United States District Court, D. Maryland
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
Richard D. Bennett, United States District Judge
The
Court has before it Magistrate Judge Sullivan's Order of
May 31, 2019 (ECF No. 878), Defendant's Objections to
Magistrate Judge's Findings as to Sanctions Credits (ECF
No. 885), and the materials submitted by the parties relating
thereto. The Court finds that a hearing is unnecessary. For
the reasons that follow, the Order is ADOPTED and die
Defendants are entitled to a credit of $455, 026.62 against
the Sanctions Award for the sale of the Salem, Oregon
property, and the proceeds that Plaintiff, Victor Stanley,
Inc., obtained from the state court garnishment proceeding in
Michigan shall be credited against the underlying Judgment,
but not against the Sanctions Award, as ordered.
BACKGROUND
Inasmuch
as the parties are fully familiar with the pertinent
background, it suffices to state that currently, the status
of this litigation is that Plaintiff, Victor Stanley, Inc.
("VSI") is seeking to collect on its judgment and
on sanctions that have been awarded.[1] This effort has been ongoing
since the first sanctions were awarded in November 2010,
final judgment in favor of VSI in November 2011, and further
sanctions awarded during the collections process. (See,
e.g.. ECF Nos. 721, 747 (summarizing the various
judgments and failures to comply by the
Defendants[2]).)
Most
recently, in May 2019, the case was referred to Magistrate
Judge Sullivan to determine whether certain proceeds from a
garnishment writ issued by a state court in Michigan should
be credited against the underlying judgment or against the
sanctions award. (ECF No. 875.) Magistrate Judge Sullivan
held a hearing on May 31, 2019, and issued an Order
forthwith, determining as follows:
1. Defendants are entitled to a credit of $455, 026.62
against the Sanctions Award for the sale of the Salem, Oregon
property. This is the net amount of proceeds that Victor
Stanley obtained from the sale of the property after
deduction of the mortgage balance, selling expenses, carrying
costs, and other reasonable and necessary expenses.
2. The proceeds that Victor Stanley obtained from the state
court garnishment proceeding in Michigan shall be credited
against the underlying Judgment, but not against the
Sanctions Award.
(ECF Nos. 878, 883.) Defendant Pappas did not appear at the
hearing.
Defendants
timely filed Objections on June 14, 2019. (ECF No. 885.) VSI
filed a response (ECF No. 886) to Defendants' objections,
and the matter is ripe for review. Defendants argue that the
following determinations by Magistrate Judge Sullivan were
improper: (1) the determination of the net amount of $455,
026.62 from the sale of the Salem, Oregon property; and (2)
the |108, 000 Plaintiff collected from the state court
garnishment proceeding in Michigan should be credited against
Defendants' underlying judgment and not against the
Defendants' payment obligation under the Sanctions Order.
(ECF No. 885.)
STANDARD
OF REVIEW
When
reviewing a magistrate judge's findings, a district court
"may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate
judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Court reviews
de novo any portions of the recommendations to which
a specific objection is made, id, but may adopt, without
explanation, any of the magistrate judge's
recommendations to which no objections are filed. Solis
v. Malkani, 638 "" F.3d 269, 274 (4th Cir.
2011) (citing Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th
Cir. 1983)). Where objections consist of general and
conclusory objections that are not directed to a specific
error, the court reviews for clear error. See Orpiano v.
Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982); Brown v.
Comm'r of Soc. Sec, 969 F.Supp.2d 433, 437 (W.D. Va.
2013).
DISCUSSION
I.
Oregon Property Value
Defendants'
first specific objection is to the determination of a net
amount of $455, 026.62 from the sale of the Salem, Oregon
property. Defendants contend that they should be credited the
months of rental payments that Plaintiff would have received
from the property but chose to forego, and that Defendants
should not bear the burden of the "depressed sales
result VSI caused in rendering the property virtually
unsellable for over five ...