:13-cv-00039-DJN-MHL)

Submitted:

May 30, 2014

Before KEENAN
Circuit Judge.

and

DIAZ,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

Affirmed in part, dismissed in part, vacated
remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

June 23, 2014

DAVIS,

in

Senior

part,

and

Appeal: 14-1014

Doc: 24

Filed: 06/23/2014

Pg: 2 of 5

Jonathon P. Bell, Appellant Pro Se.
John David Folds, BAKER,
DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC, Washington, DC, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 14-1014

Doc: 24

Filed: 06/23/2014

Pg: 3 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Jonathon
granting

Federal

Bell

appeals

National

the

Mortgage

district

court’s ∗

Association’s

orders

motion

for

summary judgment, finding Bell personally liable for $17,959.67
for civil contempt, and issuing a show cause order as to whether
Bell should be held in criminal contempt.

We affirm in part,

dismiss in part, vacate in part, and remand for a recalculation
of damages as to Bell.
This

Court

“review[s]

the

ultimate

decision

as

to

whether the contempt was proper for abuse of discretion, the
underlying legal questions de novo, and any factual findings for
clear error.”

In re Under Seal, __ F.3d __, 2014 WL 1465749, at

*6

2014)

(4th

contempt,

Cir.
a

movant

(citations
must

omitted).

demonstrate

by

To
clear

establish
and

civil

convincing

evidence:
(1) the existence of a valid decree of which the
alleged
contemnor
had
actual
or
constructive
knowledge; (2) that the decree was in the movant’s
favor; (3) that the alleged contemnor by its conduct
violated the terms of the decree, and had knowledge
(at least constructive knowledge) of such violations;
and (4) that the movant suffered harm as a result.
Ashcraft v. Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 288, 301 (4th Cir. 2000)
(citation

and

alterations

omitted).

∗

Civil

contempt

is

an

The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a federal
magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

3

Appeal: 14-1014

Doc: 24

appropriate
“which

Filed: 06/23/2014

sanction

sets

forth

only

in

if

Pg: 4 of 5

the

specific

which a party has violated.”

court

detail

has

an

issued

an

unequivocal

order

command

In re Gen. Motors Corp., 61 F.3d

256, 258 (4th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that
Bell’s transfer of $11,515.21 in funds prior to the district
court’s entry of its injunction was not in violation of an order
of the court.
August

27

damages.

Accordingly, we vacate the portion of the court’s

and

December

11,

2013

orders

related

to

Bell’s

We remand the matter to permit the district court to

recalculate Bell’s liability for damages.
Bell’s
merit.

remaining

arguments

on

appeal

are

without

We affirm the district court’s order granting summary

judgment for the reasons stated by the district court.

Fed.

Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n v. Bell, No. 3:13-cv-00039-DJN-MHL (E.D. Va.
Oct. 29, 2013).
moot

Bell’s

In light of Bell’s guilty plea, we dismiss as

challenge

to

the

district

court’s

order

to

cause why he should not be held in criminal contempt.
Bell’s

motion

to

proceed

in

forma

pauperis

and

show

We grant

deny

Federal

National Mortgage Association’s motion to strike Bell’s reply
brief.
legal

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions

are

adequately

4

presented

in

the

materials

Appeal: 14-1014

before

Doc: 24

this

Court

Filed: 06/23/2014

and

argument

Pg: 5 of 5

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.

AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART;
VACATED IN PART AND REMANDED