RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, United States District Judge.
The United States of America (the "Government") filed this civil action against
From approximately 1992 until September 2011, Nancy Preston was the Corporate Controller for Clyde's Restaurant Group ("Clyde's"). See Statement of the Offense at 1, United States v. Preston, No. 12-cr-00189 (RC) (D.D.C. Sept. 26, 2012) ("Crim."), ECF No. 6. In 2012, Ms. Preston was convicted of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1841 in this Court, and, as part of her sentence, this Court ordered Ms. Preston to pay restitution in the amount of $239,069 and a fine of $62,000 to the United States. See Judgment, Crim. ECF No. 25. Prior to her conviction and entry of the money judgment, Ms. Preston transferred her interest in real property that was jointly owned by herself and her husband, as well as certain cash and securities that she held, to Mr. Preston. The Government filed this civil action against Mr. and Ms. Preston seeking to avoid those transfers as fraudulent. During this litigation, the transferred cash and securities were also the subject of an ancillary forfeiture proceeding in Ms. Preston's criminal case, which this Court resolved in favor of the Government. See Order, Crim. ECF No. 74; Order, Crim ECF No. 77.
Now before the Court are cross-motions for summary judgment filed by the Government and Mr. Preston. See Def.'s Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 46; Pl.'s Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 47. Ms. Preston, proceeding pro se in this case, has not moved for summary judgment and has not filed any response to the present cross-motions for summary judgment. For the reasons explained below, the Court will deny both parties' motions.
Upon consideration of the evidentiary record submitted by the parties, the Court finds that the following relevant facts have been established or are not in dispute, except where noted as a party's claim or a disputed fact.
In August 1984, Mr. Preston purchased real property located at 295 Windover Avenue N.W., Vienna, Virginia 22180 (the "Windover Property"). See Def.'s Stmt. Undisputed Material Facts ("Def.'s SOF") ¶ 14, Def.'s Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 46-1.
Mr. and Ms. Preston married over 20 years later, on December 30, 2004. See Pl.'s Stmt. Material Facts Not in Genuine Dispute ("Pl.'s SOF") ¶ 2, ECF No. 47-2. Nearly four years later, on November 25, 2008, Mr. Preston executed a Deed of Gift conveying the Windover Property to Ms. Preston and himself as tenants by the entirety. See Def.'s Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 13 (the "2008 Deed of Gift"), ECF No. 46-14. The text of the 2008 Deed of Gift states that the property was conveyed "without consideration" and, near the top of the document, it states that consideration is "None." Id. It also states that the conveyance is "Exempt from Recordation Tax under § 58.1-811.D of the Code of Virginia," which concerns deeds of gift without consideration. Id. It also states that the property's assessment was $789,270.00. Id. The parties sharply dispute the terms and circumstances of this conveyance.
Mr. Preston's Feb. 2015 Aff. ¶ 19. He further states that he conveyed his interest to himself and Ms. Preston "with the understanding that she would pay me for that interest in accordance with our agreement." Id. ¶ 20. Similarly, Ms. Preston states:
Ms. Preston's Feb. 2015 Aff. ¶ 18. The Prestons claim that they kept (and still keep) their finances separate, although they had planned to combine them. See Mr. Preston's Feb. 2015 Aff. ¶ 19; Ms. Preston's Feb. 2015 Aff. ¶ 18. Neither Mr. Preston nor Ms. Preston claim that they had agreed upon any specific amount that Ms. Preston would pay or any consequences in the event that Ms. Preston did not or could not pay. They do not provide the Court with any contemporaneous evidence of their agreement or statements from any third party witnesses with knowledge of the agreement. They also do not provide any explanation as to why the deed was recorded as a deed of gift or why it consistently refers to the conveyance as being without consideration.
