Filing 31

ORDER that the Post-Trial Order of September 24, 2013 for the Bankruptcy Court is affirmed; therefore, this case stands closed. Signed by Judge Dudley H. Bowen on 8/27/14. (cmr)

ORIGINAL

, : 'r r1l,_ L-j n
r
I
-

I
I
I

U . i i ; i i l r i l C IC 0 U R h
,. 1.;:.,',flv.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COI'RT FOR THE
Z8iqAfil
DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SOUTHERN
2'i
DUBLIN DIVISION

Ea\qlFFp

+

._Tp

Debtor.

Ra^k rrnt.v

J.

M

IN RE: WILLIAM

a1-\.^f

Ncl

--

a7

1 1

ci titi
s 0 i t l s T0 FG A
1 1-?002-l

nrnnaani

. - - - - - - * - . . Jn r
S

t(

WILMINGTONPLANTATION, LLC,
AppeIIant,
CIVIL

vs.

ACTION NO.

cv 313-090
WILLIAM M. FOSTER,JR. ,
n--^l
hPPE

I ^^
r,LE c r

ORDER

Th i c

hrnlzrrrnf

r-rr

:nnc:

r-1.: im

M

'lr

E-^ct- ar

hw

iha

/\\la?i lminntan/'\

i r.lnnF.lt ^'r.l F rrr aL
r^lrlq:.1.rj- r\n, J
c

Wilmingron's
irr,-li

ai

r1

hereinafter
Wilmington

1 ^-F
rdllL

lnr^rinr^r

r'larm
!+q!rr!/

l-hc

of

dani.al

R.rnkrrrn.rr-rr

j-..l

-hic.fi^n
vP)e'

1l

al-

r^rnqq

merit.s

qankrrrrrf

rhp

susLained the debtor's,

vY-LtltLrrtgLUll

the

on

/1rr

which

/\\Er'\el-Fr/'I

A -)P
- - r - ^ re l
Fnl

: r iqoq

trial,

Courc's Order following
I^li l l irm

I

of

.\/

:

nrnnf

FoSCer'S
a^Urt

-L!\-

fnr

crrmmarrr

defenses

COnClUded

claim was barred on Lne bases of res judicata
(See

aJ c 1 t-, n !n! n a l
! ev
u
!

referred

to

Order
as

of

the

af

rldllLdLllrtr,

m.rj- i.\ne

Sepcember 24,
"Post-Triaf

to
that

and
2413,

Order". )

now seeks reversa.L of the Bankruptcy Cou.rt's order

and remand with

lnstruction

to a]]ow

.its c]aim,

pF,3,2b

subi ect

to a

determinatlon

of

damages.

Order,' alternatively,
affirmance
below.

Foster

lhrough his

based upon four

This
U.S.C.

S

Post-Trial

,I,'RISDICTION

Cou-rt has
158 (a)

rcrr'purinrr:

h:n

krtt.\-t-\/

[he bankruptcy

court's

C o u r t A F F I R M St h e

jurisdicrion

rf

t q

Rufes

rJoniqinn

8001
rha

erroneous. //

bankruptcy
unless,
the

in light

definite

made."

findings

of all

and finn

conviction

f-.,rrrr

IL

Inc.),

.-a-raqj-

tha

ha n k rrrnt r^v

--a11Yf .li5
navo.

1228.

f-^rrrr

relzr

Ltd.

443 8.3d161
Fwq

In

lcoo
r e Y a lr

re

n,r<r

In

r ^ ^ 6 nP
t
UE

A!

L

not be

fnvestors

Cir.

Ithe court
that

Viffas,

2B

seg.

1992).

are noL clearlV

the evidence,

Westqate Vacation

Pharmacy & Disc.

of facr

to

Fed, R. Bankr. p. gO13;

951 F.2d 1223t 1228 (l1th

court's

et

which t'shaff

facr,

of

pursuant

see afso C]ub Assocs. v. Consol . Capita.l Realty
re Cfub Assocs.),

on JulV 31,

A}ID STA}IDARD OF REVIEW

findjngs

set aside unl-ess clearly

seeks

Order.

Bankruptcy
aat

the

defenses he had raised

below, this

appellate

and

of

Foster

argument in the matter

2A).4. Eor the reasons set forth

I.

cross-appeal,

additional

The Court held oral

Bankruptcy Court's

seeks affirmance

is]

a mistake
v.

