Federal Deposit Insurnce Corporation v. Klingenbeck et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Chief Judge Karon O Bowdre on 3/3/17. (SAC )
2017 Mar-03 PM 02:08
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
CADLEROCK III, LLC.,
JOHN BROOKS KLINGENBECK, et al.,
Civil Action No.:
CadleRock III, LLC, as successor-in-interest to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,
sued John Brooks Klingenbeck, Jennie Brooks Klingenbeck, and Eula T. Brooks, seeking to set
aside an alleged fraudulent conveyance of land under two theories: Alabama’s fraudulent
conveyance statute and that the deed in question was not valid. CadleRock has moved for partial
summary judgment with leave to later prove damages. (Doc. 27). CadleRock is seeking a
determination that either the conveyance was fraudulent or the deed ineffective.
Florida Deficiency Judgment
John Brooks Klingenbeck was a member of Global Southern, LLC. Global Southern
entered into a series of loan agreements with GulfSouth Bank. Global Southern borrowed
approximately $1.9 million, and John Klingenbeck personally guaranteed this debt.
On July 18, 2012, Global Southern defaulted on its loans from GulfSouth, and so the bank
filed suit against Global Southern, John Brooks Klingenbeck, and others in Walton County,
Florida. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Florida. On February 25, 2014, the federal court issued a final deficiency judgment against John
Brooks Klingenbeck for $1,040,985.11. The bank filed copies of the judgment in the probate
courts of Shelby and Etowah counties in Alabama.
Etowah County Property Transfer
On October 30, 2007, John Brooks Klingenbeck became the owner of property located on
Wharton Road in Gadsden, Alabama. After obtaining title, a house was built on the land and the
property was insured for nearly $500,000. The named insured on the policy was Eula Brooks, John
Brooks Klingenbeck’s grandmother. In August of 2012, the house on the property was destroyed
by fire. Eula Brooks collected four insurance checks totaling a little over $700,000.
John Brooks Klingenbeck purported to convey the property to his mother, Jennie Brooks
Klingenbeck, via a document entitled “Quickclaim [sic] Deed.” The deed was dated October 15,
2007, fifteen days before John Brooks Klingenbeck acquired the property. The document is also
signed by notary public Dianne Turner. Curiously, Ms. Turner wrote under her signature that her
commission expired on June 1, 2013. Under Ala. Code § 36-20-1, a notary public’s commission
lasts four years.
Jennie Brooks Klingenbeck recorded the deed on February 20, 2013 in the Probate Court
for Etowah County, Alabama. On March 17, 2014, Jennie Brooks Klingenbeck attempted to
transfer the property through a deed to her brother Ronnie Brooks and his wife, Beckie Brooks.
Bankruptcy Proceeding and Post-Judgment Discovery
During post-judgment discovery in the Florida federal court action in 2014, John Brooks
Klingenbeck did not mention the property in Etowah County as an asset. In December of 2014,
John Brooks Klingenbeck filed for Chapter 13 Bankruptcy and did not disclose the deficiency
judgment against him or the Etowah County property.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
When a district court reviews a motion for summary judgment, it must determine two
things: whether any genuine issues of material fact exist, and whether the moving party is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.
The court must “view the evidence presented through the prism of the substantive
evidentiary burden” to determine whether the non-moving party presented sufficient evidence on
which a jury could reasonably find for the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
U.S. 242, 255 (1986). The court must refrain from weighing the evidence and making credibility
determinations because these decisions belong to a jury. See id. at 254.
Further, all evidence and inferences drawn from the underlying facts must be viewed in the
light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Graham v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 193 F.3d
1274, 1282 (11th Cir. 1999). After both parties have addressed the motion for summary judgment,
the court must grant the motion only if no genuine issues of material fact exist and if the moving
party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.
CadleRock’s motion for summary judgment asks the court to either set aside the
conveyance from John Brooks Klingenbeck to Jennie Brooks Klingenbeck or declare the deed
void because a quitclaim deed cannot convey an after-acquired property interest. In their response,
the Defendants do not contest that John Brooks Klingenbeck had no valid interest in the Etowah
County property when he purported to convey it to his mother. Rather, the Defendants now agree
with the Plaintiff that the deed was void and the transfer ineffective. (Doc. 34 at 9).
Given that no dispute between the parties exists, the court GRANTS the Plaintiff’s motion
for summary judgment on Count II. The court DECLARES John Brooks Klingenbeck to be the
owner of the Etowah County Property. Further, the court ENJOINS the Defendants from
transferring or otherwise disposing of the property.
The Defendants now argue that because there was no transfer, “all of CadleRock’s claims
involving fraudulent transfer are due to be dismissed.” (Doc. 34 at 9). If the Defendants wish to
make such an argument, they need to file a motion to dismiss CadleRock’s fraudulent transfer
The court GRANTS CadleRock’s motion as to Count II of its complaint and ENTERS
JUDGMENT in favor of CadleRock. The court ENJOINS the Defendants from disposing of the
property. The court will set a status conference by separate order to discuss moving forward with
this case and the relief to which CadleRock may be entitled.
DONE this 3rd day of March, 2017.
KARON OWEN BOWDRE
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?