The Government disputes the Prestons' factual claim, largely relying on the 2008 Deed of Gift's statement that there was no consideration for the conveyance. See Pl.'s Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. at 18-19, ECF No. 47-1. The Government also points to the deposition testimony of Victoria Griffith, a former co-worker of Ms. Preston who was terminated in connection with Clyde's investigation into Ms. Preston's criminal conduct. See Victoria Griffith Dep. Tr. (Jan. 23, 2015) at 13:6-18, Pl.'s Mot. Summ. J. Ex. E ("Griffith Dep."), ECF No. 48-5.
On January 9, 2012, Ms. Preston confessed to agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") that she had embezzled more than $600,000 from Clyde's, and this interview began a process that led to Ms. Preston retaining a criminal defense attorney to represent her, meeting with the U.S. Attorney's Office, and ultimately pleading guilty to mail fraud. See Stip. Regarding Testimony SA Mark Stanley, Def.'s Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 14, ECF No. 46-15.
Eleven days later, on January 20, 2012, Ms. Preston made two cash transfers from an account she held at Merrill Lynch, one transfer of $6,000 and another transfer of $5,500 (the "Cash"), to a Merrill Lynch account held by Mr. Preston. See Def.'s SOF ¶ 3. Three days after that, on January 23, 2012, Ms. Preston transferred certain securities valued at $190,529.27 (the "Securities") from her same Merrill Lynch account to a different Merrill Lynch account held by Mr. Preston. See id. ¶ 4.
Ms. Preston claims that she made these transfers because two Merrill Lynch representatives told her that she "would no longer be able to maintain accounts at Merrill Lynch" and claims that she had no "intent to hinder, delay or defraud the Government." Ms. Preston's Feb. 2015 Aff. ¶¶ 4-5. Mr. Preston supports her claim. See Mr. Preston's Feb. 2015 Aff. ¶ 5. The Prestons also claim that, in making the transfers to Mr. Preston, Ms. Preston "instructed [Mr. Preston] to use the transferred funds to satisfy her personal financial obligations, including her restitution obligations to the Government arising from her plea agreement." Id. ¶ 9. See also Ms. Preston's Feb. 2015 Aff. ¶ 8. The Government challenges these claims, providing a sworn declaration by an in-house counsel to Merrill Lynch stating that "[a]t no time did Merrill Lynch ask Mrs. Preston to close" her account and that Merrill Lynch continued to maintain Ms. Preston's account for over two-and-a-half years until it was "purged from the Merrill Lynch system following thirteen months of inactivity" on August 30, 2014. Decl. Greg Rose ¶ 1, Pl.'s Mem. Opp. Def.'s Mot. Summ. J. Ex. B ("Rose Decl."), ECF No. 51-4. Neither party provides any testimony from the Merrill Lynch representatives
On February 7, 2012, the Securities, along with other securities held in Mr. Preston's account, were transferred to a separate Merrill Lynch account held by the James W. Preston Trust (the "Trust"). See Def.'s SOF ¶ 4; Decl. Mary McAllister, Pl.'s Mot. Summ. J. Ex. A ("McAllister Decl.") at 22-28, ECF No. 48-1. The Prestons do not provide any explanation for this transfer.
On April 4, 2012, Mr. and Ms. Preston executed a Deed of Gift conveying their joint interest in the Windover Property to Mr. Preston "for his sole and equitable estate," removing Ms. Preston's name from the title. See Deed of Gift dated April 4, 2012 ("2012 Deed of Gift"), Pl.'s Mot. Summ. J. Ex. F ("Title Report") at 6-8, ECF No. 48-6. The text of the 2012 Deed of Gift states that the property was conveyed "in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00)," but, near the top of the document, it states that consideration is "None." Id. at 6-7. It states that the Windover Property's assessment was $934,370.00. See id. at 6. It also states that the conveyance is exempt from Virginia's recordation tax "as a transfer pursuant to a written incident to a divorce," id., but the Prestons have stated that this "appears to be a typo or mistake by the closing agent." Answer of James Preston at 2 ¶ 8, ECF No. 24; Answer of Nancy Preston at 2 ¶ 8, ECF No. 25. The Prestons remained married, and Ms. Preston continued to reside at the Windover Property. See Nancy Preston Dep. Tr. (Jan. 10, 2013) at 6:4-10, Pl.'s Mot. Summ. J. Ex. I ("Nancy Preston Dep."), ECF No. 48-9.