(fn
"The

erroneous
feft

with

has been

Tabas (In re Int'f

(l1th

Cir.

rronr-lrrqinn<

Club Assocs.,

2005).
h)r
vr

In
j-ha

951" F.2d at

II.
1998,

In
Wilminoron

Fh6

Georoi

additionaf

r-+l

-ir^

which 45 units

A

a

265_unjL

acres

Hotel.

of

within

od

.in

land

intended

r r ' r d c V c l . rvfvr_F .rc fr
!
L

the old

hotel

- L.

h r / - \ n o r r \L J
,
t,!vuEr

i

2

to
nj f
u

and an

in nine yet-to-be

tha

on

nraawicr-inn

Foster

condomini

would be focated
I^-Af

brri lclinos

19.846

rrrlcln r^rhir-h eyisforl:

woufd be located

220 unlts

micl-rise

buitt

F o st e r ' s

prepared a DecLaration of Condominium for recordation

attorney
in

-

known as the Oglethorpe

structure
^6('a- -h

purchased

Foster

Islancl

BACKGROI'NDI

Chatham County.

nranr.rl

\/

$:.r^:F:

raqarrra

^n:'

The
r he

Declaration,

ni rTo
fOf

however,
l 't
v.u \ , r irI / . rr r r^
r.1 ^ 9
I

nrnnnecd

fUCUreu

descripLions

pads.

enrire

As a conseguence, the

submitted

for

to

h-nPdu_

ho.^r.qa

L Or r
d e Vv e {l u F n. n! o r t
v!

were no meres and bounds legal

failed

fhara

che building

19.846 acre

rract

was

to the condominium development.

1 I wiff recount the facts .relevant
to resoLution of the
matter in summary fashion.
These facts are the same as those
post-Trial
Iound by rhe Bankruplcy Courr in its
Order, see
Equitab,le Life Assurance Soc/y v. Sublett (In re Subfett),
995
F.2d 1381, 1384 (1lth Cir. 1990) (sraring that. rhe distrlct
court is not authorlzed to make independent factuaf findings),
and are suppfemented where necessary by rhe factua.L sratemenrs
'r
rhe
conLai-e.i
rorricr.,
fhia
.^,,rl-

h:rtieS,
Joint
hes determined

Pretrial
that
the

Sfafenent
,
facts
found

I Il rn r , n
u vn
bv

the

Bankruptcy Cou.rt are not cLearly erroneous but are supporred
by the record and reinfo.rced by che starements of couniel au
the oraf argumenL on July 31,, 2014.
2 The parties often refer to the conceptuaf
focations or
the footprints
of Lhe nine additional
buildinqs
as ..pads.,,

This

-

ct

^,,1^+

-he

nf

nrr-ch:q,--q
+j+'^

(4urcL

condominium

-^+ian

("the

Chatham County

Sheffer

this
^-rPdLtJ

F^
Lw

r,7i lmi^^i^h
vrtrrrrrr9Lvlr

rt h r r v, s n h r
r ra rYr

qrlr'Fri

a^

Action")

:

D,rrahrco

the
:nzt

nine
e:l

.\f

rf

The

'

joint

tract '

19.846-acre
seII

to

the

broughr

-\r

usy!!+v!

Title

of the

had contracted

Fosrer

lime,

hotel

they owned an undivided

the "common areas"

in

rr^e

Quiet

condomin Lumowners claimed that
interest

Lhe ofd

in

E^eror

of

severaf

in

units

rY rin J l
q aq l r rcL

rL

when

apparent

became

omission

a

At

building
Adraamanr

/$Dqa//l

Under uhe PSA, executed on August 16, 2444, Fosler agreed
to

sell

.{-f

-^l^^A

for

l-ra-at-n

nanci

u v I r J ! J L r r rc r
\j

'inrr

a Lwo hundred twenry

fee

f^ ^,r^hra6
^ l.-l h^t-61\

/

thA o*t-ire
a !r
v

arn rl r r j
v r

l-ha

lql

real

Exhibit

'A'

r-nndnminirrm

naaJ

sires

agreed co convey "good and

afso

and to

in

hrri

the

Lract

Idinn

n:dq

A

Property"'

whether l'iifmington

19.846-acre
ninp

in

of

(220) expansion of WilmingLon

unit

case is

in this

parcel

or

described
ninc

simpl-e title

dispure

cr-tica-l

nf

Foster

Planlacion
marketable

tract

more particufarfy

.

estate

Lot,

certain

that

"Ia]11

intended

(Iess and except the
'l'hc

nrrrr-h,eqe

nri

r-e

was $13.2 million.
The Sheffer
sa l e

of

fu r hu e
r

Sheffer
q6ir

l6mant-

Quiet

o r ov ove r t _ uv) .
P !
yr

Quiet

TitIe

A.!raarnanl-

rrY!vcrrr!rre

.

