Mantouvalos v. Mantouvalos et al

Filing 105

Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: For the forgoing reasons,1) the motion to hold Paula in Contempt of Court (Docket Entry No. 93 ) is DENIED without prejudice and2) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 70(a), the C ourt grants to Stephanie Mantouvalos the power to perform all acts necessary to accomplish the sale of the property located at Othos Orfeos 31, Holargos, Greece, including the power to exercise full power of attorney for Paula Mantouvalos and Daine M antouvalos, to prepare the property for sale and to sell the property on behalf of all parties to this lawsuit.This order does not dispose of plaintiff's claims for damages, if any, against Paula Mantouvalos and/or Diane Mantouvalos. If and when the sale of the property results in receipt of net proceeds, the Court will entertain a motion (or motions) proposing an equitable division thereof.So ordered. (Vieira, Leonardo)

Case 1:14-cv-10067-NMG Document 105 Filed 12/31/19 Page 1 of 7

United States District Court
District of Massachusetts

Stephanie Mantouvalos,
Plaintiff,
v.
Diane Mantouvalos and Paula
Mantouvalos,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.
14-10067-NMG

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
GORTON, J.
This case involves an interminable dispute between three
sisters, Stephanie, Diane and Paula Mantouvalos, over the sale
of inherited property located at Othos Orfeos 31, Holargos,
Greece (“the property”).
On January 11, 2017, this Court entered default judgment
against defendant Paula Mantouvalos (“Paula”) and ordered her to
convey to Stephanie Mantouvalos (“Stephanie” or “plaintiff”)
full power of attorney and authority to sell the property.
Paula has not complied with that order and Stephanie has filed a
motion to hold Paula in contempt of court and for enforcement of
the default judgment.
For the reasons that follow, the Court will decline to hold
Paula in contempt but will enforce its order and, pursuant to

-1-

Case 1:14-cv-10067-NMG Document 105 Filed 12/31/19 Page 2 of 7

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 70(a), authorize Stephanie to
sell the property.
I.

Background and Procedural History

The sisters inherited the disputed property when their
father died in October, 2005.

In June, 2006, the sisters signed

a Settlement Agreement which was filed in an earlier case in
another session of this Court.

The Settlement Agreement states:

The property located in Greece shall be sold as soon as
possible and listed with a licensed broker.
After nearly a decade of inaction, Stephanie, whose
domicile is Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, filed a complaint in
this Court in January, 2014, alleging breach of contract on the
grounds that her sisters had breached the Settlement Agreement
and their covenants of good faith and fair dealing by refusing
to cooperate with respect to the sale of the property.

In

November of that year, the property was valued at approximately
$464,000.
Diane Mantouvalos (“Diane”), whose domicile is Miami,
Florida, did not respond to the complaint and, in April, 2015,
the Court entered a final default judgment against her.

That

judgment includes injunctive relief ordering Diane, inter alia,
to cooperate with her sisters in the sale of the property and to
pay one-third of the costs related to the sale of the property.
Diane’s cooperation has been sporadic and, according to

-2-

Case 1:14-cv-10067-NMG Document 105 Filed 12/31/19 Page 3 of 7

Stephanie, is currently not in compliance with this Court’s 2015
order.
Paula, whose domicile is in Massachusetts, but whose
address is unknown to her sisters, answered the complaint in
April, 2014.

Since that time she has failed to comply with any

court-imposed deadlines.

In fact, no pleadings had been filed

on Paula’s behalf after her answer to the complaint until her
counsel moved to withdraw in May, 2016, based on a “severe
breakdown in the attorney-client relationship”, i.e. a failure
to communicate.
The Court convened a status conference in June, 2016, at
which Paula’s counsel, Attorney Paul Marino (“Attorney Marino”),
stated that he had attempted to locate Paula multiple times but
had only been able to speak to her one week before the hearing.
Paula, who attended the conference by telephone, stated that she
had recently moved and that there was a miscommunication between
her and her attorneys.
On June 15, 2016, this Court ordered Paula to show cause
why the Court should not enter a default judgment against her.
Her response to that order was inadequate and, on January 11,
2017, this Court entered default judgement against Paula.

