Branch Bank and Trust Company v. Technology Solutions Inc et al

Filing 258

ORDER FOR CONTEMPT AS TO CATHY G. LANIER concluding Cathy G. Lanier is in contempt of this Court for willfully violating the Court's September 30, 2014, order to peacefully surrender the foreclosed properties, directing Mrs. Lanier to immediately pay attorney fees in the amount of $6,055.25 to Mr. Licatta, and fining Mrs. Lanier the sum of $500.00 for her willful violation of the Court'sOrder with payment to be made immediately to the Clerk of Court. Signed by Honorable Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. on 11/10/2014. (bshr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Branch Banking and Trust Company,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
Technology Solutions, Inc.; Cathy G.
Lanier; and Randy D. Lanier,
Defendants.
___________________________________

C/A: 3:13-1318-JFA

ORDER FOR CONTEMPT
AS TO CATHY G. LANIER

This mortgage foreclosure action was initiated by Branch Banking & Trust Company
(“BB&T”) against Technology Solutions, and two of its principals, Cathy G. Lanier and Randy D.
Lanier. After a trial on the merits, the Court rejected all of the defenses advanced by the Defendants,
finding them to be, for the most part, frivolous. The Court ordered the foreclosure and sale. (ECF
No. 199). This Court’s decision on the merits was ultimately upheld by the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.1
In accordance with this Court’s order of April 7, 2014, the property was auctioned off to the
highest bidder and the Plaintiff, BB&T, was the successful bidder. On September 30, 2014, this
Court reviewed and approved the United States Marshal’s Report of Sale of the properties at issue
in this case. That Order also provided:
Pursuant to page 14 of this Court’s Decree of Foreclosure and Sale,
Cathy G. Lanier and Randy D. Lanier or other persons in possession
of the subject property shall immediately move from the mortgaged
real estate and give up the mortgaged real estate without damage or
vandalism . . . The marshal or duly authorized Deputy, or the Sheriff

1

See Branch Banking and Trust Company v. Cathy G. Lanier, et al., ___ Fed. Appx. ___, 2014 WL
5462662, C.A.4 (S.C.), Oct. 29, 2014.

1

of the County where the property is located is also authorized to
remove from the premises any furniture or other possession of Cathy
G. Lanier or Randy D. Lanier, or other person in possession, and any
interference with the activities of the Marshal or Deputy or Sheriff
will be upon pain of contempt of court.
(ECF No. 232).
On October 10, 2014, counsel for the Plaintiff wrote to this Court and filed copies of letters
written by Defendant Cathy G. Lanier to the United States Marshal and the Sheriffs of Lexington
County and Chester County where the real estate is located. Those three letters from Mrs. Lanier,
containing essentially the same language, were designated “Extremely Urgent Matter!” The letters
purported to ask the law enforcement agency’s assistance
“in preventing an illegal act that appears to be about to be committed
against myself and my property I own in Lexington and Chester
Counties . . . I am in foreclosure proceedings that are being
vigorously fought as the bank is under investigation by federal fraud
investigators for fraudulent acts related to this loan (see attached
letter). Regardless of the investigation, the bank has, with the
collusion of the court, moved forward to take the property.”
The letters continue
“I wanted to inform you that you would be assisting an illegal act if
you are to assist [the bank] in any way. It is my belief that he is
pushing this rapidly due to the fraud investigation so that he can
perhaps tie up the property even after the fraud is uncovered.”
(ECF No. 235, Exhibit #7)
Attached to Mrs. Lanier’s letters were other letters, each dated October 8, 2014, purportedly
written on the letterhead of Colleoni Enterprises, Castaic, California, and purportedly signed by
Roberto Colleoni, who was represented in the letter to be a “Federal Mortgage Fraud Investigator.”2

2

Interestingly, an individual by the same name of Roberto Colleoni is listed as the manager of
“Mortgage Investor Fraud Damage, LLC,” a Florida Domestic Limited Liability Company which was
incorporated on August 11, 2014, in Cape Coral, Florida. The registered agent is listed as Regis Sauger, Sr.