Tltle

Action

hnr,rarra-

r'vqv

r "r ,r'rrF

2005

plaintiffs

Action
r^rhorchrz

was an impediment to the

fhe

n I : i n r i f Fe

FOSter

and

entered
: c reed

the

into
ro

canr:el

a

-ha

fJa'-l

Foster

li<

that

nan.l'3nS

notiCe

woul-d convey

Alcn

t\^r,.r f itle

inqrrr:nno

fifed

.la\7al^hmArl-

+L'-i

^ -nt \
u
!

/

execuLed a general

nnlir-iac

Lrara

2005,

iccrrod

Sheffer

the

tLi -r - lLof L

t^

Acrion"),

Also,

intervene

in

filed

Quiet Title

againsr

in

P-lantation

"Homeowners/ Association")

i

-

t^li lmih^1'^h

Action

serrfemenL,

arguing rhar
wart:anties.

the

l-awsuit

to protect

.

Two additionaf

Owner/s

The first

Homeowner's Associati-on's

quier

Quiet

TitIe

Chatham
t-ha

building

(the

sought relief
of

of

were

Tn.

Assor-irrio-.

board

i-iIed in

lawsuits

Court

of the ofd hotel

irs

a

ro rhe suir

che Superior

condominium owners' association

the

deed.

TitLe

Quiet

idenr- ical

Action.

Wifmj ngton

A " r 4 7ri - ' ^ ^ * ^ ^

!vurrLJ

n r n h l a m cl . r
j u

anoLher condominium owner fifed

whjch was virrually

the Sheffer

l-ha

vau!

warranty

Iawsu-it againsL WifmingEon (rhe "Radinick

tirle

^F

and construction

to honor repair

Wilrnington moved to

to

r-r+l-\

a moLion to enforce

Foster had failed

inrerescs.

l-ho

owners

and a -Ioan policy.'

November

plajntiffs

r,f

^^^n

Foster

a n o w n e . r 's p o l i c y
In

:n

halicrzi--

i.\rr

uni-t

On August 2, 2005, Wilmingron and Foscer c-Iosed on

had been resolved.

^f

the

of

i--

property.

h^j-h

./rmnl

interest

'.lFA.iq

--:rn

L vrsrrLr

+^

pqA

lnr^r

any

f -l1re ' r f
\
!

execute

nA/^aee;ir(7

l-ha

:l

and

refat.ing

directors.

The

date/

Wilmington's lender was Amsouth Bank. On the closing
Amsouth Bank recorded a deed to secure debt, securj_tv

daad

:-rl

:sei^nma-r-

Of

fease

and

renLS

jn

the

Charham

Co,rn.i,

Superior Cou.rt. These documents evidenced a secured note in
the amount of $9.2 milfion.

-^^^-.r

- - . - ^ t ^ 'F
u

Tl^p

Srrne-i nr

r c - 'w 'r-u t L J ,- r . "i

-h.l

r nn

:t

resofve
I i-la

i ^

alf

l -l ^ a 1 n r . n e r f
1.,

tvrlu+y

r l e J q r aa r aJr n r v
vsu r:! Lv!

^n.l

Cou1.1;

,
ur u ,f ly t t

-ha

\/- /'

-^-A

C o u n s e . Lf o r

Af

t ha

rr.-rnoqa

^diz6 1^hn6^f

^r

a

homeowner Radinick

-he

rh^

nerd ino

>
a

med

tL rr-a r r- ^ r r r u q l
h la

i_aLiOn

WaS

CO

"cl-oud on the

aSSOCiated

settlement

SireS

-he

Lhe hearino.

of

record

forr-

j-nclude the

ConClUSion

the

rhe
nandrrnra^

.1f

to

issues

rhe

i^+^

narrr+

I]o b-Lock the

on the site.

ConSoIjdated
Fha

outstanding

relief

buildinqs

2h r
- v vnuA

-/-r

ann.\rr.i-i

inrrnlrzino

;^in+

-^l- r\re

of the additional,

construction

mo-lr

i'.i

frrlurrr

Dvu9,

On

nerfics

announcement,

stated:

We have also worked up a proposed first
amendment
to the decl-aration that reffects
that removaf of
these nine pads from the a,rea in the clecfaration so
as to effectuate
thei-r being a reformation
of the
original
declaracion
an agreemenL
[T]here's
i c
a1-'1i n:l-on
-..any
! vrr !rLrf rr9 ue,rt
"nn, er
circumstances to submiL any of rhis properry that's
defined in two of the terms of the declaration
of
..-\\/an^nj-

q

l.\rrr

j-hp\/

hr\)a

cF\ran

rraa r<

f rnm

1 q

LTrrl \r

20061 to do that, to bring that property in and to
submit i-t to the declarat.ion for the terms of the
covenanr and decfaration.
It's
my undersLandinq
,a q.\

