Columbus Bank & Trust Co v. M/V Shooting Star et al

Filing 22

RULING granting 15 Motion for Interlocutory Sale of Vessel. Signed by Magistrate Judge C Michael Hill on 11/12/2009. (crt,Keifer, K)

Download PDF
U N IT E D STATES DISTRICT COURT W E S T E R N DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA L A F A Y E T T E -O P E L O U S A S DIVISION C O L U M B U S BANK & TRUST CO. d/b/a Synovus Capital Finance VS. M/V SHOOTING STAR (Official No. 591191), her engines, tackle, appurtenances, etc., in rem S O U T H E R N OFFSHORE TRANSPORTATION, LLC F R A N K ALLEN LEARY, in personam CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-CV-1569 J U D G E DOHERTY MAGISTRATE JUDGE METHVIN R u l in g ( R e c . Doc. 15) Before the court is an unopposed motion for interlocutory sale of vessel filed by p la in tif f Columbus Bank and Trust Co., d/b/a/ Synovus Capital Finance. (Doc. 15).1 For the f o llo w in g reasons the motion is granted. FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The following facts are undisputed: B y a Promissory Note dated March 29, 2007, (the "Note") between plaintiff and d e f e n d a n t Southern Offshore Transportation, LLC ("Southern"), plaintiff agreed to make a d v a n ce s to Southern in an amount of $800,000.00.2 The Note was secured, inter alia, by The deadline for defendant's opposition was November 3, 2009. (Doc. 18). No o p p o s itio n has been filed by either defendant or any other potential claimant. 2 Exh. 1. 1 g u a ra n ty (the "Guaranty") in favor of plaintiff by Frank Allen Leary ("Leary"). Under the G u a ra n ty, Leary jointly and severally guaranteed Southern's obligations and liabilities to P lain tiff under the Loan Agreement. 3 A s further security for the Note, Southern executed a preferred ship mortgage in favor o f Synovus dated March 29, 2007 (the "Preferred Ship Mortgage"), in the total amount of $ 8 0 0 ,0 0 0 .0 0 . 4 T h e Preferred Ship Mortgage was filed for record at the National Vessel D o c u m e n ta tio n Center in Falling Waters, West Virginia on April 4, 2007 at 8:30 A.M., and re c o rd e d in Batch 582228, at Doc. ID 6930254.5 T h e Note requires that it be repaid by a series of payments. Southern failed to make certain payments when due on the Note. Further, by letter d a te d July 24, 2009, Southern advised Synovus that it was unable to operate the SHOOTING S T A R or the business associated with it.6 S o u th e rn 's actions triggered the obligations of Leary under the Guaranty. Plaintiff s ta te s that the unpaid Preferred Ship Mortgage balance is estimated at $626,493.85.7 3 4 5 6 Exh. 2. Exh. 3. Exh. 4. Exh. 5. 7 Rec. Doc. 15 at 2. -2- O n September 8, 2009, plaintiff effected the arrest of the vessel pursuant to orders iss u e d by this Court. The vessel remains under arrest and neither her owners nor any party c la im in g an interest in her have taken any steps to obtain her release. N o tic e of the arrest of the vessel was published in the Daily Advertiser on September 1 3 , 20, and 27, 2009. 8 A n a lys is P la in tif f seeks an order directing the Marshal to order the sale of the MV SHOOTING S T A R on grounds that defendants have not secured the release of the vessel and its expenses, a n d other potential claimants, continue to mount and erode the sale proceeds available to p la in tif f or any other claiming an interest in the vessel. Plaintiff argues that the vessel may b e damaged, deteriorate and/or decay while it sits in the shipyard. According to plaintiff, the 8 Exh. 6. R u l e C of the Supplemental Rules of Admiralty provides: (4 ) Notice. No notice other than execution of process is required when the property that is th e subject of the action has been released under Rule E(5). If the property is not released w ith in 10 days after execution, the plaintiff must promptly--or within the time that the c o u rt allows--give public notice of the action and arrest in a newspaper designated by c o u rt order and having general circulation in the district, but publication may be te r m in a t e d if the property is released before publication is completed. The notice must s p e c if y the time under Rule C(6) to file a statement of interest in or right against the s e iz e d property and to answer. This rule does not affect the notice requirements in an a c tio n to foreclose a preferred ship mortgage under 46 U.S.C. §§ 31301 et seq., as a m e n d e d . Supplemental Admiralty and Maritime Claims Rule C, 28 U.S.C.A. Plaintiff's notice advertized that any one claiming an interest in the property s h o u ld file its statement of interest within 15 days of the notice and file an answer to the c o m p la in t within 20. No such filing has been made. -3- m a rk e t for the vessel is volatile and could result in a reduced sales price if delayed. Rule E(9)(a) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty and Maritime Claims & Asset F o r f e itu re Actions sets forth the criteria for the disposition of property and interlocutory sales a s follows: O n application of a party . . . the court may order all or part of th e property sold--with the sales proceeds, or as much of th e m as