BLACH v. DIAZ-VERSON
Filing
420
ORDER granting 402 Motion for Disbursement of Funds; denying 404 Motion for Disbursement of Funds; granting 413 Motion for Disbursement of Funds; denying 414 Motion for Hearing; denying 418 Motion for Disbursement of Funds Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE CLAY D LAND on 1/11/2019 (CCL)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
HAROLD BLACH,
*
Plaintiff,
*
vs.
*
SAL DIAZ-VERSION,
*
Defendant.
CASE NO. 4:15-MC-5 (CDL)
*
O R D E R
Plaintiff Harold Blach holds a judgment against Defendant
Sal Diaz-Verson that was registered in this Court on October 6,
2015.
The remaining principal balance of Blach’s judgment is
approximately
judgment.
$97,000.
Diaz-Verson’s
Diaz-Verson
former
has
employer,
not
satisfied
AFLAC
Inc.,
the
makes
bimonthly payments to Diaz-Verson, twenty-five percent of which
is subject to garnishment.
Diaz-Verson’s ex-wife Patricia filed
third party claims to the garnished funds, arguing that she has
a judgment against Diaz-Verson that is superior to Blach’s.1
claims
that
Diaz-Verson
is
indebted
to
her
for
She
“alimony
arrearages” in the amount of $388,828.29 based on Diaz-Verson’s
alleged
1
failure
to
extinguish
two
judgment
liens
that
were
Patricia previously argued that she held a judgment superior to
Blach’s based on Diaz-Verson’s failure to make recent alimony
payments.
The Court, however, concluded that her judgment based on
the alimony arrearages, which accrued after Blach registered his
judgment in this Court, was not superior to Blach’s judgment.
See
generally Nov. 2, 2018 Order, ECF No. 400.
allegedly created against a beach condominium that Patricia and
Diaz-Verson purchased together and was awarded to Patricia in
the divorce.
P. Diaz-Verson Aff., ECF No. 417.
The Court must
now decide who should receive the funds held in the Court’s
registry
that
are
subject
to
the
pending
motions
for
disbursement of funds.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In
response
to
Blach’s
applications
for
writs
of
garnishment, the Clerk issued writs of garnishment (ECF No. 380
on
8/29/2018,
10/24/2018).
ECF
No.
AFLAC
388
answered
on
9/26/2018,
those
writs
ECF
of
No.
396
garnishment
on
and
deposited funds into the Court’s registry (Answer, ECF No. 393
on 10/11/2018, deposit of $16,244.64 on 10/25/2018; Answer, ECF
No.
399
Answer,
on
ECF
12/27/2018).
11/1/2018,
No.
410
on
deposit
of
12/7/2018,
$5,309.82
deposit
of
on
11/29/2018;
$10,619.64
on
Diaz-Verson did not object to AFLAC’s Answers.
The Court holds $32,174.10 in its registry that is subject to
the motions for disbursement.2
DISCUSSION
Patricia
and
Diaz-Verson
divorced
in
2011.
The
final
judgment and divorce decree entered on December 2, 2011 awarded
2
AFLAC deposited $10,619.64 on January 4, 2019 in response to the writ
of garnishment issued on December 7, 2018.
That deposit is not
subject to any pending motions for disbursement.
Another writ of
garnishment was issued on December 19, 2018 (ECF No. 412). AFLAC has
not yet answered that writ.
2
Patricia alimony.
5.
In
also
Settlement Agreement ¶ 3, ECF No. 376-1 at 4-
awarded
Patricia
the
couple’s
condominium
in
Escambia County, Florida, “free and clear of any claim by [DiazVerson].
[Diaz-Verson] hereby quit claims all of his right,
title and interest in and to said property to [Patricia].”3
¶ 4(a), ECF No. 376-1 at 5.
that
there
was
a
tax
Id.
The divorce decree acknowledged
delinquency
on
the
property,
but
it
required that Diaz-Verson pay Patricia an amount sufficient to
satisfy the taxes and that Patricia would pay the taxes.
¶ 4(b).
Id.
Patricia does not argue that Diaz-Verson failed to pay
her that amount.
Rather, she claims that there were judgment
liens against the property based on two consent judgments that
SunTrust Bank obtained against Diaz-Verson prior to the divorce
and that she had to satisfy a portion of the liens when she sold
the condominium in 2015.
Patricia provided the Court with a copy of two consent
judgments
that
SunTrust
obtained
against
Diaz-Verson.
The
first, for $156,132.37, was entered on August 2, 2006 in the
Circuit Court of Sarasota County, Florida.
Patricia’s 3d Party
Claim Ex. C, Agreed Final Summ. J. (Aug. 2, 2006), ECF No. 4033.
The second, for $279,323.32, was entered on October 31, 2006
in the Superior Court of Muscogee County, Georgia.
3
Patricia’s
Based on the divorce decree, the beach condominium was not Patricia’s
residence at the time of the divorce; rather, her residence was in
Fortson, Georgia. Settlement Agreement ¶ 6, ECF No. 376-1 at 6.
3
3d Party Claim Ex. A, Consent Order & J. (Oct. 31, 2006), ECF
No. 403-1.
SunTrust obtained an order recognizing the Georgia
judgment in the Circuit Court of Sarasota County, Florida in
early 2007.
Patricia’s 3d Party Claim Ex. A, Order Granting
Recognition of Foreign J. (Feb. 8, 2007), ECF No. 403-2.
But
this evidence does not establish that SunTrust obtained judgment
liens against the Escambia County condominium based on these
judgments.4
More importantly, Patricia did not point to evidence that
Diaz-Verson’s alleged failure to satisfy the SunTrust judgments
amounts to an alimony arrearage that relates back to the date of
the divorce decree.
In her reply brief, Patricia argued that
she had to pay $388,828.29 to clear liens attributable to DiazVerson when she sold the condominium.
any evidence on this point.
establish
that
Diaz-Verson’s
But she did not point to
Even if she had,
alleged
breach
of
she did not
contract
with
regard to conveying the condominium to Patricia free and clear
of any claim by Diaz-Verson amounts to an “alimony arrearage.”
Therefore, Patricia failed to establish that she has priority
4
In Florida, a judgment or decree “becomes a lien on real property in
any county when a certified copy of it is recorded in the official
records or judgment lien record of the county.” Fla. Stat. § 55.10.
Therefore, a certified copy of the judgment must be recorded in each
county where the judgment holder seeks to perfect the lien. In this
case, Patricia did not point to any evidence that SunTrust recorded
its Sarasota County judgments against Diaz-Verson in Escambia County.
4
over Blach in any portion of the present garnishment fund.
Her
motions for disbursement are denied, and Blach’s are granted.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court denies Patricia
Diaz-Verson’s motions for disbursement (ECF Nos. 404, 418).
The
Court grants Blach’s motions for disbursement (ECF Nos. 402,
413). The Clerk is instructed to enter judgment in favor of
Plaintiff Harold Blach with regard to the writs of garnishment
issued on August 29, 2018 (ECF No. 380), September 26, 2018 (ECF
No. 388), and October 24, 2018 (ECF No. 396).
Fourteen days
from the date of today’s Order, the Clerk shall disburse to
Blach $32,174.10, plus any interest earned on that sum while it
was
held
in
the
Court’s
registry,
unless
any
party
files
a
notice of appeal relating to today’s rulings before that date.
Blach’s motion for a hearing (ECF No. 414) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 11th day of January, 2019.
S/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
5
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?