Thacker v. Venn (In re Thacker)

Eleventh Circuit

Thacker v. Venn (In re Thacker)

674 F. App'x 973

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedJanuary 30, 2017

DocketNo. 16-12079

StatusPublished

This text of 674 F. App'x 973 (Thacker v. Venn (In re Thacker)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Thacker v. Venn (In re Thacker), 674 F. App'x 973 (11th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellants Larry and Carlotta Thacker appeal the district court’s affirmance of the bankruptcy court’s grant of summary judgment for the appellee, bankruptcy trustee John Venn Jr., based on collateral estoppel. After careful review of the record and the parties’ briefs, and with the benefit of oral argument, we find no merit to Thacker’s claims and affirm.

We review a bankruptcy court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. In re Optical Techs., Inc., 246 F.3d 1332, 1335 (11th Cir. 2001). This litigation originated over seven years ago, in 2009. Since then, Thacker has argued several times that his transfers of property into a trust were not fraudulent'. But several courts have found otherwise and have affirmed the Florida state court’s findings of multiple badges of fraud stemming from Thacker’s transfers.

The bankruptcy court properly gave collateral estoppel effect to the Florida state court judgment that found Thacker’s transfers of property to be fraudulent. In summarizing it’s decision to affirm the application of collateral estoppel, the district court recalled that “[t]he state court avoided [ JThacker’s fraudulent transfers ... [and that] ruling was correct. Even more clearly, [that] ruling was and is binding.” Thacker v. Venn, No. 5:15-cv-62-RH/GRJ, — B.R. —, at *4, 2016 WL 1271485 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 31, 2016). After de novo review, we agree with the thorough and well-reasoned decision of the courts below.

AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM:

Appellants Larry and Carlotta Thacker appeal the district court’s affirmance of the bankruptcy court’s grant of summary judgment for the appellee, bankruptcy trustee John Venn Jr., based on collateral estoppel. After careful review of the record and the parties’ briefs, and with the benefit of oral argument, we find no merit to Thacker’s claims and affirm.

We review a bankruptcy court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. In re Optical Techs., Inc., 246 F.3d 1332, 1335 (11th Cir. 2001). This litigation originated over seven years ago, in 2009. Since then, Thacker has argued several times that his transfers of property into a trust were not fraudulent'. But several courts have found otherwise and have affirmed the Florida state court’s findings of multiple badges of fraud stemming from Thacker’s transfers.

The bankruptcy court properly gave collateral estoppel effect to the Florida state court judgment that found Thacker’s transfers of property to be fraudulent. In summarizing it’s decision to affirm the application of collateral estoppel, the district court recalled that “[t]he state court avoided [ JThacker’s fraudulent transfers ... [and that] ruling was correct. Even more clearly, [that] ruling was and is binding.” Thacker v. Venn, No. 5:15-cv-62-RH/GRJ, — B.R. —, at *4, 2016 WL 1271485 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 31, 2016). After de novo review, we agree with the thorough and well-reasoned decision of the courts below.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

674 F. App'x 973, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thacker-v-venn-in-re-thacker-ca11-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack