UBS Financial Services, Inc v. Carolyn Garrett et al

Filing 175

ORDERED that UBS's Motion to Lift Stay and Allow for Entry of Judgment for Previously Ordered Award of Attorney Fees and Costs and for Release of Funds Deposited with Clerk of Court Sufficient to Satisfy Judgment (ECF No. 169 ) is GRANT ED. FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff Carolyn Garrett's motions (ECF Nos. 158 , 162 ) are DENIED. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment against the remaining defendants, Garrett Bullock, Diann Martin, Jason Garrett, and C atherine Hintzen, in favor of plaintiff Carolyn Garrett. The Clerk of the Court shall distribute to UBS a total of $22,495.34 in attorney fees, costs, and interest from the interpleaded funds deposited by UBS with the court (ECF Nos. 79 , 83 , 93 ). The Clerk of the Court shall, after distributing $22,495.34 to UBS, distribute to plaintiff Carolyn Garrett the remaining balance of the interpleaded funds deposited by UBS with the court (ECF Nos. 79 , 83 , 93 ). Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 9/15/2016. ( Email (NEF) to Finance. )(Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

*****

9

CAROLYN GARRETT,

10

Plaintiff,

3:14-CV-00141-LRH-WGC

v.

ORDER

11
12
13

GARRETT BULLOCK, DIANN MARTIN,
CATHERINE HINTZEN, JASON GARRETT,

14

Defendants.

15
Before the court is former-interpleader UBS Financial Services Inc.’s (“UBS”) Motion to

16
17

Lift Stay and Allow for Entry of Judgment for Previously Ordered Award of Attorney Fees and

18

Costs and for Release of Funds Deposited with Clerk of Court Sufficient to Satisfy Judgment.

19

ECF No. 169.1 Plaintiff Carolyn Garrett filed a response (ECF No. 171), to which UBS replied

20

(ECF No. 174).
Also before the court are several motions by Plaintiff Carolyn Garrett. ECF Nos. 158,2

21
22

162. The remaining defendants have not filed a response.

23

I.

24

Factual and procedural background
This is a case involving the validity of a trust amendment that initially arose through an

25

interpleader action brought by UBS following the death of Jo Anne Garrett (“Jo Anne”), the

26

Trustor of the Jo Anne Garrett Family Trust Agreement, dated August 12, 2002 (the “Trust”).

27

1

This citation refers to the court’s docket number.

28

2

This filing appears to include at least four separate motions.

1

Specifically, certain family members challenged a 2013 trust amendment executed by Jo Anne

2

that left all of her trust assets to her daughter, Carolyn, effectively disinheriting other family

3

members who would have been entitled to distributions under the Trust prior to amendment. On

4

March 10, 2015, UBS, the financial institution that initiated the interpleader and held the trust

5

assets, was discharged. ECF No. 71. Pursuant to the same March 10, 2015 order, UBS deposited

6

the disputed funds, in the amount of $193,194.44, on April 14, 2015, with the court clerk to be

7

held in an interest-bearing account. ECF No. 79. On May 28, 2015, UBS’s motion for attorney

8

fees and costs was granted in part, awarding UBS $20,000.00 in attorney fees (ECF No. 91), and

9

on July 10, 2015, $1,060.00 in costs were awarded to UBS by the court clerk (ECF No. 102).
Trial of this matter on the validity of the trust amendment came before the court, sitting

10
11

without a jury, on February 16, 2016, and the court, on March 1, 2016, found the amendment to

12

be valid. ECF No. 148. Accordingly, the amendment rendered Garrett the sole beneficiary of the

13

trust. Garrett subsequently appealed several of the court’s orders to the Ninth Circuit Court of

14

Appeals. ECF Nos. 97, 142, 149. She therefore moved this court to stay judgment pending her

15

appeal (ECF No. 154), including a stay of the distribution of attorney fees and costs awarded to

16

UBS, which the court granted (ECF No. 160). However, after Garrett failed to file an opening

17

brief, the Ninth Circuit dismissed her appeal. ECF Nos. 168, 172.

18

II.

Analysis

19

A.

Motion to lift stay

20

UBS moves the court to lift the stay and enter judgment so that its attorney fees and costs,

21

plus interest, can be distributed. Garrett opposes lifting the stay, arguing that she believes she can

22

renew her appeal with the Ninth Circuit. ECF No. 172 at 3. UBS counters that Garrett’s missed

23

filing deadline is representative of her “regular practice of ignoring deadlines and causing

24

substantial and unnecessary delays . . . .” ECF No. 174 (listing her numerous missed deadlines).

