Toure-Davis v. Davis

Filing 56

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Magistrate Judge William Connelly on 6/23/2015. (nk, Chambers)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
______________________________
NATHALIE TOURE-DAVIS
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CHARLES G. DAVIS
)
)
Defendant.
)
______________________________)

Civil Action No. WGC-13-916

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Nathalie Toure-Davis, a legal permanent resident of the United States, initiated
this lawsuit against her former husband, Defendant Charles G. Davis, a United States citizen,
seeking to enforce Defendant’s obligation to support her in accordance with an affidavit of
support he signed after the couple married. The parties consented to proceed before a United
States Magistrate Judge for all further proceedings in the case and the entry of a final judgment.
See ECF No. 35 ¶ 71. In the Memorandum Opinion of March 28, 2014, the undersigned found
Defendant is obligated to support his immigrant ex-spouse to maintain her income at a minimum
of 125 percent of the Federal poverty line. Defendant knowingly, voluntarily and willingly
assumed this obligation when he signed Form I-864, Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of
the Act, on October 28, 1999. See ECF No. 44-1 at 6. The memorandum opinion however did
not address whether Defendant has breached that obligation since the couple’s separation in June
of 2001.
In order to determine whether Defendant has breached or satisfied
his obligation, Plaintiff must submit an affidavit with supporting
documentation evidencing, on a yearly basis, any income or
1

This case was referred to the undersigned on October 31, 2013. See ECF No. 37.

1

benefits she received from sources other than Defendant since
June of 2001. She has the burden of demonstrating the exact
amount of support owed. Plaintiff should also submit an
itemization of legal costs she incurred to enforce the Form I-864
(affidavit of support).
ECF No. 42 at 18 (footnote omitted).
Because the record before the court demonstrated some level of financial support of
Plaintiff by Defendant, the undersigned directed Defendant to submit an affidavit with
supporting documentation evidencing, on a yearly basis, the amount of financial support he
provided to Plaintiff since their separation in June of 2001. Id. The undersigned directed the
parties to file cross-motions discussing what damages, if any, Plaintiff is entitled to receive. The
parties filed supplemental briefs as ordered. In the Memorandum Opinion of March 4, 2015, the
undersigned determined Defendant did not owe any damages to Plaintiff for the years 2003 2010. The undersigned determined preliminarily that Defendant owes Plaintiff $10,012.50 in
damages for 2012 and $3,815.50 in damages for 2013. ECF No. 51 at 22. The damages
Defendant owed would be offset by the value of means-tested benefits Plaintiff received.
Plaintiff claimed she received means-tested benefits in 2012 and 2013 but she failed to disclose
the value of those benefits. Further the undersigned deferred consideration of Plaintiff’s claims
for damages for 2014 pending the receipt of additional information. See id. at 7 n.3. The
undersigned directed Plaintiff to supplement the record with regard to the following matters:
(a) the yearly amount of means-tested benefits and assistance she
received from the State of Maryland from 2012 to the present
along with a description of the type of benefits and assistance
received, (b) 2014 Form W-2s and 2014 Federal and Maryland Tax
Returns, (c) any 2015 pay stubs, (d) the total amount (by year)
Plaintiff was paid by Arthur Horne for services provided (cooking
and cleaning), and (e) the address(es) of the place(s) where
Plaintiff resided in 2011 and 2012 and whether she paid for
housing or received some form of housing assistance.

