BLACH v. DIAZ-VERSON
Filing
328
ORDER granting 323 Motion for Reconsideration re 321 Order on Motion for Disbursement of Funds; denying 326 Motion to Enforce Local Rules. The Court's March 14, 2018 Order 321 is modified to the following extent: the correct principal balance of the judgment on March 14, 2018 was $219,982.78. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE CLAY D LAND on 4/2/2018. (CCL)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
HAROLD BLACH,
*
Plaintiff,
*
ROBERT FREY, et al.,
*
Third Party Claimants,
*
vs.
*
AFLAC, INC.,
*
Garnishee,
SAL DIAZ-VERSON,
Defendant.
CASE NO. 4:15-MC-5
*
*
*
O R D E R
There are two motions presently pending before the Court: the
Third-Party Claimants’ motion for reconsideration of one issue in
the Court’s March 14, 2018 order (ECF No. 323) and Plaintiff’s
motion to enforce Local Rule 83.2.1 (ECF No. 326).
below, the motion for reconsideration is granted.
As discussed
The motion to
enforce Local Rule 83.2.1 is denied.
I.
The Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 323)
The Court previously granted the motions for disbursement of
Third-Party Claimants Robert Frey, Regency Realty, LLC, and Robert
Frey as Trustee of the Robert J. Frey Living Trust.
Order (Mar. 14, 2018), ECF No. 321.
See generally
Frey, on behalf of the
claimants, seeks reconsideration of one issue: the amount of the
principal balance of the judgment that was assigned to him by
Porter Bridge Loan Company after it settled its claims with Frey’s
former client, Sal Diaz-Verson.
Based on the record before the
Court when it issued the most recent Order, the Court concluded
that the principal balance was $218,282.31.
Frey contends that
the principal balance was $219,982.78.
The resolution of this issue depends on the original judgment
date and the effective date of the settlement between Porter Bridge
and Diaz-Verson.
The record at the time of the original motions for
disbursement supported several possibilities for each date.
It is
now clear from Frey’s motion for reconsideration that the effective
date of the settlement was November 1, 2009.
It is also now clear
from Frey’s motion for reconsideration that the original judgment
date
was
October
5,
2009—the
date
of
the
state
court
deficiency
hearing—because the state court in its final judgment determined that
Diaz-Verson owed Porter Bridge $397,386.87 as of October 5, 2009 and
stated that this amount would accrue interest at a rate of 8% per
year until satisfied.
See Fla. Final Judgment 2-3, ECF No. 318-1.
The Court therefore accepts Frey’s argument on the principal amount
of the judgment, grants his motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 323),
and modifies its prior order as follows: The Court concludes that the
outstanding principal balance of the Porter Bridge Judgment should
be calculated based on the final judgment date of October 5, 2009
and the settlement effective date of November 1, 2009.
2
Using
these dates, the correct principal balance of the judgment on
March 14, 2018 was $219,982.78.
II.
The Motion to Enforce Local Rule 83.2.1 (ECF No. 326)
Also pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to enforce
Local Rule 83.2.1 (ECF No. 326).
if
an
attorney
Court’s
violates
standards
respectfully
with
of
the
Court’s
conduct
other
lawyers
generally
standards
instruct
lawyers”
animosity or contentiousness.”
And,
That rule provides for discipline
and
of
lawyers
“avoid
conduct.
to
The
“communicate
creating
unnecessary
M.D. Ga. L.R. at vi §§ A(2), A(7).
should
not
“disparage
the
intelligence,
ethics, morals, integrity or personal behavior of another lawyer” in
their
submissions
and
presentations
to
the
Court.
Id.
at
viii
§ B(3)(b).
In
support
of
his
motion,
Plaintiff’s
counsel,
Mr.
Minter,
points to some of the more vituperative snippets from Mr. Frey’s
briefs and emails and offers to provide a full catalog of every
offensive statement Mr. Frey has ever made about him.
Not to be
outdone, Mr. Frey responds that Mr. Minter’s conduct has been even
worse than his own.
parties
likely
could
Quite frankly, the conduct of counsel for both
not
withstand
close
scrutiny
by
the
Court.
Burdening the Court’s Grievance Committee with the task of trying to
ascertain
whose
manners
are
worse,
however,
would
proceedings and likely be an exercise in futility.
enlarge
these
Finding that the
value of closing this case expeditiously exceeds the benefit to be
3
derived
from
disciplining
sanctions at this time.
counsel,
the
Court
declines
to
impose
Accordingly, the motion is denied.
CONCLUSION
As discussed above, the motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 323)
is granted, and the motion for enforcement of local rule 83.2.1 (ECF
No. 326) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 2nd day of April, 2018.
S/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
4
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?