It

ordered Paula to cooperate with Stephanie and Diane to
effectuate the sale of the property and to perform all acts
necessary to accomplish such a sale, including conveyance to
-3-

Case 1:14-cv-10067-NMG Document 105 Filed 12/31/19 Page 4 of 7

Stephanie of full power of attorney and authority to sell the
property.
In January, 2019, Attorney Marino (and his partner Robert
Launie) renewed their motions to withdraw, reiterating a
breakdown in the attorney-client relationship and an inability
to communicate with Paula.
In March, 2019, Stephanie filed the instant motion to
hold Paula in contempt and for other relief as a result of
Paula’s failure to comply with this Court’s January, 2017,
order.
On October 22, 2019, this Court held a status conference
at which Attorney Marino reported that he had sent a draft
settlement agreement, signed by his client, Paula, to
Stephanie and informed the Court that, upon completion of the
tasks outlined in the settlement agreement, he anticipated
that a stipulation of dismissal would be filed.

The Court

acknowledged Attorney Marino’s report but informed the parties
that it would enter an order in favor of the plaintiff,
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 70(a) unless the matter was
otherwise resolved on or before December 20, 2019.
II.

Motion to Hold Defendant in Contempt

Although Paula’s non-compliance with a court order would
warrant a finding of civil contempt, it is unclear whether she
received sufficient notice of the default judgment in this case.
-4-

Case 1:14-cv-10067-NMG Document 105 Filed 12/31/19 Page 5 of 7

A court may hold a party in civil contempt if the moving party
establishes, by clear and convincing evidence, that the alleged
contemnor violated a clear and unambiguous court order despite
notice of the order and the ability to comply with it. See
Hawkins v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. for N.H., Comm'r, 665
F.3d 25, 31 (1st Cir. 2012).

While Paula has not complied with

this Court’s order to convey power of attorney and authorize
sale of the property, there is insufficient evidence to confirm
that Paula had notice of the default judgment.

Paula’s

attorneys submit they have been unable to contact her and
Stephanie is in only occasional email contact with Paula.
Because the alternative mechanism for enforcing a specific act
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 70(a) is 1) suitable, 2) does not require
such a showing of notice and 3) accomplishes the necessary
resolution of this case, the Count will deny Stephanie’s motion
to hold Paula in contempt at this time.
III. Enforcing Judgment for a Specific Act
If a party fails to comply with a judgment to perform a
specific act, a court can order the act to be done pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 70(a).

Rule 70(a) states in relevant part:

If a judgment requires a party to convey land...or to
perform any other specific act and the party fails to
comply within the time specified, the court may order the
act to be done...by another person appointed by the court.
When done, the act has the same effect as if done by the
party.

-5-

Case 1:14-cv-10067-NMG Document 105 Filed 12/31/19 Page 6 of 7

On January 11, 2017, this Court entered a default judgment
ordering Paula “to perform all acts necessary to accomplish the
sale of the property” including conveying to Stephanie full
power of attorney and authority to sell the property on her
behalf.

Paula has not complied with that order.

Because of

that default the Court will now exercise the authority conveyed
to Stephanie. See Analytical Eng'g, Inc. v. Baldwin Filters,
Inc., 425 F.3d 443, 451 (7th Cir. 2005) (noting under Rule 70 “a
district court may direct a party to complete a specific act
where the district court previously directed the same party to
perform the same act in its final judgment and that party has
failed to comply.”).
ORDER
For the forgoing reasons,
1)

the motion to hold Paula in Contempt of Court (Docket

Entry No. 93) is DENIED without prejudice and
2)

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 70(a), the Court grants to

Stephanie Mantouvalos the power to perform all acts necessary to
accomplish the sale of the property located at Othos Orfeos 31,
Holargos, Greece, including the power to exercise full power of
attorney for Paula Mantouvalos and Daine Mantouvalos, to prepare
the property for sale and to sell the property on behalf of all
parties to this lawsuit.

-6-

Case 1:14-cv-10067-NMG Document 105 Filed 12/31/19 Page 7 of 7

This order does not dispose of plaintiff’s claims for
damages, if any, against Paula Mantouvalos and/or Diane
Mantouvalos.

If and when the sale of the property results in

receipt of net proceeds, the Court will entertain a motion (or
motions) proposing an equitable division thereof.

So ordered.

/s/ Nathaniel M. Gorton
Nathaniel M. Gorton
United States District Judge
Dated December 31, 2019

-7-