2

Id. at 23.
In the accompanying Order the undersigned denied in part and held in abeyance in part
Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of damages. Defendant’s crossmotion for partial summary judgment on the issue of damages was granted in part and held in
abeyance in part. See ECF No. 52.
Plaintiff supplemented the record as ordered by filing an affidavit with exhibits on April
17, 2015. ECF No. 53. Upon reviewing this affidavit and re-reading the Memorandum Opinion
of March 4, 2015, the undersigned found additional gaps in information. On May 14, 2015 the
undersigned issued an Order directing,
Plaintiff to supplement the record via affidavit regarding her place
of residence from 2014 to the present, as soon as practicable.
Plaintiff’s 2014 Form W-2 lists a Capitol Heights, Maryland
address. However, Plaintiff’s 2014 Federal and Maryland Tax
Returns list a Landover, Maryland address, which is the residence
of Arthur Horne. In her affidavit Plaintiff must list not only every
place she lives/lived in 2014 and in 2015 but furthermore whether
she paid rent or received housing assistance or benefit and the
monthly amount of the rent or housing assistance. The court notes
Arthur Horne’s affidavit is dated 21 May 2014.
ECF No. 54. Plaintiff filed an additional affidavit on June 8, 2015 addressing the issues as
requested by the court. See ECF No. 55. Pending before the court and ready for resolution are
the portion of Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of damages (ECF No.
44) held in abeyance and the portion of Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment on the
issue of damages (ECF No. 45) held in abeyance. No hearing is deemed necessary and the court
now rules pursuant to Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2014).
BACKGROUND
The parties are referred to the March 28, 2014 Memorandum Opinion for the factual
background. See ECF No. 42 at 1-4.
3

STANDARD OF REVIEW
A motion for summary judgment will be granted only if there exists no genuine issue as
to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 56(a); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). In other words, if there clearly exist factual issues “that properly can
be resolved only by a finder of fact because they may reasonably be resolved in favor of either
party,” then summary judgment is inappropriate. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250; see also Pulliam
Inv. Co. v. Cameo Properties, 810 F.2d 1282, 1286 (4th Cir. 1987); Morrison v. Nissan Motor
Co., 601 F.2d 139, 141 (4th Cir. 1979); Stevens v. Howard D. Johnson Co., 181 F.2d 390, 394
(4th Cir. 1950). The moving party bears the burden of showing no genuine issue as to any
material fact exists.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Pulliam Inv. Co., 810 F.2d at 1286 (citing

Charbonnages de France v. Smith, 597 F.2d 406, 414 (4th Cir. 1979)).
When ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court must construe the facts
alleged in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. United States v. Diebold,
Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 (1962); Gill v. Rollins Protective Servs. Co., 773 F.2d 592, 595 (4th Cir.
1985). A party who bears the burden of proof on a particular claim must factually support each
element of his or her claim. “[A] complete failure of proof concerning an essential element . . .
necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.” Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323.
On those issues where the nonmoving party will have the burden of proof, it is that
party’s responsibility to confront the motion for summary judgment with an affidavit or other
similar evidence. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256. However, “’ [a] mere scintilla of evidence is not
enough to create a fact issue.’” Barwick v. Celotex Corp., 736 F.2d 946, 958-59 (4th Cir. 1984)
(quoting Seago v. North Carolina Theaters, Inc., 42 F.R.D. 627, 632 (E.D.N.C. 1966), aff’d, 388

4

F.2d 987 (4th Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 959 (1968)). There must be “sufficient evidence
favoring the non-moving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party. If the evidence is
merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted.”
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249-50 (citations omitted).
When faced with cross-motions for summary judgment, the court must consider Aeach
motion separately on its own merits to determine whether either of the parties deserves judgment
as a matter of law.@ Rossignol v. Voorhaar, 316 F.3d 516, 523 (4th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation
marks omitted).

The court applies the same standard of review.

Monumental Paving &

Excavating, Inc. v. Penn. Mfrs.= Ass=n Ins. Co., 176 F.3d 794, 797 (4th Cir. 1999) (citing ITCO
Corp. v. Michelin Tire Corp., 722 F.2d 42, 45 n.3 (4th Cir. 1983) (AThe court is not permitted to
resolve genuine issues of material fact on a motion for summary judgment B B even where . . .
both parties have filed cross motions for summary judgment.@) (emphasis omitted), cert. denied,
469 U.S. 1215 (1985)).
DISCUSSION
A.