25

UBS argues that this fact, along with Garrett’s practice of filing redundant motions, has caused

26

UBS unnecessary delay in receiving its fees and costs and caused it to unnecessarily “expend

27

significant time and effort . . . .”Id.

28
2

The court agrees with UBS and finds that there is no legitimate reason to further delay

1
2

entering judgment and distributing UBS’s award of attorney fees and costs. Its motion will

3

therefore be granted. Pursuant to the court’s prior order (ECF No. 109), UBS is entitled to its

4

fees and costs, plus interest from the date they were awarded to UBS, calculated using the

5

Nevada statutory simple-interest rate. Because this rate was 5.25% at the time, the court

6

calculates that UBS is entitled to $1,369.62 in interest for attorney fees and $66.02 in interest for

7

costs.3 UBS’s total award will therefore be $22,495.34.4
Garrett’s remaining motions

8

B.

9

Finally, Garrett has filed a series of motions, including motions to amend pleadings, for a

10

new trial, to alter judgment, and to request entry of separate order. See ECF No. 158. These

11

requests for relief all appear to stem from her contention that the court’s post-trial order “failed

12

to offer the [r]elief” she requested. Id. at 2. Garrett contends that the court’s determination that

13

she was the rightful beneficiary of the Trust was the only relief offered and that the court failed

14

to determine that she was the rightfully-appointed trustee for the Trust. Id. She raises this point in

15

order to once again challenge the court’s prior determination that (1) it was reasonable for UBS

16

to file this interpleader action and (2) that, because of UBS’s discharge from the case and the

17

Nevada presumption that the 2013 Trust Amendment was void, Garrett was properly joined as a

18

plaintiff rather than as trustee-defendant. See ECF Nos. 71, 91.
These arguments are without merit. The court’s primary determination following the trial

19
20

in this case was that the Trust Amendment, the impetus for this interpleader action, was valid.

21

ECF No. 148 at 6. Pursuant to the amended Trust’s terms (ECF No. 5-2), the court’s order

22

recognized Garrett as trustee and sole beneficiary. ECF No. 148 at 4, 6. Further, in a prior motion

23
3

24
25
26
27
28

This interest rate is composed of “the prime rate at the largest bank in Nevada as ascertained
by the Commissioner of Financial Institutions . . . plus 2 percent.” Nev. Rev. Stat. § 17.130. The
prime rate during the pertinent periods was 3.25%. Fees and Prime Interest Rate, State of
Nevada, Dept. of Business & Industry Financial Institutions, http://fid.nv.gov/Resources/Fees_
and_Prime_Interest_Rate/. Interest was calculated from May 28, 2015, and July 10, 2015, the
dates that attorney fees and costs were respectively awarded (ECF Nos. 91, 102), to the date of
this order.
4

$20,000.00 + $1,369.62 + $1,060.00 + $66.02.
3

1

to reconsider, Garrett already challenged the court’s determination that this interpleader action

2

was appropriate and that she was properly joined as a plaintiff in this case. ECF No. 91. These

3

issues have been thoroughly litigated and adjudicated over the course of these proceedings.

4

Because Garrett’s motions fail to raise any new issues and fail to demonstrate why judgment

5

should not be entered, they will be denied.

6

III.

7

Conclusion
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that UBS’s Motion to Lift Stay and Allow for Entry

8

of Judgment for Previously Ordered Award of Attorney Fees and Costs and for Release of Funds

9

Deposited with Clerk of Court Sufficient to Satisfy Judgment (ECF No. 169) is GRANTED.

10
11
12

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff Carolyn Garrett’s motions (ECF Nos. 158,
162) are DENIED.
The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment against the remaining defendants, Garrett

13

Bullock, Diann Martin, Jason Garrett, and Catherine Hintzen, in favor of plaintiff Carolyn

14

Garrett.

15

The Clerk of the Court shall distribute to UBS a total of $22,495.34 in attorney fees,

16

costs, and interest from the interpleaded funds deposited by UBS with the court (ECF Nos. 79,

17

83, 93).

18

The Clerk of the Court shall, after distributing $22,495.34 to UBS, distribute to plaintiff

19

Carolyn Garrett the remaining balance of the interpleaded funds deposited by UBS with the court

20

(ECF Nos. 79, 83, 93).

21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22

DATED this 15th day of September, 2016.

23

LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
4