The Prestons claim that Ms. Preston transferred her interest in the Windover Property back to Mr. Preston because she did not fulfill her part of the original agreement in 2008 to pay Mr. Preston for her interest.
As support for the claim that they kept their finances separate, the Prestons claim that, during the time that she held joint title and after the transfer in April 2012, Ms. Preston never made any payments to the mortgage on the Windover Property or made any capital improvements to the property and instead paid Mr. Preston $2,500 per month for various "household expenses including food, clothing, utilities, gasoline, personal property taxes, and travel expenses." Mr. Preston's Feb. 2015 Aff. ¶¶ 23-25; Ms. Preston's Feb. 2015 Aff. ¶¶ 23-24. See also Ms. Preston's 2013 Decl. ¶ 9. In support, Mr. Preston provides copies of checks for $2,500 each for each month from April 2011 through November 2012 (except February 2012) signed by Ms. Preston made to and endorsed by Mr. Preston. See Def.'s Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 16, ECF No. 46-17.
The Government challenges the Prestons' explanation for the transfer, pointing towards the language of the 2008 Deed of Gift, which states that there was no consideration, and the language of the 2012 Deed of Gift, which references only nominal, if any, consideration. The Government also challenges the Prestons' claims regarding the separation of their finances, providing evidence that many of Ms. Preston's bank accounts, including the Bank of America account she used to pay Mr. Preston each month, were joint accounts in both of their names. See Decl. Charles Ross, Pl.'s Mem. Opp. Ex. A ("Ross Decl."), ECF No. 51-3. The Government also argues that the timing between the monthly payments from Ms. Preston to Mr. Preston and Mr. Preston's monthly payment of the mortgage suggests that Ms. Preston's checks could have been intended for the mortgage payments. See Pl.'s Mem. Supp. at 7; Pl.'s Opp. at 16-17.
On August 29, 2012, the Government filed a Criminal Information against Ms. Preston in this Court, and on September 26, 2012, Ms. Preston pleaded guilty to mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341. See Information, Crim. ECF No. 1; Crim. Minute Entry (Sept. 26, 2012). On September 26, 2012, the Court entered a Consent Order of Forfeiture forfeiting $389,069 to the United States in the form of a money judgment. See Consent Order of Forfeiture, Crim. ECF No. 9.
In November 2012, securities held by the Trust were liquidated and, from the proceeds of the liquidation, $150,000 was paid from the Trust Account and ultimately to the Government in a pre-judgment partial payment of Ms. Preston's restitution obligation. See Def.'s SOF ¶ 5; Pl.'s Response Def.'s SOF ¶ 5; Am. Compl. ¶ 12, ECF No. 23. On December 3, 2012, the Government filed a consent motion seeking to reduce the forfeiture money judgment amount by $150,000 to account for "a partial payment to the victim as compensation for its loss." Consent Motion for Final Order of Forfeiture, Crim. ECF No. 17. On December 12, 2012, the Court granted the consent motion, entering
On February 28, 2013, the Government commenced the present action under the FDCPA, which seeks to avoid the transfers of the Cash, Securities, and the Windover Property as fraudulent. During the litigation of this case, the Government also sought and obtained an amendment to the Order of Forfeiture in the criminal case against Ms. Preston which included the Cash and the Securities as substitute property subject to forfeiture pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(p).
The Government's Amended Complaint in this action seeks, with respect to the Windover Property, an order either avoiding the transfer of Ms. Preston's interest in the Windover Property in 2012 and restoring title to the property as it was held prior to April 2012 or directing Mr. Preston to "execute a deed sufficient to restore the joint tenancy of both Defendants in the Windover Property" pursuant to the FDCPA. Am. Compl. at 5 ¶ 2. The Government also seeks a surcharge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 3011.
