Tisino et al v. Becerra et al

Filing 508

ORDER the Plaintiffs request that the Court issue an immediate Preliminary Order commanding Ross to deposit any funds received in the past and in the future, if any, from MetLife into the Registry of the Court, prior to the resolution of the 499 Motion (to compel deposit of annuity payments), is DENIED.(Signed by Magistrate Judge John R Froeschner) Parties notified.(sanderson, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
GALVESTON DIVISION
ADRIANO TISINO, ET AL.
V.
DANILO BECERRA, ET AL.

§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. G-10-244

OPINION AND ORDER
On August 23, 2012, this Court issued an Order which included its observation that “If
the Tisino Plaintiffs’ opinion is correct” that Robert Paul Ross, II (Ross), is wilfully violating
the Amended Preliminary Injunction it “would be a serious matter,” but withholding any
judgment on the merits of the Motion until an appropriate way to address it was established
at a Hearing set for August 30, 2012. In his initial response to the Motion, Ross has provided
some evidence that the Tisino Plaintiffs, in return for his withdrawal to any opposition to being
included within coverage of the Preliminary Injunction, may have agreed he could continue
to receive the $7,000.00 monthly annuity payments from the MetLife Annuity, purchased in
April of 2009, without being construed to be in violation of the otherwise agreeable Amended
Preliminary Injunction. Attached to the response is, inter alia, a copy of a letter, apparently
sent by counsel for the Tisino Plaintiffs to MetLife on August 28, 2012, warning it that
continuing the monthly payments to Ross may be in violation of the Amended Preliminary
Injunction.
Under the provisions of the Order issued by this Court on August 30, 2012, the Tisino
Plaintiffs’ Motion will not be resolved until at least late October and two payments will

become due during that time. Since the coverage of the Preliminary Injunction is in dispute
and it may possibly be construed as ambiguous as to the proposed “clawback,”or
unenforceable as to the annuity payments in question, the Plaintiffs’ request that the Court
issue an immediate Preliminary Order commanding Ross to deposit any funds received in the
past and in the future, if any, from MetLife into the Registry of the Court, prior to the
resolution of the Motion, is DENIED.
If MetLife suspends the payments, in possible violation of its contractual duties under
the Annuity, the funds will be secure; however, if under the terms of the Annuity they are paid
to Ross in the meantime, his use of the funds will be at his peril.
DONE at Galveston, Texas, this

31st

2

day of August, 2012.