F-.]
ro

ennl -gs

ro

the parties

Lhar

acrions,
ri nhrq

.hi e
rrrrrqrre

thc

all

of

nendi -o

the

y!rrurrrY

have relinquished

rearr\/errz

nf

arrnrnorrt

rheir
q

Faoe

against
the other,
and we anLj cipaLe thar
che
parties wi-LI execute a globaI or murual re-Lease of
any and al-l liability
other than as agreed herero
today. '
On September 20,
memoriafizing

I
alnh:l
f h:f

the

Counsel

mr !/

ha

r-\a-:'4i nd

a "Consent Order"

t.erms of

for

earl-laman]-

2006,

.rf

the

Wilmington
-t-t

r^^,.^-

sett.Iement

a-Lso srared
-^..l
orr!.r

a tr Ir ,

r runur r
y

was enteredf
announcement.

LhaL
k vw
^ rnrn c r,

iL

was "a

: rrr Lr Lr
d n r y r h irn n r . : ,

che Consenc Order concained che following

CritjcaIly,
to

refative
.

provisos

tltfe:

rof armarl
^r-cna-ri \zal \7
wouLd Fa
The Declaration
-q
ann6\
hrr an Amended
(taking
on July
effect
Declaration which defined n i ne new hr i I cl'ro sices on
nrnnarl
ttt/
fr',r
as $ar"lr"li l- inn:l
the 19.846-acre tract
IJ!vrI/LLLrv!!r

frrrrrra

riarra

sa.-r)r j-v

anSnrrf l^, s

building

.

l nnm,:nt

dceri

n-I v

enr-rrnh^rerl

pads on the 19.846-acre

the

nine

new

and

sitei

to the nine new
Wilmington acknowl-edgedholding title
pads descrlbed in the Amended Declaration.
buifdinq
Th-c

rhrn'rrrh

rhe

Cnneanf

Ordcr

: nr r Ir
qr -

abouL wheLher che sale o[ property
was for the entire

I lrr

rrrc

the Record" Tr.

of

raenl

rrcd

in

or just
F.\cl-ar'e

f l^A

na.-

i ac

ha,'l

che nine building
f :\r.r

Argument on Jufy

Oral

a

from Fosrer to Wi]mingLon

19.846-acre tract

n:r{e

d4 riI / c Ln! r r f
v
q

1(oo

.Fnr

31,, 2414, aL 14t26

a. m. )
Moreover, the Consent Order contained a re.lease pr:ovision
in

Paragraph 12, which reads as foflows:
that
is the intent
of al-l- parties
this
It
a global- settlement of afl issues
Order constitutes
pendinq in each of the referenced cases.

Tl-a
-ha

nF rt- i cs
-a'arqa

snpr-i c j 6-:1 1 \/
:n\.' nl:ins
or

a).r-Fn'
nnien-

:nd
ov4]uclg
f t.6fn
ial
r-l ai'nS between

and
relating
to
Mr.
Fosrer
[Wilmingconl
pertaining
to
the
homeowners
expenditures
associat'ion or rhe devefopment of Lhe property that
ara

rol

before

narf

1-he ortipf

the Courr.

f uanaa,.,narcr
I is

nf

r-lai.nq

t

Additionally/

^c-^-i:r
:.Jei-qf

j-il-lt

i ^^
rt-

:dr
ral.e-

jr<i.
in.

^-finn

which

any claims
M-

is

by Lhe

rOStef

and

hOmeownefS

dues for payments advanced are not part

association
l-h r s

n f

afl reement

.

thereto

The Consent Order and the Amended Dec.Laration attached
in

were recorded
nv:

I

v-of

o

r.^,lmanl-

nrn
v -

oL9ur.tuIL

rl a n ifll^ , r l a
s9 fs

deed book of

the
. T rrJr
uu

l rr

o lnr f l : e nY s " {
r ! or v
c

?1

nr

2A1 A

the

nrininrl

vcrqi66

The parties

nl:l-

lL-rh u Lf
. ^

t,4uL

: n P lrvr^-f r w i
oy n

mareq

f v u^ i ^ rLiunr t e
^
l

^f

rL_^ !a
rr

nr^n/-\qarr

and

courses

maqnetic

ninc

F!vr/vv!

-acla,'l

rod

nl,a-

^-f:-ha.l

A-1 to

produced an enfarged
r . fr r l - l _ _ l
vl

rhe

_1_+

+L' _^

LrrlvqY

PraL/

9frraf

hrr'i ldin.rq

distances.'