As a preliminary matter, however, the Court addresses the Government's requests for relief as to the Cash and the Securities. The Government's Amended Complaint seeks, pursuant to the FDCPA, an order either avoiding "the transfer of Nancy Preston's interest" in her Merrill Lynch account and restoring title to the account as it was prior to January 2012 or directing Mr. Preston to execute a transfer from the Trust Account "sufficient to restore commensurate value" to Ms. Preston's Merrill Lynch account prior to the January 2012 transfers of the Cash and the Securities. Am. Compl. at 5 ¶ 4. As a result of the Court's order dismissing Mr. Preston's and Laura Preston's petitions in the criminal case's ancillary proceeding, however, the Government now has "clear title" to the Cash and the Securities. 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(7). Therefore, the Government's requests for relief with respect to the Cash and the Securities are moot and the Court considers only the Government's claim as it concerns the Windover Property.
A court must grant summary judgment if "the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A "material" fact is one capable of affecting the substantive outcome of the litigation. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). A dispute is "genuine" if there is enough evidence for a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the non-movant. See Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007). The inquiry under Rule 56 is essentially "whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251-52, 106 S.Ct. 2505.
The principal purpose of summary judgment is to streamline litigation by disposing of factually unsupported claims or defenses and determining whether there is a genuine need for trial. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). The movant bears the initial burden of identifying portions of the record that demonstrate the absence of any genuine issue of material fact. See id. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548. In response, the non-movant must point to specific facts in the record that reveal a genuine issue that is suitable for trial. See id. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548. In considering a motion for summary judgment, a court must "eschew making credibility determinations or weighing the evidence," Czekalski v. Peters, 475 F.3d 360, 363 (D.C.Cir. 2007), and all underlying facts and inferences must be analyzed in the light most favorable to the non-movant. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505. Nevertheless, conclusory assertions offered without any evidentiary support do not establish a genuine issue for trial. See Greene v. Dalton, 164 F.3d 671, 675 (D.C.Cir.1999).
Section 3304(b)(1)(A) of the FDCPA provides, in relevant part, that a transfer made by a debtor is fraudulent as to a debt to the United States if the debtor makes the transfer "with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud a creditor." 28 U.S.C. § 3304(b)(1)(A). It is undisputed that Ms. Preston is a debtor to the United States and that she transferred her interest in the Windover Property in April 2012. For purposes of summary judgment, therefore, the Court must determine whether there is a dispute of material fact as to whether Ms. Preston had "actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud" the United States or another of her creditors in making that transfer.
The statute provides a non-exhaustive list of factors that the Court may consider in determining whether Ms. Preston had actual intent, including whether: the transfer was to an "insider"; the debtor retained possession or control of the property after the transfer; the debtor had been threatened with suit prior to the transfer; the transfer occurred shortly before or shortly after a substantial debt was incurred; the transfer was of substantially all of the debtor's assets; and the value of the consideration received by the debtor was reasonably equivalent to the value of the property transferred. See 28 U.S.C. § 3304(b)(2).
The Government argues that the circumstances of Ms. Preston's transfer of her interest in the Windover Property satisfy most of the key factors, pointing to the facts and circumstances of United States v. Sherrill, 626 F.Supp.2d 1267 (M.D.Ga. 2009), a case involving a debtor who transferred his interest in various real estate he jointly owned with his wife to his wife while he was under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission, as "strikingly similar." Pl.'s Mem. Opp. at 9-15. See also Pl.'s Mem. Supp. at 15-21. Mr. Preston does not specifically address the statutory factors in his motion and in his opposition to the Government's motion. Instead, he largely focuses on the Prestons' explanations for the 2008 and 2012 transfers, which are relevant to multiple factors. The Court addresses each of the relevant factors in order to determine whether there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Ms. Preston had actual intent.