2

The letters advised the United States Marshal and the Sheriffs that “Colleoni Group is presently
conducting a Federal Mortgage Fraud Audit on the above mentioned loan.” (ECF No. 235-7 at 4).
Acting upon the information provided by Plaintiff’s counsel on October 10, 2014, this Court
issued its Order and Rule to Show Cause directing the Defendants to appear and show cause why
they should not be held in contempt for violation of this Court’s September 30, 2014, Order which
directed them to peacefully surrender possession of the properties. (ECF No. 236). The Order also
directed Roberto Colleoni to appear at the hearing. Prior to hearing, however, the Court granted Mr.
Colleoni, who apparently resides in California, permission to appear by telephone. His counsel was
present at the hearing.
The Defendants appeared as directed on October 30, 2014, and Mr. Colleoni was present by
telephone.3 Mr. Colleoni, under oath, informed the Court that his company was not in the business
of investigating banks for fraud. When asked what his company did, Mr. Colleoni replied that
“basically it’s a type of a settlement or modification nature modification we request some documents
if there’s a valid on the mortgage if there’s anything that has been missing or there’s a possibility of
a settlement or modification, but under no circumstances I’m not in a position to direct federal
investigation on BB&T company or bank.” (Tn. of Oct. 31, 2014 Hearing at 10).
Mr. Colleoni also indicated that the letter purportedly sent by his company, Colleoni
Enterprises, was not written on his company’s traditional letterhead and that the signature purporting
to be his was not authentic. He indicated his belief that a former employee of his company, Robert

In addition, Mr. Colleoni’s Linkedin website profile provides as his summary “Years of working at a
financial institution as a mortgage loan fraud investigator, credit analyst, and real estate investments.”
3

The Defendants, as well as Colleoni, were presented by counsel at both the October 30l, 2014,
hearing and the November 6, 2014, hearing.

3

Carlieo, was the individual who had dealt with Mrs. Lanier and had authored the letter. Mr. Colleoni
indicated that Mr. Carlieo had terminated his relationship with Colleoni Enterprises three months
earlier and indicated that he did not know of Mr. Carlieo’s whereabouts.4
When pressed, Mrs. Lanier admitted that most of her dealings with Colleoni Enterprises were
done through Robert Carlieo and indicated that she had “numerous emails” with Mr. Carlieo. (Id.
at 13).

Further, when asked why Mrs. Lanier had written the letters to the U.S. Marshal and

Sheriff’s Offices, counsel attempted to justify Mrs. Lanier’s actions by stating that the letters were
written on the same day Mrs. Lanier’s dog died.
Turning to the question of the condition of the premises at issue in this litigation, Plaintiff’s
counsel informed the Court that none of the buildings on the subject property was the principle
residence of the Lanier’s, but that there were numerous items of personal belongings stored in the
buildings on both tracts of land. Counsel indicated that he had requested the Lanier’s remove the
personal property from the buildings, to no avail.
When questioned, Mrs. Lanier indicated that she had contacted an auctioneer to look into the
possibility of having the items auctioned off, but it would be eight or nine weeks, at a minimum,
before any auction company could attend to the matter.
After hearing from the parties, the Court indicated that it would allow the Defendants until
5:00 p.m. on Thursday, November 14, 2014, by which to remove all personal belongings from the
subject properties. The Court indicated that any personal belongings left on the properties after 5:00
p.m. on November 14, 2014, would be deemed forfeited to BB&T, title would vest in BB&T, and

4

In correspondence sent to the Court after the hearing, Mr. Colleoni indicated via his attorney, “Mr.
Carlieo was employed as a commissioned sales person from April 2014, through September 25, 2014.” (ECF
No. 254). Accordingly, the fraudulent letter sent by Mr. Carlieo to Mrs. Lanier was purportedly sent after
Mr. Carlieo was no longer employed with Colleoni Enterprises.

4

BB&T would be authorized to dispose of the property in any way it saw fit.
With both Mrs. Lanier and Mr. Colleoni placing the blame on Robert Carlieo for the
apparently fraudulent letters from Colleoni Enterprises, the Court adjourned the hearing and
requested that the parties reappear one week later, on November 7, 2014. The Court instructed Mrs.
Lanier to provide to the Court copies of her “numerous” emails with Robert Carlieo. The Court also
directed Mr. Colleoni to provide, through counsel, all of his contact information for Mr. Robert
Carlieo.
At the November 7, 2014, hearing, Mrs. Lanier produced but one email. That email
contained a purported email address for Robert Carlieo which proved to be an incorrect, non-existent
address.5 In like manner, Mr. Colleoni provided, through counsel, one document purporting to be
information regarding Robert Carlieo, and although the email address was different from that
provided by Mrs. Lanier, efforts to reach Mr. Carlieo at the email address given were unsuccessful
as well.