:ra

cleqr-ri

anr Fr.ra.l

/This

'^l^

pads or

the nine buildinq

that

which the Court can ascertain

rdna

marked as Exhibit

L:re Amended Decfaration.
:
q

r-lro

1'

which is

^ !f
v

i

d i na

nreqi

to the 2006 Consent Order,

.rarcian

During

Chatham County.

hcd

nlal-

hrr

IS

'

The "Consenl Order" present.ed for entry by the Superior
for aII of the parties.
CourL was an abundant opportunity
Indeed, it appears that each of the -Litigant.s had bona fide
conf .Licts.
The levef of
to resofve aIf existing
intentions
a fiv er r a
Y

:nr1

+^La

r' -h. " Jr r
c

cmnl orzed

or effort

suggestion of deceit
A nna

l 1

i n

/-l- I \/

.\klcp

inl-enl-

I hF

nf

p2--i

no.1^l- aq

nr^^acc

The "Merits

withheld.

r\/pq

Brief

:

here

The Lamentable facts
-hc

f he

cc

do not

hlll

f-nr

arise
r he

from

aCUS

Of

hired to effectuate
omissions of the professlonafs
Foster's
atlorney
erred in
First,
that
intent.
+ r ir I! !i rn Y
r a
' q

l-^

rhc

ri

220 units on the
additionaf
Declararion upon its creation
r-if

rq fI a
E

a a , , 'n ro rrrryt
Lvm y n

c
r

: Ye't
un a n r -

:n.l

nl

ahl-

i-^

dovcl

nn

fha

in the
20-acre tract
in I998.
Second, the
nci

na

€-i

: r r-n - - -a " c y
rn -I

l ^^

to catch the error when the safe cfosed and the
Third,
aff
of the
Warranty Deed was recorded.
attorneys involved with the Consofidated Litiqation
a Consent Order capable
to construct
. faifed
ns

n r r i e re +ir rn o
Y
Ys+v

rqarkel-ab-Le

ensuring Foster
commitments.

title

honored his

in

[J.i]6jnn-nn

construction

ar'd

warranty

^n\/

of

^ ^ , . r l -L

^)nl
( I

!(JUJ

^,.^,rc+

1t
!

1\U9L,l5L

72.)

Exhibit

as Trial

identified

)UV
Z^^ n

- -L l^
| l E

LlrdL

r

notified

the

confeffed

and

Wilmington
^ - - * rL f s c
^

have

Par

(Doc.

an exact copy of the requesLed plar.

are unable ro find
No. 27.)
t r a l lLa w fi n n t Y
u
l
v

ru hra
, u

rvf

hired

enrrrrj

produced marketing
rrnirc

i..-l

uniLs

in

rat-:

fin:nr-inn

oqr

to

arp

ronroqan-ino

C)r.ler-

to

be

q

to

fo

he

pre-sale

m:rker

and

fhe

owner

of

nre-qc

j
Wil.mngLon

building.

itse-f

Wi Imi n.rl.n

constructed.

the

taci-litate
a.rcnj-

proposed

first

f--nqFnl

buildings

maLerials

i no...l ra^l

Lhe

rhF

design

to

architects

of

Lrrg!

of

l I

sought
nine

the

(Doc. No. 4, at 11.) Accordingly, despite the best efforts
of
to whom their intentions
were
the parties,
the professionals
tjme and aqajn.
enLrusted failed,
Moreover,
u!9urLtELrL

a close

/ r !T r
\
i

'1)\

F iv
!^

r ^^

-^^

n^^ i.,fA.l

arrq

r he

nrcqi

submitted

di nn

irrdrrc

at

wi rh

oral
r_rr,arre

of the nine separace property
validity
forth
Exhibit
A-2 to
the
in
Amended

doubts as Lo the
rlesr:ri nf i.ns
sef
n^^r ---r

the plat

of

review
I c:rrce

.\n

UEI/J

lL-rhua
r

r 'r lu^ "
u

l it n
r

s

A-l

Exhibic

of

the

Courses and distances cannot necessarily
A m e n d e dD e c l a r a t i o n .
Of equal imporcance to the
suffice
-[or "metes and bounds."
is the accurate verbaf or visual
cfosure of a description
denicl- io-

of

.1-s no.1i

-

n'nrrnr-l

in

1 - l ^ rs c a s e

Point

A.

