Parris v. Pappas et al
RULING granting in part and denying in part 313 Motion to Reconsider or Modify Recommended Order on Motion for Contempt. Upon reconsideration, the Court adheres to the Recommended Ruling on Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Sanctions and Finding of Contempt. 312 . The Court's Order dated October 5, 2017 remains in effect. Signed by Judge Holly B. Fitzsimmons on 12/4/17. (Esposito, A.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
: Civil No. 3:10CV1128 (WWE)
CHARLES PAPPAS, ET AL
RECOMMENDED RULING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER OR MODIFY
RECOMMENDED ORDER ON MOTION FOR CONTEMPT [DOC. #313]
On October 5, 2017, this Court issued a recommended ruling
and order finding defendant Charles Pappas in contempt of Judge
Eginton’s January 19, 2016 Order. [Doc. #312]. Defendant moves
the Court to reconsider and modify, “in a limited respect,” the
Court’s Order, taking into account factual developments since
the entry of the Order.1 Plaintiff objects to the modification of
For the reasons that follow, defendant’s Motion to
Reconsider or Modify Recommended Order on Motion for Contempt
[Doc. #313] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Upon
reconsideration, the Court adheres to the Recommended Ruling and
Defendant does not seek reconsideration of the Court’s
finding on contempt. The grounds for the entry of contempt are
unchanged. Defendant has not tendered payment of the Barbara
Street sale proceeds in the amount of $47,844.28. He did not pay
plaintiff the proceeds from the sale of Normandies Park, and
only belatedly, on September 29, 2017, did he provide copies of
his bank statements for 2017.
Order and DENIES defendant’s request to modify the Order. [Doc.
On October 5, 2017, defendant concluded the sale of
Normandies Park. He states that at the time of the August 29,
2017, hearing on the Motion for Sanctions and Finding of
Contempt, he was
engaged in ongoing efforts to sell the Normandies Park
trailer park and adjacent properties in a transaction that
contemplated that the purchaser of the property would make
payments to Plaintiff in an undetermined amount of between
$400 and $500 per month for a period of five years. It
appears that these contemplated payments are the
“Normandies Park stream of income” referenced in the
[Doc. #313 at 1 (emphasis added)]. The Court’s reference to the
“Normandies Park stream of income” was in the event Mr. Pappas
started to pay Ms. Parris rental income that to date had not
been paid. At the time of the hearing and through the filing of
the recommended ruling, defendant made no record, or other
showing, that there was a pending sale of the Normandies Park,
LLC properties or any agreement with a prospective purchaser as
he has set forth above.
While plaintiff was indeed paid $28,000 on October 5, 2017,
the payment was made by David Scott Heap, an unrelated third
party. Contrary to representations made in the Motion for
Reconsideration, the $28,000 was not equity proceeds from the
sale of Normandies Park but rather a payment Ms. Parris was able
to negotiate with Mr. Heap, the new owner, by virtue of her
judgment lien.2 Mr. Pappas did not make this payment.
Nevertheless, defendant argues that this lump-sum payment
“resulted in a single substantial payment rather than a slower
‘stream of income’ as contemplated by the order.” [Doc. #313 at
2]. He reasons that the payment of $28,000 is the
equivalent to monthly payments of $466 for five years.
In order to effectuate the intent of the Court’s order
in light of the factual development not known to the
Court at the time of the Order, defendant respectfully
requests that the payment schedule of $800 per month
be modified to reflect this payment, resulting in a
monthly payment due of $334.
Id. Plaintiff points out that she filed a judgment lien on
Normandies Park; “[a]s such, Ms. Parris has always been entitled
to the proceeds of the sale of Normandies Park up to the value
of her judgment.” [Doc. #318 at 3]. Thus, “[t]o permit Pappas to
offset repayment of the proceeds from the sale of the Barbara
Street property with proceeds from the sale of Normandies Park
would essentially allow him to repay Ms. Parris with her own
money.” Id. Further, she argues that
[i]t would be doubly unjust to reduce the amount
Pappas has been ordered to pay based on Ms. Parris’s
agreement with the new owner of Normandies Park
because Pappas substantially dissipated the value of
Normandies Park by failing to pay any taxes on the
property over the past five or more years.
Defendant states that “[s]ubsequent to the hearing, [he]
concluded the sale of the properties. The proceeds of that sale,
$28,000 were provided to Plaintiff in a single lump sum
payment.” [Doc. #313 at 2].
Pappas allowed these taxes to accrue despite
receiving, and failing to turn over to Ms. Parris
approximately $100,000 in excess rent since judgment
and the order to turn over rents entered.
Allowing Pappas to benefit from the $28,000 payment to
Ms. Parris by Mr. Heap would reward Pappas’s prior
defiance of the Court’s orders and further diminish
her recovery from Normandies Park, LLC and her
Id. The Court agrees. The Motion to Modify the Order is
DENIED on this record.
Accordingly, defendant’s Motion to Reconsider or Modify
Recommended Order on Motion for Contempt [Doc. #313] is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Upon reconsideration, the
Court adheres to the Recommended Ruling on Plaintiff’s Renewed
Motion for Sanctions and Finding of Contempt [Doc. #274].
[Doc. #312]. The Court’s Order dated October 5, 2017 remains
This is a Recommended Ruling. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(1). Any objections to this recommended ruling must be
filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) days of
being served with order.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).
Failure to object within fourteen days may preclude appellate
See 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); and
D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 72.2; Small v. Secretary of H.H.S., 892
F.2d 15 (2d Cir. 1989)(per curiam); F.D.I.C. v. Hillcrest
Assoc., 66 F.3d 566, 569 (2d Cir. 1995).
SO ORDERED at Bridgeport this 4th day of December 2017.
HOLLY B. FITZSIMMONS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 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?