Adjustment to Damages Owed for the Year 2012

In the Memorandum Opinion of March 4, 2015 the undersigned summarized the support
Plaintiff Toure-Davis received from sources other than Defendant Davis plus the support
Plaintiff Toure-Davis received from Defendant Davis which yielded the total financial support
received. The undersigned compared that figure to 125 percent of the Federal poverty line to
determine what damages, if any, Defendant Davis owes Plaintiff Toure-Davis. The various
amounts for the years 2003 - 2010, 2012 - 2013 are reflected in the following table from the
March 4, 2015 opinion.

5

Year

2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2012
2013

Support
from Other
Sources
$02
$0
$0
$0
$620.00
$0
$5,334.00
$0
$3,950.00
$10,547.00

Support
from Def.
Davis
$41,796.84
$41,796.84
$42,027.46
$42,971.62
$37,904.33
$37,835.52
$30,567.36
$23,911.09
$0
$0

Total
Financial
Support
$41,796.84
$41,796.84
$42,027.46
$42,971.62
$38,524.33
$37,835.52
$35,901.36
$23,911.09
$3,950.00
$10,547.00

125%
Poverty
Guidelines
$11,225.00
$11,637.50
$11,962.50
$12,250.00
$12,762.50
$13,000.00
$13,537.50
$13,537.50
$13,962.50
$14,362.50

Damages
Owed
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$10,012.50
$3,815.50

ECF No. 51 at 21-22.
In her April 17, 2015 Affidavit Plaintiff Toure-Davis disclosed, contrary to her earlier
representations, that she “did not receive any means-tested benefits from the United States
Federal Government or the State of Maryland in 2012.” ECF No. 53 at 1 (Toure-Davis Aff. ¶ 3).
Although she did not receive any governmental means-tested benefits, Plaintiff Toure-Davis
received other benefits in 2012 which necessitate an adjustment in the amount of support from
other sources she received.
As previously documented Plaintiff Toure-Davis began residing with Arthur Horne in
August of 2012. She did not pay rent. Mr. Horne would have charged her $600.00 per month.
She therefore received a housing benefit of $3,000.00 between August and December 2012.
From January 2012 to July 2012 Plaintiff Toure-Davis lived in a small bedroom of Ms. Elaine
James’ home in Landover, Maryland. “I did not pay any rent but if I had to pay rent, I would
have had to pay no more than $200.00 per month.”3 ECF No. 53 at 2 (Toure-Davis Aff. ¶ 16).

2

The court excludes $1,500 received by Plaintiff Toure-Davis from her pastor to pay her attorney’s fees since this
loan was repaid.
3
“I estimate that if I had to pay rent to Ms. James, I would have had to pay no more than $200.00 [per month]. I
based this estimate on the fact that another gentleman rented a room from Ms. James at the same time that I was
there. He was required to pay approximately $50.00 per week.” ECF No. 53 at 2 (Toure-Davis Aff. ¶ 15).

6

The undersigned therefore finds Plaintiff Toure-Davis received an additional $1,400.00 in
housing benefits between January and July 2012.
Plaintiff Toure-Davis acknowledges being paid for services on two occasions by Mr.
Horne.
I received the total of $150.00 from Mr. Arthur Horne
approximately in July of 2012. I first received a cash payment of
$100.00 and another cash payment of $50.00. The payments were
for me coming to assist him with cleaning.
I have not received any other payments from Mr. Horne for
services provided, i.e. cleaning and cooking.
ECF No. 53 at 2 (Toure-Davis Aff. ¶¶ 10-11). The undersigned therefore finds $150.00 should
be added to the total amount of support from other sources in 2012.

