Filed: Jul. 03, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: 17-3209 Pangea Capital Management, LLC v. Lakian UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT _ August Term, 2018 (Argued: September 18, 2018 Questions Certified: September 26, 2018 Decided July 3, 2019) Docket No. 17-3209 _ PANGEA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, Petitioner-Appellant, – v. – JOHN R. LAKIAN, Respondent-Appellee, ANDREA LAKIAN, Intervenor-Appellee. _ B e f o r e: KATZMANN, Chief Judge, CHIN and LOHIER, Circuit Judges. _ Appeal from an order of the United States District Court
Summary: 17-3209 Pangea Capital Management, LLC v. Lakian UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT _ August Term, 2018 (Argued: September 18, 2018 Questions Certified: September 26, 2018 Decided July 3, 2019) Docket No. 17-3209 _ PANGEA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, Petitioner-Appellant, – v. – JOHN R. LAKIAN, Respondent-Appellee, ANDREA LAKIAN, Intervenor-Appellee. _ B e f o r e: KATZMANN, Chief Judge, CHIN and LOHIER, Circuit Judges. _ Appeal from an order of the United States District Court f..
More
17‐3209
Pangea Capital Management, LLC v. Lakian
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
_______________
August Term, 2018
(Argued: September 18, 2018 Questions Certified: September 26, 2018
Decided July 3, 2019)
Docket No. 17‐3209
_______________
PANGEA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC,
Petitioner‐Appellant,
– v. –
JOHN R. LAKIAN,
Respondent‐Appellee,
ANDREA LAKIAN,
Intervenor‐Appellee.
_______________
B e f o r e:
KATZMANN, Chief Judge, CHIN and LOHIER, Circuit Judges.
______________
Appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York (Kaplan, J.) granting in part and denying in part petitioner‐
appellant Pangea Capital Management, LLC’s motion for a writ of execution
upon the proceeds from the sale of a property previously owned by appellees
Andrea and John Lakian. Pangea, a judgment creditor of John Lakian, contends
that the district court erred in declining to award it the entirety of the proceeds,
arguing that its interest in the property took priority over the interest awarded to
Andrea in a divorce judgment. We certified the question to the New York Court
of Appeals, which held that Andrea’s interest vested upon entry of the divorce
judgment and did not render Andrea a judgment creditor of John. The judgment
of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.
_______________
CAITLIN L. BRONNER (Dean G. Yuzek, on the brief), Ingram Yuzek
Gainen Carroll & Bertolotti, LLP, New York, NY, for Petitioner‐
Appellant.
John R. Lakian, pro se.
JUDITH R. RICHMAN (Joel Berger, on the brief), Sonnenfeld & Richman
LLP, New York, NY, for Intervenor‐Appellee.
_______________
PER CURIAM:
As explained more fully in our prior opinion, see Pangea Capital Mgmt., LLC
v. Lakian,
906 F.3d 1 (2d Cir. 2018) (“Pangea I”), familiarity with which is here
presumed, this dispute is about the competing interests of intervenor‐appellee
Andrea Lakian (“Andrea”) and petitioner‐appellant Pangea Capital
Management, LLC (“Pangea”) in the proceeds of the sale of a house in Suffolk
County, New York. Title to that property had been held by a trust that listed
2
Andrea and her husband John Lakian (“John”) as beneficiaries, each holding 50%
interests. When Andrea and John divorced, they stipulated that the property
would be sold, that Andrea would receive $75,000 and 62.5% of the net proceeds,
and that John would receive the balance. That stipulation was incorporated into a
divorce judgment entered by the New York Supreme Court. Soon thereafter
Pangea won an arbitration award against John, which was confirmed and
reduced to a judgment. Pangea docketed that judgment in Suffolk County.
Under N.Y.C.P.L.R. 5203, when two or more judgment creditors attempt to
satisfy their judgments against a debtor’s real property, priority goes to the first
creditor to docket a judgment in the county where the property is located,
regardless of which judgment was entered first. Pangea contends that Andrea’s
divorce judgment rendered her a judgment creditor and that her claim to the
property is subordinate to Pangea’s because Pangea docketed its judgment first.
Andrea argues that her share of the trust corpus—62.5% plus $75,000—was fixed
and vested upon entry of the divorce judgment, so she is not a judgment creditor
of John and Pangea can collect only from John’s share of the sale proceeds.
The district court (Kaplan, J.) held that Andrea’s interest in the property
vested upon entry of the judgment of divorce and that Pangea could execute only
3
upon the share of the proceeds awarded to John in the divorce judgment, i.e.,
37.5% less $75,000. Because this appeal turned on a significant and unresolved
issue of New York state law, as relevant here, we certified the following question
to the New York Court of Appeals:
If an entered divorce judgment grants a spouse an
interest in real property pursuant to D.R.L. Section 236,
and the spouse does not docket the divorce judgment in
the county where the property is located, is the spouse’s
interest subject to attachment by a subsequent judgment
creditor that has docketed its judgment and seeks to
execute against the property?
Pangea
I, 906 F.3d at 11. The New York Court of Appeals accepted the certified
question, Pangea Capital Mgmt., LLC v. Lakian,
32 N.Y.3d 1050 (2018), and now has
answered in the negative, Pangea Capital Mgmt., LLC v. Lakian, No. 53,
2019 WL
2583109, at *1 (N.Y. June 25, 2019).
In short, the New York Court of Appeals held that “legal rights to specific
marital property vest upon the judgment of divorce” and “the dissolution of a
marriage involving the division of marital assets does not render one ex‐spouse
the creditor of another.”
Id. at *2. Instead, “the judgment of divorce was, as the
Federal District Court explained, ‘a final settling of accounts’ between marital
partners with an equitable interest in all marital property.”
Id. at *4 (citing Pangea
4
Capital Mgmt., LLC v. Lakian, 16‐cv‐0840,
2017 WL 4081911, at *23 (S.D.N.Y. Sept.
13, 2017)). “Thus, C.P.L.R. 5203(a), by its plain terms, has no application here,
and Pangea can claim no priority.”
Id. at *3. This holding is binding on us and
dispositive of this case.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
5