The Court attempted to telephone Mr. Carlieo at the phone number provided by Mr.

Colleoni, however, only an answering machine was reached.
At the November 7, 2014 hearing, Mrs. Lanier was placed under oath and then questioned
about her relationship with Mr. Colleoni and Mr. Carlieo. She indicated that she had met Mr.
Colleoni in Florida and paid him $3,500 to assist her in preventing her properties from being sold
at foreclosure. She indicated that she thought this was a legitimate “federal fraud investigation.”
This assertion, of course, is belied by the testimony of Mr. Colleoni that his company did not do such
federal fraud investigations.

5

Efforts to email a communication to Robert Carlieo resulted in a “delivery failure report” that
stated, “the email account you tried to reach does not exist.” Both email addresses provided by Mrs. Lanier
and Mr. Colleoni were gmail addresses, not addresses directly associated with Colleoni Enterprises.

5

Mrs. Lanier testified that on October 8, 2014, she spoke with Mr. Carlieo on the phone. At
that time she asked him if he could provide her something in writing about the work being performed
for her. According to Mrs. Lanier, Mr. Carlieo indicated he would send her the company’s “standard
letter.” Mr. Carlieo then emailed the apparently fraudulent letter to Mrs. Lanier as a Word document
so she could fill in the pertinent information. Mrs. Lanier testified the signature was already affixed
to the document when it was sent to her, and she only added the addresses of the parties to whom
the letter was to be sent.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court announced that its previous Order requiring the
Defendants to remove all personal property by November 14 remained in force6; found Defendant
Cathy G. Lanier in contempt of this Court for willfully violating the Court’s order to peacefully
surrender possession of the properties; and indicated that sanctions would be awarded against Mrs.
Lanier. This Order serves to memorialize the Court’s rulings.
Having made the foregoing factual determinations, the Court concludes that Cathy G. Lanier
is in contempt of this Court for willfully violating this Court’s September 30, 2014, order to
peacefully surrender the foreclosed properties. The Court finds that she engaged in a deliberate and
deceitful attempt to forestall the rightful owner possession of the properties by fraudulently
representing to the United States Marshal and to the Sheriffs of Lexington and Chester Counties, that
a “federal fraud investigation” was ongoing regarding Branch Banking and Trust Company, when
in fact, as Mrs. Lanier well knew, no such fraud investigation was being conducted. The Court

6

The Court takes this opportunity to reiterate that any personal items left on the property after 5:00
p.m. on November 14, 2014, shall be deemed forfeited by the Defendants. At such time, title shall vest in
the Plaintiff, and Plaintiff will be authorized to dispose of the property via any means it chooses. All
individuals and/or companies conducting the removal, sale, or disposal of the property shall be fully
exonerated from any and all claims made by the Defendants that the removal was unlawful or improper in
any way.

6

views Mrs. Lanier’s obstructionist actions as another attempt to undermine the Court’s authority by
refusing to comply with its Orders and directives.
As for the sanctions to be imposed, the Court gave serious consideration to incarceration of
Mrs. Lanier for her contempt. Ultimately, however, the Court determined that the most appropriate
sanction would be to require Mrs. Lanier to reimburse the Plaintiff its reasonable attorney fees
expended in bringing the motion and sending its counsel to the two hearings referenced herein. To
that end, counsel for the Plaintiff, Mr. Steven Licatta, was directed to furnish to the Court an
itemization of the time expended on this matter from September 30, 2014, forward, and an indication
of his hourly fee for work performed for his client, BB&T.
The Court has received and reviewed the submissions and finds the number of hours and the
hourly rate to be fair, just, and reasonable. (ECF No. 257). Multiplying the number of hours 22.85,
times the hourly fee of $265.00, arrives at a total attorney fee of $ 6,055.25. Cathy G. Lanier is
directed to immediately pay this sum to Mr. Licatta and the Court’s sanction award shall be entered
on the judgment roll of this Court, so as to create a lien against any property owned by Mrs. Lanier.
Finally, the Court fines Mrs. Lanier the sum of $500 for her willful violation of this Court’s
Order. The sum shall be paid to the Clerk of this Court immediately. The fine ordered herein shall
also be entered as a judgment against Mrs. Lanier.
The Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this order to the United States Marshal for the
District of South Carolina and the Sheriffs of Lexington County and Chester County, South Carolina.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

November 10, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

7