See

L36, 139 (1951) (finding
a
Cal lawav v. Armour, 208 ca.
n t . ^ n F r t -\ / r ' l a q r - r n f i r r n i n S u f f i c i e n t
i
where there is nO def i-nite
Dodd v. Madaris, 206 Ga. A97t 499 (f950)
begrinning point),'
/h^l.iin^

th:l-

in

:

crril-

fnr

l:nri

:

nr^nFrl

rz rJecnrinr

inn

uri l-h

point
sta.rting
is unquestionab ly Loo
"an unascertainable
afford
a
basis
indefinite
to
for
any
and uncertain
idenrj fication
of the property soughL to be recovered") ; G9!ld
(finding
a property
v. Could/
19A Ca. L32, 136 (I942)
\\urorlznoqc

^ac-Fihri^n,c

in

raenar-r

rn

daf

ininn

l-ha

haainnina

point on locating
fatal") .
the boundaries
Thus, the
efforts
to sett.Le their
uftimate
result
of the parties'
differences
through the Consent order and AmendedDeclaration
narr

L:r,a

hoen

frrrq-r:-ad

in the decision

fnr

1/Ff

an^j-hF-

of the Bankruptcv Court.

I.eaSOn

nOC

diSCUSSed

li - r , , - L -t L !i . ra r r 9
^ n r
.,u i

n:rjc
lrauJ.

nr.rnrlqF.l

hrri I,l i nos

IJ!vPv'!v

T n iF !e!b r uua rr v
s
!

he

Order.
.if'arq

fr

IF.! ^

m.'-ion

-hc

:.r f h
i

rrq

valjdiLy

cleni ed

motion

the

the

SeL aside

ASSOCiatiOn.

of

Consent

the

and

-he Consent Order.

rrnc^ t hc rz:I icli trz of

Corrrt

+l-^

Of

contending thaL it

Wilmingcon opposed the motion,

Snnerior

to

unmeOWners'

F^ctar. aLt.acked the

harl relied

an\/

CourL based upon repair

che Superior

f i 3 rv zr i rn Y r
r,

was

cnani f

F"^qrAr

in

2006 Consent order
.Ji qr)ul-es

rltatFd

however.

200F

j

rrr

urJyuLsJ

-^nc-

t ^{l ri r rl L ith ^ -r ^ Y L v r r
r r
:h
Y

to

set

aside

the

The

Consent

Order.
^n
v'L

' 1' 1

arrnrrel-

breach of contract
filed

pq:rr rrk1- !ru P Ln lt . \ /
u
,
r

a

nAfrtion

filod:

nnmnl:inl-

of

the

I eoa I

n p ra n r a d
vhi uv-uu

of titfe.
'"

a(

Disrr'.:l

1-ha

claims of

Chanfar

under

Souuhern

When
ir

fhe

GForoiA-

of claim in the amount of $21,138,884

c]aims
rhic

in

Foster asserting

relief

for

a prool

lrlilmingL.on fifed

tr^<t-ar

n^r.,n

and breach of the warranty

c..)rrrl

lv ^Ja c a - l r tr/ nr lo n i I s
v
v
e Uv

I ^ J il m i

of Georgia against

Middle Discrict

E / . \ e fa r

?n]n

rrqYuJL

in

the

nrnnf
u!vv-

Dr st rr r-t nf

MidoIe
nf

r-l:i-

r i
! - a-f i F-^
f

rry

Cenroi

,r

16r?^,-l

defenses,
1^

r^-^l"in^ v!19

r ^ Ii l m i n a r n n t c
rrrrr'{rrrY
rurr

Court denied cross motions for
and thereafter

o

nrnnf
Ir!uv!

nf

clrih

tL r ra
-h E

R r u ru ! arrh l^z! r rP ^ lL y

^\,

summary judqment by the parties

conducted a three-day

trial

of

the matter

on

l v t I v v ! , q v r

entered

its

Posr-TriaI

Order denying

10

Wi Lmington's

proof

of

^r ^ i6
L _Lcr-lrrr.

. -^<

r ^ ri l m i h ^ l ^h
yLvt'
vv.i rL'Li

c ->nna:

. PPL l
s h h a .q f ! e

A.i

Ac

the

nninf

azi

I/JrrrLev

^ r1 r r
v L

Consent

2006

iI , u u Y l.L.Urr r r A rLt - e t A d a
-.r
r

ialCoa
.

t-ha

6

trnqi-

or

so.

f

iled

:

-'l

n^rties'

.'^r'rf
Lve,

ha

At the sumnary

the

nf

that

intent

lan|.arv

infent-

Ir'e!L4!v

attorney
n-n^cadi
l/!ve!

