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