In conclusion, the

undersigned finds the total amount of support from other sources in 2012 equals $5,500.00.4
This increase necessitates an adjustment to the amount of damages owed by Defendant Davis as
reflected below:
Year

2012
B.

Support
from Other
Sources
$5,500.00

Support
from Def.
Davis
$0

Total
Financial
Support
$5,500.00

125%
Poverty
Guidelines
$13,962.50

Damages
Owed
$8,642.50

No Adjustment to Damages Owed for Year 2013

Plaintiff Toure-Davis began to receive means-tested benefits through the Maryland
Department of Social Services in 2013.
In 2013, I first received basic medical coverage through Maryland
Primary Adult Care (PAC) program. Maryland PAC provides free
visits to family doctors, cover outpatient mental health care and
prescription medication for free or at a low co-pay. I did not use
any medical services in 2013.
ECF No. 53 at 1 (Toure-Davis Aff. ¶ 4).
4

This amount consists of (a) $3,950.00 [previously documented], (b) $1,400.00 housing benefit from Ms. James and
(c) $150.00 payment from Mr. Horne.

7

Plaintiff Toure-Davis did not receive any support from Defendant Davis in 2013. The
support received from other sources, totaling $10,547.00, was delineated in the Memorandum
Opinion of March 4, 2015. See ECF No. 51 at 10, 12. Defendant Davis owes $3,815.50 in
damages to Plaintiff Toure-Davis for the year 2013 as explained below.
Year

2013
C.

Support
from Other
Sources
$10,547.00

Support
from Def.
Davis
$0

Total
Financial
Support
$10,547.00

125%
Poverty
Guidelines
$14,362.50

Damages
Owed
$3,815.50

Calculation for Year 2014

The undersigned deferred addressing the year 2014 in the Memorandum Opinion of
March 4, 2015 due to a lack of information, but with the supplemental filings by Plaintiff ToureDavis, the undersigned now turns his attention to this matter.
In 2014 Plaintiff Toure-Davis’ earnings were extremely limited, totaling $4,338.84 from
her employment with Simply Fashion Stores, Ltd. See ECF No. 53-1 at 1. According to her
April 17, 2015 Affidavit Plaintiff Toure-Davis received Medicaid when her eligibility for
Maryland PAC ended. Medicaid paid medical costs totaling $1,284.50 in 2014. Further, “[i]n
October of 2014, Defendant Charles G. Davis provided Plaintiff with a check in the amount of
$3,500.00 to cover medical costs during the period of time when her Medicaid insurance
terminated.” ECF No. 53 at 2 (Toure-Davis Aff. ¶ 17). Additionally, Plaintiff Toure-Davis
continued to reside in Mr. Horne’s home5, without paying rent and thereby receiving a monthly
housing benefit of $600.00 or a total of $7,200.00 for the year 2014. The amounts of financial
support received and how the total financial support compares to 125 percent of the Federal
poverty line are summarized below:

5

“I currently reside at 1924 Vermont Avenue, Landover, Maryland, which is the residential address of Mr. Arthur
Horne. I did not live at any other address in 2014 nor in 2015 to present.” ECF No. 55 at 1 (Toure-Davis Aff. ¶ 1).

8

Year

Support from
Other Sources

2014

$12,823.34

D.

Support from
Def. Davis

Total
Financial
Support

$3,500.00

$16,323.34

125% Poverty
Guideline

Damages
Owed

$14,487.506

$0

Calculation for Year 2015 (to date)

Based on the affidavits and records submitted by Plaintiff Toure-Davis, in 2015 she has
received support from sources other than Defendant Davis as follows: (a) $271.00 (food
supplement program in February and March 20157), (b) $1,281.46 (gross income earned from
Simply Fashion as of March 20, 20158), (c) $3,000.00 ($600.00 per month housing benefit from
Mr. Horne between January - May 2015) and (d) $300.00 ($300.00 per month9 housing benefit
from Mr. Horne for June 2015). Plaintiff Toure-Davis thus has received income or benefits
totaling $4,852.46 from sources other than Defendant Davis in 2015.

