Ramsay v. Sanibel & Lancaster Insurance, LLC et al

Filing 68

MEMORANDUM ORDER: The Court OVERRULES Defendants' objections to the Court's proposed sale order. By separate order, in conformity with the procedure set forth in the Court's June 30, 2015 Memorandum Order, the Court will refer the matter to the magistrate judge co-assigned to this matter. (See Order for Details). Copy of Memorandum Order mailed to the pro se Defendants at address of record and counsel of record. Signed by District Judge Mark S. Davis on 8/4/2015. (bgra)

UNITED

STATES

DISTRICT

EASTERN DISTRICT

__RLED

COURT

OF VIRGINIA

Norfolk Division

AUG "4 2015

CLERK, US D V ~~"—^
• ———J- \_ ' I

CHRISTOPHER RAMSAY,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No.

SANIBEL &

2:llcv207

LANCASTER

INSURANCE,

LLC,

ROBERTA L.

GARCIA-GUAJARDO,

STEVEN GUAJARDO,
GARY

J.

and

HUNTER,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM

This

matter

submission of

is

before

position

the

papers

ORDER

Court

following

concerning

the

procedure for conducting a judicial sale of

a/k/a

600 Maryland Ave,

satisfy

Christopher

Roberta

L.

Guajardo

("Guajardo"

for

a

and,

On June 30,

Execution

conducting

parties

Ramsay's

Garcia-Guajardo

"Defendants").
Motion

Norfolk,

judicial

Sale,

sale

Virginia"

2015,
set

of

to file position papers

The

Plaintiff

parties

have

has no objections

proposed

("the property")
judgments

("Garcia-Guajardo")

with

and

to

against
Steven

Garcia-Guajardo,

the Court granted Plaintiff's

forth

the

a

proposed

property,

and

procedure

for

directed

the

stating any objections

Court's proposed judicial sale order.
65.

Court's

parties'

"4301 Newport Ave,

("Plaintiff")

collectively

the

submitted

to the

Memorandum Order, ECF No.
their

to the Court's

position

papers.

proposed procedure.

PL's

Position

Paper,

ECF No.

66.

Defendants

present

twenty-

eight objections to the Court's proposed procedure for selling

the property.
In

a

Defs.' Position Paper, ECF No. 67.1

number

of

objections,

Defendants

issues that the Court already has decided.2
the

following objections

argue

issues

the

serial motions

in

such

Court

K1"

OVERRULES

1-9,

the

has

for relief

objections

relief:

because

12-13,

Defendants

21,

and

following objections

to re-litigate

the

Court's

denial

by

denying

stay of execution pending appeal:
explained in the Court's June 1,

with

28.

matters

no

right

raised

to

such

the

Court

they are an attempt

Defendants'

^% 10,

19,

2015 Order,

motion

26,

for a

and 27.

done

the

so.

Court

As

is

illness

appropriate security.
the

truly
does

undersigned

sorry

not,

about

however,

ECF No.

Judge

has

63.

they

They have

expressed

Garcia-Guajardo's
entitle

As

the Court will not

stay execution of the judgments against Defendants unless
provide

to

Defendants'

Likewise,

because

of

raise

further attempt

from judgment and the

provide

to

The Court OVERRULES

they are a

foreclosed

attempt

before,

illness.

Defendants

to

not

a

the

Such
stay

of

execution without the appropriate security.

1

For

objections

ease

using

of

reference,

the paragraphs

the

Court

in which

refers

Defendants

to

Defendants'

raised

them in

their position paper.

2 The Court advises Defendants that, in the future, it may
summarily deny any further attempts to re-litigate matters the Court
has decided.

Defendants objected for a number of reasons to the judicial

sale

procedure

OVERRULES

proposed

the

Court.

objection

Guajardo's need for the property,

due

To

in

exempt
Va.

Defendants'

by

1)

Ann.

objections

§§

34-1

to

34-34.

The

in

1H

22 and

25,

raised

18

the

because

to her illness,

such property from execution or

Code

begin,

Court

Garciadoes not

creditor process.

Court

also

in which,

See

OVERRULES

the

respectively,

Defendants request that the Court bar Plaintiff, his family, and
his friends from bidding on the property or attending the sale,
and

that

the Court

order

that

Plaintiff

accept

any proceeds of

the

sale as full satisfaction for Plaintiff's judgments against

Defendants.

