Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Barber
2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13488
| M.D. Fla. | 2015Background
- Plaintiffs are Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Regions Bank, judgment creditors seeking to enforce a Florida state-court deficiency judgment against Barber and Blaker Enterprises LLC.
- The Deficiency Judgment amount is $62,491,162.98, entered October 8, 2013, with earlier partial summary judgments totaling over $66 million.
- Barber disclosed transfers of funds after a June 2014 deposition, triggering the claims in the Complaint.
- Barber moved money from homestead-designated accounts (American Momentum Bank) to a certificate of deposit, then to AIG Bank, and later to Blaker’s TD Ameritrade and other accounts.
- Blaker is a Nevis-formed LLC with Barber as the sole member; Barber’s Florida residence localizes Blaker’s membership interest in Florida for purposes of in rem or quasi in rem jurisdiction.
- The court has allowed the complaint to proceed on Counts 2–4 and dismissed Count 1 as a stand-alone claim for injunctive relief, with injunctive relief available as a remedy if Plaintiffs prevail on remaining claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Count 1 appropriately seeks injunctive relief as a standalone claim | Plaintiffs argue Count 1 is technical and should not bar injunctive relief | Barber/Blaker contend injunctive relief is not a proper standalone claim | Count 1 dismissed; injunctive relief remains available as a remedy. |
| Whether Florida LLC Act foreclosing or charging against Barber’s interest in Blaker is proper | Plaintiffs contend Florida law allows foreclosure or charging order for sole member | Defendants argue Nevis law governs and may restrict remedies | Count 2 survives; Florida LLC Act remedies apply; Blaker’s Florida-location permits foreclosure or charging order. |
| Whether FUFTA claims for actual and constructive fraud are sufficiently pled | Plaintiffs allege multiple badges of fraud supporting actual and constructive fraud | Defendants argue alleged omissions/unconscionability undermine plausibility | Counts 3 and 4 survive; allegations show badges of fraud and totality supports prima facie claims. |
| Whether collateral estoppel bars FUFTA claims due to prior TRO/injunction order | Plaintiffs contend prior TRO decision does not preclude fraud claims | Defendants argue prior order precludes merits | Counts 3 and 4 not barred; TRO order has no preclusive effect. |
Key Cases Cited
- Twombly v. Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must show plausible claim, not mere conclusory statements)
- Klay v. United Healthgroup, Inc., 376 F.3d 1092 (11th Cir.2004) (claims must be plausible beyond conclusory assertions)
- David Vincent, Inc. v. Broward Cnty., 200 F.3d 1325 (11th Cir.2000) (preliminary injunctions lack preclusive effect on merits)
- Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487 (U.S. 1941) (forum-state choice-of-law rules apply after true conflict analysis)
- Sargeant v. Al-Saleh, 137 So.3d 432 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2014) (conflict-of-laws issues in in rem/locational contexts)