Ms. Preston's transfer of the Windover Property was undisputedly to an insider. The statute defines "insider" to include a relative of the debtor and defines a spouse to be a relative. See 28 U.S.C. § 3301(5)(A)(i); id. § 3301(5).
Mr. Preston does not contest that Ms. Preston maintained her possession of the Windover Property after the transfer in 2012 by continuing to live there. With respect to control of a property, courts have considered whether the debtor contributed towards the mortgage payments on the property. See, e.g., Sherrill, 626 F.Supp.2d at 1273 (concluding that the debtor "retained a sufficient degree of possession and control" of the real properties because he continued to contribute towards the mortgage payments on the
At the time that Ms. Preston transferred her interest in the Windover Property, the Government had not yet formally brought any legal action against her concerning her embezzlement from Clyde's. It is undisputed, however, that she had confessed to the FBI that she had embezzled more than $600,000 from her employer three months before the transfer and that she retained a criminal defense attorney following her confession. See Stip. Regarding Testimony SA Mark Stanley. Ms. Preston was clearly aware of a "threat of suit" at the time of the transfer. See Sherrill, 626 F.Supp.2d at 1273 (finding that the debtor was aware of a threat of suit in part because he "knew he was being investigated by the SEC"). The threat of suit against Ms. Preston was realized shortly after she transferred her interest in the Windover Property when the Government filed a Criminal Information against her in August 2012. See Information, Crim. ECF No. 1. Less than six months after the transfer, this Court entered a Consent Order of Forfeiture forfeiting $389,069 to the United States in the form of a money judgment. See Consent Order of Forfeiture, Crim. ECF No. 9.
Unlike the debtor in Sherrill, however, Ms. Preston's own factual account indicates that the proximity in timing was not coincidental. She claims that she transferred her interest because it became clear that, as a result of her impending criminal charges and restitution obligations, she would be unable to pay Mr. Preston for her interest in the Windover Property. See Ms. Preston's Feb. 2015 Aff. ¶ 21. As discussed, infra, with respect to consideration, there is a genuine dispute as to whether the reason for transferring her interest concerned the Prestons' purported agreement in 2008. Of course, even assuming the veracity of Ms. Preston's explanation, there remains an open question as to why she felt it was necessary to transfer title when she realized that she would be unable to pay Mr. Preston, as she had not paid him in the three years prior and does not claim that, under their agreement, she was obligated to pay him within a certain time frame or return the title to him in the event that she could not pay. Nevertheless, the weight to be afforded to this factor largely depends on a genuine dispute and is therefore of little use at summary judgment.
The Government asserts that Ms. Preston's transfers of the Windover Property, the Cash, and the Securities constituted substantially all of her assets but does not articulate whether Ms. Preston's transfer of the Windover Property by itself constituted substantially all of her assets. See
Whether the consideration that Ms. Preston received for her transfer of title in 2012 was reasonably equivalent to the value of the interest she transferred is the most important factor in the Court's analysis of whether Ms. Preston had actual intent, because the resolution of this issue turns on the viability of the Prestons' entire explanation for the transfer.
As discussed, the Prestons claim that, in exchange for Mr. Preston's conveyance of the Windover Property to himself and Ms. Preston as tenants by the entirety in November 2008, Ms. Preston agreed to pay him for her joint interest when they combined their finances, which never occurred. See Mr. Preston's Feb. 2015 Aff. ¶¶ 19-20; Ms. Preston's Feb. 2015 Aff. ¶¶ 18-19. They also claim that Ms. Preston transferred her joint interest back to Mr. Preston in April 2012 when it became clear to her that she would not be able to pay him for her interest as they had agreed in 2008. See Ms. Preston's Feb. 2015 Aff. ¶¶ 20-22; Mr. Preston's Feb. 2015 Aff. ¶¶ 21-23. By making these claims, the Prestons are effectively claiming that the consideration that Ms. Preston received in exchange for transferring her interest in 2012 was the release of Mr. Preston's potential claim against Ms. Preston for the value of the interest in connection with the transfer in 2008. See 28 U.S.C. § 3303(a) (providing that "value" may be satisfaction of an antecedent debt). Therefore, the Court must determine whether there is a genuine dispute as to whether Ms. Preston received that consideration.
