United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division
GLEN C. WATSON, III, Trustee, Plaintiff,
Diana L. Day Cartee, et al., Defendants.
H. SHARP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
case, now on its third judge, has, as Magistrate Judge Brown
aptly characterized it, “a long and tortured
history.” Pending before the Court is a Report and
Recommendation (“R & R”) (Docket No. 125) and
several Motions, the resolution of which should finally put
the matter to rest.
R&R, Magistrate Judge Brown recommends that Henry Preston
Ingram, the present title holder, be authorized to sell the
property located at 514 Park Center Drive, Nashville,
Tennessee 37205. No formal objection have been filed in
relation to the R & R. However, Alan Cartee, in
conjunction with a Motion for Extension of Time that was
granted, generally objected to the recommended disposition.
This is wholly insufficient under both the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and this Court's Local Rules.
provides that “a party may serve and file specific
written objections to the proposed findings and
recommendations, ” and requires the court to consider
de novo only those “parts of the magistrate
judge's disposition that has been properly objected
to.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 (b). This Court's Local Rules
require that objections “state with particularity the
specific portion of the Magistrate Judge's report or
proposed findings or recommendation to which an objection is
made and shall be accompanied by sufficient documentation
including, but not limited to, briefs, affidavits, pertinent
exhibits, and if necessary, transcript of the record to
apprise the District Judge of the basis for the
objection.” L.R. 72.03(b).
this Court has considered the matter de novo and
agrees with the recommended disposition. As Magistrate Judge
The only opposition to the motion for authorization to sell
was filed by the Cartees on August 16, 2016, through their
attorneys (Docket Entry 108). In their objections they argue
that they have filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the
Supreme Court and the Court should not act until the Supreme
Court has acted on their writ. The Cartees did not request a
stay from the District Court, nor did they post any type of
bond, which would normally accompany a request to stay the
sale in a case of this nature. They also argue that the
minimum sale price of $2, 500, 000 is commercially
unreasonable. They do not point to anyone that has made a
higher offer, and given their efforts to tie up the
proceedings for many years, it is unlikely that a higher
price could be obtained. To the extent the Cartees believe
that the price is too low, it is a problem of their own
(Docket No. 125 at 3). The same holds true today, except
that, on December 9, 2016, the Supreme Court has denied the
Cartees' petition for a writ of certiorari. (Docket No.
129). Accordingly, the R & R will be accepted and
approved, and the Second Motion for Order of Sale (Docket No.
105) will be granted.
the denial of the writ of certiorari, counsel for the Cartees
filed a Motion to Withdraw (Docket No. 128). That Motion does
not meet the requirements of Local Rule 83.01, which requires
that counsel give his client “due notice” of his
intent to withdraw. Nevertheless, counsel claims - and the
Cartees have not disputed - that with the denial of the
cert petition, the attorneys “have completed
their representation of the [Cartees] in this matter.”
(Id. at 1). In fact, after the Motion to Withdraw
was filed, Mr. Cartee requested fourteen days to secure new
counsel. (Docket No. 131). While he later filed a request for
oral arguments on all pending motions, “including
withdrawal of my attorneys, ” (Docket No. 132 at 1),
neither in that motion nor elsewhere does he claim that his
agreement with counsel extended beyond the filing of the
petition for writ of certiorari. The Motion to Withdraw will
denial of the petition for certiorari also serves as the
basis for Mr. Ingram's Motion for Disbursement of Sale
Proceeds. (Docket No. 130). The original Sale Order allowed
the sale of the property, but also required the proceeds be
held by the closing agent, pending further order of this
Court. This was because, as the Motion points out, the
Cartees had appealed. However, with the appeal process now
over and final, there is no factual or legal basis for
denying Mr. Ingram the sale proceeds.
Mr. Cartee has filed a Motion for Oral Arguments (Docket No.
132) on all pending motions. Generally, motions are
“decided by the court without oral hearings, ”
but may be granted where “particularly desirable on a
given motion” and where reasons are provided that
“justify a hearing.” L.R. 78.01. No such reason
have been provided in this case, the facts and the law are
clear, and the outcome is foreordained. As such, the Motion
for Oral Arguments will be denied.
the Court rules as follows:
R&R (Docket No 125) is hereby ACCEPTED and APPROVED;
Second Motion for Order of Sale ...