e

awnl:i

nar"l

I hp

Ehe

detailed

mediation

the

trial

nrnrr

r,-lc:ca

fhe

Bankruptcy

the

At

the

?O11-\

inr:lrrde

the

during
nn

of

16-

fo

Moreover,

Esq.u

FosLer's

a^rrrt-

Bankruptcy

the

the Bankruptcy Court aptly

i n . - r fu hi v
' c

cfal-a

O-da-

C^r'rl

lnpn_

was ambiguous and

ascertain

to

:rr.l

haci determined

ConsenL Order

Thomas Nash,

FLe

af r^r
t
u o,,n l z n , ^ lt-/^ L' u y
u

and righLful-Ly

.'7^l

of

rnf .rv cnrrr-

order,

Nash was

:r

fu]crum

the

RL:r n !k Ir e' s-- n f
!u
r! q /
y

!urIJLvurrrY

of

in

vuurr

an.l

aorrnqFl

the

a triaf

rocna.f

u

is

R^nk-

of

Post-Triaf

testimony

Pr

i-ha

\!-!-!.

arridannc

tt dr i! r L L t ri rnYr r r - a n ' q
lm
r

Order,

conducted

therefore

In its

f-nrrri

LEGAI, A}IATYSIS

Order

provision

release

nrrr

!h y /
.\

Post-Trial

Court's

t-hic

l

rIT.
dr

i-^

i ci

in
on

aq

folfows:

My inLenc with regard co this and fol )owing four
lawsuits and three days of mediation was to resolve
-- -har coufd
everv sinole marrewaD
PsrrLrr i'9
have been pending or that was raised in any way
-a^. u n y
! s v q -! r l fi - ra

r-a-ved
w-

ithr.
L

cfaim

rhi

nrt

r rJ e r n o
u av!

by

c

z { a \ rl a lP -r \L Lm r rn f
uu!u u l rl ea L

two
nf

the

I imired

vprv
Mr

E.\el-ar'

T
-

t.-\

harr?5

vlJLr-

r

r ^ r .q
r

th^ihoFn

hc r1 L s:v ^ - - ! ^ E

ex.Fntions

ir

1-.,\r a I I \r

-ah^l
tollu

for

E\/Fr\/land

w€

1--hat dealt

:.r-.rrrnr^

homeowners' assoc.iation
An.l

.t

And

hina
r-^mnI

j

common
al<c
ctal

rr

resolved.
Foster testified
that he had spent $2.4 million
Additionafly,
his obligations
under the 2006 Consent
of all
in satisfaction
issues
order and would not have done so if he thouqht title

t-t-

of the Consent Order,

Court examined the effect
rvrsa L trr irn n
rc
g

iLhr a
r !

af

rirla

F F ^ k r ' -qn ef
y

in

.\/

!urrJ!!

rho

n inc

brrildino

Cr.)r-rf noi ntpd

or]l-:

" Tn f he

Wr r Ll ' tnr iYnv.r r t . ) 1
Yr J
r
e
i

:nr'l

^ r ^ n a .c - r u y /
r
y! uP t

lt- .'
rLv

rLhr F !
r

nnn..lnmi

ni

to

was entitled

the entlre

r 'r

.,^.n^-

a n n v vm L vr < e a dJ v s
L n rt n s
r

:c

Consent Order

the
A_./
n rnu. l

de'

elJv.r

^€
uI

n a -! t asi n !i r' n+ r a Y
r
L

tn

c

h.hlzrrrnf

-LL

=:l

lo^

shnrf

nf

befieved
hrri

that

Foster

it

ns

fa

rhe

a- -arq

rha

rcl

caqc

!r! a J v - n- n ri Y
q^er r

n.]

nrnrriqion

of

che evidence,-

A.r E '
u j - Er ' r '
]+^

-crgcr>s

j -h r . r r . r h

cannot

of

and concluslons

i t tad lil r v url , > f a
r

r n r! o o d
uy esu

I

lu - -a
-h L

ih^

200 6

reassert

harf^rm:nna
lJr!lvr

rn

rr.lan r:-rr

t r, l ri l r Li .n r rt r- \ j
m ln
v

fha

L arr /
ur

nf

^r

-i-^

of

Settlement

those

...lrrrqa

parties.

carroral

.\f

in

claims

n:da

:nn

l-ri-l

rrri rf

rn-r^h

..,rrr't d

h <
- -:u J

caSe-from

Finally,

tocrifia.l

lh-r

r
n rrlc
q r- reavr_ ra r r J

thiS

the Consent Order resol,ved the titfe
l.lin^

iOnal

I^lilminoton

anafysis

r hi q l-nrrrr -

or^r

remained between the

sLiI.L

was

^raa

LrrdL

nf

addit

l

)

nprj-:i

and therefore

dPPCd!r

mamhar

nino

rarri

Declaracion

add

sound and supporLed by

l-ij-'a.1

.\t

LO

against

a claim

n- n
- Y

-rrn^j-^h
tv^Y . r L t ( l ! , r g L v : tI-

issues

titl-e

is

nnrtn

uulll-IduL,

IJL

il-

ve;rs

derzcl.rnment

order's

hr o a df i
. L :r

l-harain

v,

f hi

rr^

I d-L-L

amended

As

19.846 acres."

