Ashmore v. Pressley, 8:15-cv-04116

Background

Ronnie Gene Wilson and Atlantic Bullion & Coin, Inc. ran a Ponzi scheme; Beattie B. Ashmore is the court-appointed Receiver for recovery of scheme assets.
Cassie Wilson purchased ~82.01 acres (the Wilson Farm); she deeded 6.58 acres to Jennifer and Shawn Pressley in 2008 (the Pressley Parcel). Defendants built their home (on what turned out to be different land) using funds tied to the scheme.
Construction payments totaling originally asserted $135,000 were later narrowed to $73,705 based on sworn testimony and contractor affidavits indicating Wilson/Whitfield paid for significant construction work and materials.
The Pressleys obtained a $120,000 mortgage from Greenville First Bank (now Southern First Bank) for the home; the parties subsequently reformed deed records to reflect the home parcel as subject to the Bank’s mortgage.
A 5.82-acre strip (“Flag Pole Acres”) adjacent to the home is disputed: Receiver claims it is part of assets acquired or improved with Ponzi funds and thus subject to the receivership; Defendants contend it was included in mortgage/foreclosure and necessary to provide legal access to the home.
Procedural posture: Receiver moved for summary judgment seeking (1) unjust enrichment damages ($135,000 reduced to $73,705) and (2) declaratory relief transferring Flag Pole Acres; court GRANTED summary judgment in part (unjust enrichment) and DENIED in part (declaratory relief and who must pay damages).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Defendants were unjustly enriched by Ponzi-scheme funds used to build their home	Receiver: Defendants received and retained benefit (construction paid by Wilson/Whitfield); unjust to allow retention; damages $73,705	Pressley: disputes evidence/amounts; some construction paid by bank loan; seek damages from Bank if any	Granted: Court found unjust enrichment and accepted $73,705 as undisputed damages amount
Whether Flag Pole Acres should be transferred to Receiver as property acquired or improved with AB&C funds	Receiver: Flag Pole Acres was partially acquired or improved with scheme funds and is part of Wilson Farm within receivership control	Pressley: Flag Pole Acres was included with mortgage/foreclosure and is necessary access to home; thus controlled by Bank foreclosure	Denied: Genuine disputes remain about acquisition/uses of funds and whether land is subject to Bank foreclosure
Whether damages should be collected from Defendants or from the Bank foreclosing on the home	Receiver: Damages owed by Defendants who were unjustly enriched	Pressley: If construction paid by Wilson flowed into house now in foreclosure, Receiver should seek recovery from Bank/foreclosure proceeds to avoid unjustly enriching Bank	Denied in part: Court found a legitimate dispute over whether Bank or Defendants are liable; unresolved at summary judgment
Whether deed reformation between Receiver and Bank resolved ownership of disputed acreage	Receiver: Reformation covered only home parcel; left Flag Pole Acres for receivership claim	Pressley: Reformation and mortgage paperwork included Flag Pole Acres; it’s subject to foreclosure	Denied in part: Court found reformation’s effect on Flag Pole Acres unclear and material fact exists

Key Cases Cited

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (Sup. Ct. 1986) (movant’s initial burden on summary judgment)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (Sup. Ct. 1986) (summary judgment standards; evidence and inferences for nonmovant)
Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861 (Sup. Ct. 2014) (courts must view evidence in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
Gignilliat v. Gignilliant, Savitz & Bettis, L.L.P., 385 S.C. 452 (S.C. 2009) (elements of unjust enrichment)
Inglese v. Beal, 403 S.C. 290 (S.C. Ct. App. 2013) (party unjustly enriched when retaining benefits that belong to another)