The Government urges the Court to apply Virginia's "plain meaning" rule for interpreting deeds conveying interests in real property. Under that rule, "[w]hen the language in a deed is clear, unambiguous, and explicit, a court called upon to construe such language should look no further than the four corners of the deed itself." Forster v. Hall, 265 Va. 293, 576 S.E.2d 746, 750 (2003) (citation omitted). See also Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac R.R. Co. v. United States, 75 F.3d 648, 655 (Fed.Cir.1996) ("Once a court determines that a `deed [is] clear and unambiguous, it [is] required to focus upon the language of the deed and from that source alone, construe its meaning.'" (quoting Trailsend Land Co. v. Va. Holding Corp., 228 Va. 319, 321 S.E.2d 667, 670-71 (1984)). Courts most commonly use the plain meaning rule to interpret a deed's description of the property being conveyed and the meaning of a deed's restrictive covenants and easements. See, e.g., Forster, 576 S.E.2d 746 (determining whether landowners were in violation of a restrictive covenant regarding mobile homes); Irby v. Roberts, 256 Va. 324, 504 S.E.2d 841
The plain meaning rule is inapplicable here, because the Court is not called upon to construe the meaning of the language of the 2008 Deed of Gift or the 2012 Deed of Gift. Rather, Mr. Preston argues that the deeds do not reflect the actual consideration received, as permitted by Virginia law. As he notes, Virginia's Form of Deed provides that deeds may describe "nominal" consideration, rather than the "actual" consideration:
Va.Code. Ann. § 55-48 (emphasis added). Indeed, over a century ago, the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia stated that it was "settled law that the consideration actually paid, or promised, can be shown to have been other than that recited in the instrument" and that "the deed need not contain all the stipulations of the parties," such as "agreements as to the consideration." Trout v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 107 Va. 576, 59 S.E. 394, 397 (1907) (internal quotation omitted). The Court distinguished this from the parol evidence rule, which it said bars the use of parol evidence "to alter or contradict the legal import of a deed," explaining that a deed "purports to be the deed of but one of the parties" and "purport[s] to contain the covenants of the grantor in respect to the property conveyed." Id. (internal quotation omitted). Trout essentially stands for the well-settled, general rule that "the true, real, or actual consideration of a deed of conveyance may be inquired into, and shown by, parol or extrinsic evidence.... even though the true or actual consideration may be other than, or different from, that recited in the deed." 32A C.J.S. Evidence § 1494 (2015). See also 32A C.J.S. Evidence § 1495 (2015) ("It is ordinarily permissible to introduce evidence to show that the consideration for a deed was greater than that expressed in the instrument, such as where the consideration specified was purely nominal.... It has also been stated that the recital of a consideration in a deed does not preclude either party from showing an additional consideration, even if such consideration was orally made."). Accordingly, the Court is not limited to the language of the deeds to determine whether Ms. Preston received consideration of a reasonably equivalent value.