The undersigned

understands that Defendant Davis has not provided any financial support to date in 2015.
The poverty guideline for a household of one person in 2015 is $11,770.00. See Annual
Update of the HHS Poverty Guidelines, 80 Fed. Reg. 3236, 3237 (Jan. 22, 2015). One hundred
twenty-five percent of this Federal poverty line is $14,712.50. This amount is equivalent to
$1,226.04 per month. Based on this amount, Defendant Davis’ obligation from January through
6

The poverty guideline for a household of one person in 2014 was $11,670.00. See Annual Update of the HHS
Poverty Guidelines, 79 Fed. Reg. 3593 (Jan. 22, 2014). $11,670.00 x 1.25 = $14,587.50.
7
“In February of 2015, I began to receive benefits through the Food Supplement Program. My eligibility for the
Food Supplement Program covers the period of 02/15/2015 through 07/15/2015. I received, thus far, $77.00 on
02/15 and $194.00 on 03/15/2015.” ECF No. 53 at 2 (Toure-Davis Aff. ¶ 8). Presumably Plaintiff Toure-Davis
continued to receive a monthly stipend on or about April 15, May 15 and June 15. The amounts received are
unknown.
8
“Simply Fashion, my employer, filed for bankruptcy and the store I worked at 7057 Martin Luther King Jr Hwy,
Landover Maryland 20785, went out of business. My last day of work was May 13, 2015. I do not work at the
present time.” ECF No. 55 at 1 (Toure-Davis Aff. ¶ 5). Plaintiff Toure-Davis submitted proof of her former
employer filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. See ECF No. 53-2 at 4-5. No information has been provided
about the total income earned by Plaintiff Toure-Davis between March 21 and May 13, 2015.
9
“As a result of my loss of employment, Mr. Horne reduced my monthly rent cost from $600.00 to $300.00. I am
still unable to afford to pay Mr. Horne rent at this time.” ECF No. 55 at 1 (Toure-Davis Aff. ¶ 6).

9

June 2015 totals $7,356.24 (minus financial support received from other sources). Although the
record is silent as to (a) the income earned from Plaintiff Toure-Davis’ employment with Simply
Fashion between March 21 to May 13, 2015 and (b) the amount of the monthly food supplement
for April through June 2015, these additional benefits and income would not increase the total
amount of financial support from sources other than Defendant Davis to $7,356.24. Therefore,
Defendant Davis is obligated to provide Plaintiff Toure-Davis financial support to reach this 125
percent level of the Federal poverty line for the first six months of 2015.
The undersigned directs Plaintiff’s counsel to provide Defendant’s counsel with
additional information about Plaintiff Toure-Davis’ earned income and receipt of benefits
through June 2015.

Defendant’s counsel, in turn, should advise her client to provide the

difference between (a) 125 percent of the Federal poverty line for the first six months of 2015
and (b) the amount of financial support Plaintiff Toure-Davis has earned and/or received during
the first six months of 2015 from other sources. Henceforth the undersigned encourages the
parties and their counsel to work cooperatively to ensure Defendant Davis provides financial
support as he is obligated to do without the court’s intervention.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, judgment will be entered against the Defendant in the amount
of $12,458.00 for the past support accumulated in 2012 and 2013. The court notes that the
Defendant is obligated to sponsor the Plaintiff at 125 percent of the Federal poverty line until his
obligation expires by law. The portion of Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the
issue of damages, previously held in abeyance, will be granted and the portion of Defendant’s
cross-motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of damages, previously held in

10

abeyance, will be denied. Accordingly, each party’s motion for partial summary judgment on
the issue of damages will be granted in part and denied in part.
In seeking to enforce the affidavit of support, Plaintiff incurred legal fees. Defendant
may be liable for “payment of legal fees and other costs of collection.” 8 U.S.C. § 1183a(c).
Plaintiff may file an appropriate motion and affidavit demonstrating her reasonable attorney’s
fees and costs within twenty-one (21) days after the date of the final order. A final order will be
issued after consideration of any corrections to the court’s calculations suggested by counsel by
July 10, 2015.

June 23, 2015
Date

_________________/s/__________________
WILLIAM CONNELLY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11