will satisfy the judgment, paid into court to await f u rth e r orders of the court--if: (A ) th e attached or arrested property is perishable, o r liable to deterioration, decay, or injury by being d e ta in e d in custody pending the action; (B ) th e expense of keeping the property is excessive o r disproportionate; or (C ) there is an unreasonable delay in securing re le a s e of the property.9 T h e Fifth Circuit has held that to obtain an order for an interlocutory sale, lien holders n ee d only show the existence of one of the three criteria set forth in Rule (E)(9)(a)(i). Merchants Nat'l Bank v. Dredge General G.L. Gillespie, 663 F.2d 1338, 1341 (5th Cir. 1 9 8 1 ). At the outset, defendants do not deny that Southern executed a promissory note, g u a ra n te e d by Leary, in favor of plaintiff in return for the advance of $800,000 and that S o u th e rn also executed a preferred ship mortgage in favor of plaintiff for $800,000 as further s e c u rity. Further, Southern has not disputed that its failure to pay past monies and its letter 9 Fed. R. Civ. P., Supp Admiralty Rule E(9)(a)(i). -4- in d ica tin g it is no longer operating the vessel or its business evidences its intent to default. (A ) Is the vessel liable to deterioration while being detained in custody pending the a c tio n ? T h e letter from Leary to Southern shows that the vessel is at Diamond B Shipyard in N e w Iberia, Louisiana on dry storage. Defendants have not disputed that maintenance s c h e d u le s have thus been disrupted and that the vessel is susceptible to decay and d e te rio ra tio n because it is sitting idle and blocks. Accordingly, the undersigned finds that p la in tif f has satisfied factor A. (B) Is the expense of keeping the property excessive or disproportionate? P lain tiff asserts that is has secured the services of a substitute custodian to maintain c u s to d y of the vessel for a monthly fee and been required to insure the Vessel and that these c o sts are mounting. It is clear that these costs will offset any amount the vessel can be sold f o r to satisfy any judgment in the case which has not been disputed by defendants. The u n d e rs ig n e d thus finds that criteria B has been satisfied. (C) H a s there been an unreasonable delay in securing release of the vessel? T h e vessel was arrested on September 9, 2009. (Rec. Doc. 7). Defendants have never m o v e d to vacate the arrest. Moreover, in Leary's July 24, 2009 letter, he states: [ d ]u e to the impact of the economy on the oilfield in the Gulf of Mexico and f in a n c ia l institution capital lending, I find that I cannot continue to operate the m /v Shooting Star O.N. 590629 or the business associated with it. . . . Sorry a b o u t the inconvenience.10 10 Rec. Doc. 15-3, Exh. 5. -5- T h is statement evidences that defendants are financially incapable of securing the r e le a s e of the vessel and does not intend to secure its release. Again, defendants have not d isp u ted this conclusion. Accordingly, the undersigned finds that criteria (C) has been met. Conclusion Based on the evidence submitted showing that Southern has no intention to seek a re le a s e of the vessel; mounting costs and the risk of deterioration to the vessel, the u n d e rs ig n e d concludes that plaintiff has shown good cause for the interlocutory sale of the v e s s e l. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. The M/V SHOOTING S T A R , her engines, tackle, appurtenances, fuel, furniture, rigging, etc., shall be advertised a n d auctioned by the United States Marshal, pursuant to Rule E(9) of the Supplemental Rules f o r Admiralty or Maritime Claims & Asset Forfeiture Actions of the Federal Rules of Civil P r o c e d u re , plaintiff to arrange advertisement in the Lafayette Daily Advertiser newspaper leg a l notices section subject to U.S. Marshal supervision and approval, and for M/V S H O O T I N G STAR to be made available for inspection by prospective purchasers jointly w ith plaintiff's representatives at mutually-convenient dates and times before the sale, s u b je c t to U.S. Marshal rules and requirements for attending aboard the vessel, and then for M /V SHOOTING STAR to be sold as soon as possible that may be convenient for the U.S. M a rsh a l. -6- I T IS FURTHER ORDERED that at the judicial auction, plaintiff is to be permitted b y the U.S. Marshal to bid on credit up to the sum of $626,493.85 or the amount of the u n p a id Preferred Ship Mortgage balance at the time of the judicial auction. Plaintiff is to p ro v id e the U.S. Marshal with a copy of the First Preferred Ship Mortgage and a printout or s ta te m e n t of the amount which will be outstanding as of the date of the judicial auction no late r than one week before the scheduled date of the judicial auction. If not, plaintiff's credit b id authority will be limited to $626,493.85. I T IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall retain jurisdiction of the above s tyle d cause for such other and further proceedings as may be appropriate. Signed at Lafayette, Louisiana on November 12, 2009. -7-

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?