While the Post-Trial
.-

llm

cannot now assert

Plantation

Idw

qe\/en

ni rzen

ldilminofon-

Lo nine buildi ng pads,

and agreed to title

was

the

WiLmington Pfantation

aLLached to the 2006 Consent Order'
named Lhe declarant

j-n

n:cls

is,

that

the

Ken Krafr,
fhll-

a

r^li lrr-^F^r
vYf arLrrr'guvrr

issues as to the
h>rza

faa

<imnla

and be able to devefop the property.

titfe
'

Here, the Court adopts and incorporaLes hereln as irs
own the concfusions of law expressed by the Bankruprcy Courc
narrFrniro

fo

l-hc

relaa<a

nrnrzi cinn

paoes 34-37 of the Post-Tri-al

Order.

L2

nf

the

ConSent

Order

at

and

:nv

q r r . r , r a q rc .

.r

t-ha

fn

.]^

aF
vL

Ra:rh^L u r run f |
J
l -rP el

dn

:c

.'rr

wh'-f

fv lvi f flrmLi fh .r yY L
r l

fhe
L v,l .r r

nrnfaceinn:l

tLh raL
.

qrn.
n JUYYraqiq
UJ

nq: !r F i o e
y

a r rLoJc, r v r ir r
qJ
L

e,,l

in1-^:

a a l - ' I -l a m c n l -

qnnFrr nr

Cnrrr

^ n l' ' , '
vL
t

i^

rha

release

of

ir

L'hAt

har

l-,rri lrlira

nrorriarrelrz

againsL Foster.

F^qfcr

i-ha

arrreed
rnd

ire

13

of

fow'

thaL

nr..aqq

it

was

that

had

it

:

in

tiLIe
nlah:l

therefore

does not now

to the determ.ination

r-l:imc

r'laim.

the

counseJ-. entered

inrzalvinn

l-ifla

cannot nou/ asse.rr

and breach of warranty
nronf

to
thiq

dPP-Lr\,olrE

r-h.F

ale .irrelevant

iFf

resolve

rnraan

protestations

rclo,asad

its

to

parties

rhe

co

larrerino

rel

mcdiAfinn

fhc

dr

Court

Tr n J<Ltve a td
- .
qu

by

nrric

contract

th-nrrrrh

lhiq

\
I

-drrLr

f r c- --- rq

JJs,

failed

enrril-ablt

Because of the re-Iease. it

cLaims of breach af
a.'arrqt

^..1

1?

between

Wilmington's

it-

la.'r^-

r^rbereh\/ 'f

h : r z e o o o d m a r k e t a L r le t i t l e
^f

\'Shor]l,a

aqkc:

rhrorrr-rh

:.rrapmanr

claims

appropriate.

iI

have

represented

qY{v!r'r!1r!

nina

lawvers)

rrn.n

lo

-^

Court- are obligated

h:ced

2006-

-

fheir

rrde

l,rlilmington,

short,

this

1-.

\rJv\-,

Bankruptcy

Courc and the

In

nronl

y!!v!vvv

r

Lrray

neiLher

However,

r^rhpn

uJ

-LrrrD

'

nrl ' r lI i r 9 : r e d
trq
v

lor

nartias

arrn-

t/lvlLrDr

:ra

crafted

may have fai.Ied

qrrnr:

5

Iamentable.

a.\rrrt

um

Condomini

d>JuLs

LU
n / - \ l -p

/qFA

of

inartfully

condoned the

llc(- e>>d!y

n
-i L I ] r ^-l L - mtiL L t -L r r u L ( . ) U ,
w i lL -^ _ ^.

r ^ J li m i ^ ^ i n n
nar

r l n r - r -r-m.c n- -r j
. --

DF.:l a ration

who, presumably,

ConsenL Order and those

.,^-r
v e s L e o^ . l

nr I

l-he .r'fli

wLn

those

tc

draffed

who drafted

aLrLlv-! ^rrE^ c v
a
r
j

of title

IV.
Upon
sustained

the

foregoing,

Foster's

Accordingly.

the

hereby AFFIRMED.

objecLion
Post-Trial

CONCLUSION
Bankrup::cy

Court

properly

ro Wilmington's

prooI

oI claim.

the

Order of

The Cl-erk is

oRDER ENTERED at

Augusra,

Septembet 24,

directed
ceorgja,

to CLOSE this
tnit

27h

2413, rs
-qese.
day of

August, 2014.

UNITED STA

I4

S DISTR]CT JUDGE