White v. Richert
Filing
506
MOTION by Third Party Defendants Kathlyn A. White Murphy, Thomas J. White, Counter Defendant Thomas White, Plaintiff Thomas White for judgment Certification of Judgment (Kozacky, Paul)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
Kathleen White Murphy and Thomas
White, as co-administrators of the
Estate of Anna M. White,
plaintiffs,
v.
Elizabeth Richert,
defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Hon. Heather K. McShain, M.J.
No. 15 C 8185
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
CERTIFICATION OF JUDGMENT
Plaintiffs Kathleen White Murphy and Thomas White, as co-administrators of
the Estate of Anna M. White, by their undersigned attorneys, request that this Court enter an
order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1963 finding good cause shown to direct the Clerk to issue
certified copies of the judgment so plaintiffs may enforce that judgment in other districts, and in
support thereof state:
1.
On May 27, 2021, this Court entered a $246,152.76 judgment in favor of
plaintiffs and against Elizabeth Richert individually. ECF No. 468.
2.
On November 24, 2021, Richert filed a notice of appeal. ECF Nos. 501
& 503. So far, Richert has filed three motions to reschedule the date for her opening brief,
currently due May 4, 2022.
3.
Richert never posted a supersedes bond.
4.
Richert has assets in the District of Arizona, specifically, the Carefree
Home which was held in the name of the Robert Trust at the time of Robert’s death, see ECF
1
No. 467 at 5, and passed to her under all versions of the Robert Trust. Id. at 9. Richert
presumedly has assets in the Southern District of Florida, where she resides. See ECF No. 467
at 6 (Richert could not remember where she deposited $467,541.82 out of the Robert Trust
proceeds and produced no bank records showing what she did with this money) (leading
plaintiffs reasonably to believe Richert still possesses this money). Plaintiffs are unaware of
any assets Richert holds individually in the Northern District of Illinois. See ECF No. 9 in 192397 (claiming financial hardship with respect to $505 appellate docketing fee).
5.
Under the laws of this circuit, failure to post a supersedes bond
constitutes “good cause” under 28 U.S.C. § 1963 for registration of a judgment even while
under appeal. Chicago Downs Association v. Chase, 944 F.2d 366, 371—72 & n.3 (7th Cir.
1991); Pacific Reinsurance Management Corp. v. Fabe, 929 F.2d 1215 (7th Cir. 1991);
Trustees of Chicago Truck Drivers v. Central Transport, Inc., 935 F.2d 114 (7th Cir. 1991); see
generally Siegal, COMMENTARY TO 1988 REVISION, 28 U.S.C. § 1963 (West Supp. 1989).
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs Kathleen White Murphy
and Thomas White, as co-administrators of the Estate of Anna M. White, request that this Court
enter an order finding good cause to direct the Clerk to issue to plaintiffs two certified copies of
the judgment so that plaintiffs may begin enforcement actions in the District of Arizona and the
Southern District of Florida, and grant whatever additional relief the Court deems just under
these circumstances.
Respectfully submitted,
KATHLEEN WHITE MURPHY and
THOMAS WHITE, as Co-Independent
Administrators of the Estate of Anna M. White
By:__/s/ Paul J. Kozacky
2
Paul J. Kozacky
Caitlin Brown
KOZACKY WEITZEL MCGRATH, P.C.
77 W. Wacker St., Suite 4500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(312) 696-0900
pkozacky@kwmlawyers.com
cbrown@kwmlawyers.com
Christopher M. Saternus
CHRISTOPHER M. SATERNUS, ATTORNEY AT LAW, P. C.
102 West Emerson Street
Arlington Heights, Illinois 60005
(847) 437-9434
cmsaternus@msn.com
3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned attorney, certify that I caused a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs’
Motion for Certification of Judgment served on the following through ECF, before the hour of
9:00 p.m. on April 8, 2022:
Elizabeth K. Richert
8724 Sunset Drive, #282
Miami, FL 33173
(305) 349-3191
Email: sunset8770@aol.com
/s/ Caitlin J. Brown
Caitlin J. Brown
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?