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