Keith Stansell, et al. v. Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), et al.

CourtDistrict Court, M.D. Florida
DecidedMarch 27, 2026
Docket8:09-cv-02308
StatusUnknown

This text of Keith Stansell, et al. v. Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), et al. (Keith Stansell, et al. v. Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Keith Stansell, et al. v. Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), et al., (M.D. Fla. 2026).

Opinion

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

KEITH STANSELL, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No: 8:09-cv-2308-CEH-AAS

REVOLUTIONARY ARMED FORCES OF COLOMBIA (FARC), et al.,

Defendants. ___________________________________/

FINAL TRIA TURNOVER JUDGMENT This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for TRIA Turnover Judgment (Doc. 1333) on The Parker Company LLC’s Answer (Doc. 1269) and on First Horizon Bank’s Answer (Doc. 1284) on the Office of Foreign Asset Controls (“OFAC”) blocked assets of Westline Enterprises, Inc. (“Westline”). Plaintiffs’ motion is brought pursuant to: (i) Section 201(a) of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (“TRIA”); (ii) Kingpin Act, 21 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq; (iii) ATA Clar. Act 18 U.S.C. §2333(e); (iv) Ch. 77 Fla. Garnishment statutes; (v) Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 69(a); (vi) Fla. Stat. § 772.13(6)(a) (2025); and (vii) Stansell v. FARC, 771 F.3d 713, 736 (11th Cir. 2014). The proceedings are in a default posture as to Westline, as Westline failed to appear and file a motion to dissolve the garnishment within the statutory deadlines, despite having received notice. Garnishees do not object to this turnover motion. ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Turnover Motion is GRANTED. The Court enters this Order and Final Turnover Judgment in favor of Plaintiffs directing the turnover of the blocked assets. Based on the record regarding the blocked assets, the Court finds and rules as follows: (1) This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Anti-Terrorism Act

(“ATA”), 18 U.S.C. § 2333, TRIA § 201, Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 69(a), Florida Statutes Chapter 77 and § 772.13(6)(a)(2);(3). (2) Plaintiffs have satisfied the requirements of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 for execution because: a. they have obtained an ATA judgment against the FARC (“Revolutionary

Armed Forces of Colombia”), a terrorist party, as defined by the TRIA § 201(d)(4); b. the judgment is based on an act of terrorism, as defined by TRIA § 201(d)(1)(B); c. the blocked assets held by Garnishees The Parker Company LLC and First

Horizon Bank are “blocked assets” within the meaning of TRIA; and d. Plaintiffs’ judgment is for compensatory damages fully collectable under TRIA and the total amount of Plaintiffs’ execution will not exceed the outstanding balance of Plaintiffs’ judgment. (3) The Court finds that the assets identified in The Parker Company LLC’s

Answer (Doc. 1269) and First Horizon Bank’s Answer (Doc. 1284) are OFAC Enterprises, Inc. remains an OFAC designated Kingpin. The blocked assets at issue are not immune from attachment under the TRIA as sovereign, diplomatic, or consular property. (4) The Court has determined based upon the evidence, OFAC factual findings, and agency or instrumentality standard affirmed in Stansell v. FARC, 771 F. 3d

713 (11th Cir. 2014) that Westline Enterprises, Inc. is an agency or instrumentality of the terrorist party FARC and that its blocked assets are within the meaning of “blocked assets” under TRIA and the ATA Clarification Act of 2018, 18 U.S.C. § 2333(e), and are therefore subject to execution by Plaintiffs in this case.

(5) No OFAC license is required for the party holding the blocked assets to turnover the blocked assets to Plaintiffs. See Harrison v. Republic of Sudan, 838 F.3d. 86, 98 (2d Cir. 2016). (6) Garnishees have appeared and are subject to the court’s jurisdiction. (7) Plaintiffs have followed the elements required for a TRIA attachment and

execution without delay. See Stansell v. FARC et al., 771 F.3d 713, 728–29, 746 (11th Cir. 2014). (8) Rule 69(a)(1) requires this Court to follow Florida state law procedures on execution, including statutory garnishment. The blocked accounts are subject to TRIA attachment and execution under Fla. Stat § 772.13(6)(a)(2) (intangible

assets like out of state held accounts subject to garnishment without territorial intangible assets held or maintained by or in the possession, custody, or control of a person or entity so served shall be deemed to be in this state for the purposes of a proceeding under chapter 56 or chapter 77. Fla. Stat § 772.13(6). Service of a writ or notice to appear under this section shall provide the court with in rem jurisdiction over any intangible assets regardless of the location of the assets. Id.

Fla. Stat. § 772.13(6) expressly applies retroactively to “any postjudgment execution proceedings, including creditor process under chapter 56 or chapter 77 served, pending, or filed before, on, or after July 1, 2025.” (9) Florida garnishment law applies to this TRIA execution action. Stansell, 771 F.3d at 733. Florida’s postjudgment procedures in TRIA executions are

constitutional and satisfy due process for timely and adequate notice as applied to Westline Enterprises, Inc. Id. at 728-29. No further notice is required to any potential claimant or the owner. Stansell v. Lopez Bello, 802 F. Appx. 445, 449, 2020 WL 290423, at *3 (11th Cir. 2020). (10) Plaintiffs have followed and fully complied with Chapter 77, Florida’s

garnishment statute, for this TRIA execution by: a. filing a motion for issuance of a writ of garnishment on May 2, 2025 (Doc. 1240). b. the Court granted the motion (Doc. 1243) on June 26, 2025. c. the Court issued a writ of garnishment (Doc. 1252) on June 27, 2025. The Parker Company LLC and First Horizon Bank on July 14, 2025 (Docs. 1259, 1265). e. Plaintiffs provided proper and timely notice under Fla. Stat. § 77.041 to Westline Enterprises, Inc. of the writ of garnishment and the motion for writ of garnishment with exhibits to its last known address (Doc. 1293-1).

Plaintiffs provided § 77.055 notice of the garnishees’ answers and right to dissolve to Westline Enterprises, Inc. at its last known address (Docs. 1294, 1295). (11) Westline Enterprises, Inc. has not appeared and has not filed a motion to dissolve the garnishment or otherwise challenge the garnishment. The Court

finds that Westline Enterprises, Inc. has been afforded the required statutory notice, which has been proven to be constitutionally adequate due process. Westline Enterprises, Inc.’s failure to file a motion to dissolve within the statutory deadlines set forth in the Florida garnishment statute makes these proceedings, as a matter of law, in a default posture as to Westline Enterprises.

(12) Garnishee The Parker Company LLC timely filed its Answer to the writ of garnishment on July 21, 2025, identifying its debt to Westline Enterprises, Inc. and the blocked funds of Westline Enterprises, Inc. at First Horizon Bank (Doc. 1269). (13) Garnishee First Horizon Bank timely filed its Answer to the writ of

garnishment on July 29, 2025, identifying funds held by The Parker Company 1284). (14) The blocked party Westline Enterprises, Inc., the owner of the blocked funds identified in Answer (Docs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Weingarten
713 F.3d 704 (Second Circuit, 2013)
Harrison v. Republic of Sudan
838 F.3d 86 (Second Circuit, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Keith Stansell, et al. v. Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keith-stansell-et-al-v-revolutionary-armed-forces-of-colombia-farc-et-flmd-2026.