The remainder of

to

which

the

Defendants'

Court's

proposed

objections

procedure

concern the extent

sufficiently

protects

the rights of Defendants and lienholders other than Plaintiff.
The

Court

OVERRULES

single civil

Defendants'

procedure put

generic

in place

objections

to protect

that

"every

defendants

was

not followed in court by the plaintiff or his counsel,

therefore

putting

that

defendants

"outline

of

sale

.

at
.

a

disadvantage,"

. does

not

follow

1

20,

federal

and

procedure

the
and

just speaks of the sale and nothing of protecting the rights of
the defendants and lienholders," ^ 24.
Defendants'

about

remaining objections

protecting

Defendants

and

raise

legitimate concerns

lienholders

other

than

Plaintiff.
because:
broken

Defendants

Plaintiff's

down

to

object

to

judgments

show

the

on

amounts

the
the

for

sale

of

property
each

the
"have

property
been

since

defendant

not

each

owner is one half owner of the property," 1 11; the property has
not been appraised,
have

not

entities'

been

H 14;

notified

the IRS and " [m] ortgage

of

the

sale

and

the

[c]ompanies"

amounts

of

such

purported liens on the property have not been reported

to the Court, H1 15-16; in light of the alleged mortgage and tax
liens

on

the

property,

which

apparently

exceed

value,

% 17; and the

Plaintiff will receive no proceeds from any sale,
Court's proposed procedure affords lienholders

its

less than ninety

days to respond to notice of the sale, H 23.
The

Court

concludes

30,

2015

Memorandum

June

that

the

Order,

procedure

with

minor

set

forth

in

modification,

its
will

sufficiently protect the interests of Defendants and lienholders
other

than

Plaintiff.

The

Court's

concerns Defendants raised in Hf H

procedure

addresses

and 15-16.

the

The magistrate

judge's report and recommendation detailing the information set
forth

in

Court's

the

Court's

resolution

recommendation,
and

amount

" [m] ortgage
extent of

of

June

of

30,

any

2015

Memorandum

objections

to

Order,

such

and

report

the

and

will permit the Court to determine the existence
any

lien

[c] ompanies,"

on
or

the

property

held

any other person,

any judgment lien Plaintiff possesses

by

as

the

well

as

IRS,
the

on Defendants'

respective

one-half

Court's June
before

the

30,

interests

2015

sale

of

in

the

property.

Although

Memorandum Order did not
the

property

Plaintiff

state

must

the

how long

provide

the

notice of sale to all lienholders of record,

in response to the

objection in H 23,

(1)

the Court will direct:

that Plaintiff

provide notice of the sale to the lienholders of record once the
Court

has

resolved

any

objections

report and recommendation,

and

earlier than sixty

(60)

objections.

procedure

Such

informed of

to

concludes

that

confirmation

protect

by

value

of

the

their

will

magistrate

that

the

sale take place no

ensure

the

if

sale

any

the

interested

will address Defendants'

property,

as

lienholders

indicated

in

the

if

Court

property

person

to

timely

concerns about the

their

sale of the property without an appraisal,

are

intervene,

Finally,
of

judge's

resolves any such

that

interests.
the

Court,

Court

the opportunity to

subjecting

objects to the sale,

the

days after the

the sale and have

necessary,

(2)

to

objections

to

a

U 14, and to a sale

that might raise insufficient proceeds to satisfy liens superior

to Plaintiff's judgment liens, t 17.3
interests

of

Defendants

and

And to further protect the

lienholders,

upon

resolving

issues that will be referred to the magistrate judge,

the

the Court

will require Plaintiff and Defendants to each submit a proposed
3 If the magistrate judge's report and recommendation establishes
that liens with priority over Plaintiff's judgment lien on the
property are in excess of the property's value,
the Court may
reconsider the propriety of ordering its sale.

opening

bid

amount,

Court.

Accordingly,

in HH 11, 14-17,
After

which will

be

subject

to

approval

Court OVERRULES Defendants'

the

by

the

objections

and 23.

further

consideration,

proposed sale order as follows.

the

Court

First,

also

modifies

section (5)

its

is modified

to indicate that the property shall be sold by public auction at
the

Walter

Street,

E.

Hoffman

Norfolk,

modified

to

Plaintiff

will

United

Virginia

include

the

prepare

States

23510.

Second,

following

the

Courthouse,

of

Granby

section

additional

description

600

the

sold and will pay to the United States Marshal,

(7)

is

requirements:
property

to

in advance,

be

the

costs of advertising the notice of sale; and the notice of sale
shall include the

amount of any liens on the

to Plaintiff's judgment lien.
(12)

to direct

check payable

that

Third, the Court modifies section

payment be made by certified or cashier's

to the Clerk of the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia,
States

the

Marshal.

Court

property superior

has

The

Court

resolved

will

any

rather than to the United

issue

a

objections

final

to

sale

the

order

once

report

and

recommendation of the magistrate judge.

For

the

objections

to

forgoing
the

reasons,

Court's

the

proposed

Court
sale

OVERRULES
order.

Defendants'
By

separate

order, in conformity with the procedure set forth in the Court's

June 30,

2015 Memorandum Order,

the Court will refer the matter

to the magistrate judge co-assigned to this matter.
The Clerk is
Order to all

REQUESTED

counsel

of

to

send a

record and

copy of

this Memorandum

to the pro se Defendants

at

their address of record.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/
Mark S. Davis

United StatesDistrict Judge
Mark S.

Davis

United States District Judge

Norfolk, Virginia
August 4, 2015