The 2012 Deed of Gift reflects only nominal consideration, if any at all, in connection with the conveyance. It states in its text that the conveyance was "for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00), receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged," but the accuracy of that statement is questionable, as it separately states near the top of the document that consideration is "None." 2012 Deed of Gift. The text of the 2008 Deed of Gift states that the property was conveyed "without consideration" and, near the top of the document, it states that consideration is "None." 2008 Deed of Gift. It also states that the conveyance is "Exempt from Recordation Tax under § 58.1-811.D of the Code of Virginia," which concerns deeds of gift without consideration. Id. In support of their factual claims that neither deed reflected the actual consideration for the conveyances, Mr. and Ms. Preston submit sworn affidavits. As discussed, the Prestons do not submit any contemporaneous evidence of this purported consideration or any statements from third party witnesses supporting their claim. They also do not
The Government, for its part, provides little evidence to counter the Prestons' factual claims apart from its reliance on the language of the deeds. The Government cites the deposition testimony of Victoria Griffith, who claimed to have had at least one conversation with Ms. Preston concerning the Prestons' decision to put Ms. Preston's name on the title to the Windover Property in 2008. See Pl.'s Mem. Supp. at 7. But Ms. Griffith only testified that she understood from Ms. Preston that, around the same time that the Prestons decided to refinance the Windover Property to construct an additional garage and an apartment, Ms. Preston's name would be put on the title. See, e.g., Griffith Dep. at 28:11-15. The Government cites no testimony from Ms. Griffith or any other witness claiming to have knowledge as to whether the Prestons agreed that Ms. Preston would pay Mr. Preston in exchange for him putting her name on the title or claiming to have any knowledge concerning Ms. Preston's conveyance in 2012, the transfer that is primarily at issue in this case. The Prestons dispute Ms. Griffith's testimony, both stating that they never discussed the Windover Property with her at any time. See Ms. Preston's Apr. 2015 Aff. ¶ 5; Mr. Preston's Apr. 2015 Aff. ¶ 10.
To challenge the Prestons' factual claims regarding the separation of their finances, the Government provides evidence that many of Ms. Preston's bank accounts, including the Bank of America account she used to pay Mr. Preston each month, were joint accounts in both of their names. See Ross Decl. The Government also argues that the timing between the monthly payments from Ms. Preston to Mr. Preston and Mr. Preston's monthly payment of the mortgage suggests that Ms. Preston's checks could have been intended for the mortgage payments. See Pl.'s Mem. Supp. at 7; Pl.'s Opp. at 16-17. But the Government's argument is pure conjecture; it is equally possible that the payments, which appear to have been in an amount that was more than half of the monthly mortgage payments,
The evidence before the Court is not "so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251-52, 106 S.Ct. 2505. A reasonable factfinder could find that, in 2008, Ms. Preston agreed to pay her husband for a joint interest in the Windover Property upon the consolidation of their finances and that, in 2012, Ms. Preston realized that she would be unable to consolidate her finances or pay Mr. Preston for her interest due to her impending criminal charges and restitution obligations and therefore transferred her interest back to Mr. Preston in
These are genuine disputes of fact that are crucial to the question of whether Ms. Preston had actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud when she transferred her interest in the Windover Property to Mr. Preston in April 2012. Accordingly, neither the Government nor Mr. Preston are entitled to summary judgment as to the transfer of the Windover Property under 28 U.S.C. § 3304(b)(1)(A).
The Government argues in the alternative that Ms. Preston's transfer of her interest in the Windover Property in April 2012 is avoidable under Section 3304(b)(1)(B), which provides that a transfer by a debtor is fraudulent as to a debt to the United States if, regardless of whether the debtor had actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud, the debtor did not receive a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer and, in relevant part, "intended to incur, or believed or reasonably should have believed that he would incur, debts beyond his ability to pay as they became due." 28 U.S.C. § 3304(b)(1)(B). Some courts have referred to this provision as addressing cases of "constructive fraud." E.g., United States v. Schippers, 982 F.Supp.2d 948, 964 (S.D.Iowa 2013).
As discussed with respect to actual intent, there is a genuine dispute as to the factual question of whether Ms. Preston received a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer of her interest in the Windover Property to Mr. Preston in April 2012 — the first required element of a claim under Section 3304(b)(1)(B). With this factual element in genuine dispute, neither party is entitled to summary judgment.
Finally, the Court addresses Mr. Preston's meritless argument that he is entitled to summary judgment, because, even if the Government is successful in this case in avoiding the April 2012 transfer of the Windover Property, Ms. Preston would have no equitable interest in the property due to her alleged failure to contribute to the mortgage on the property from her
As the sole support for his legal argument, Mr. Preston cites Hart v. Hart, 27 Va.App. 46, 497 S.E.2d 496 (1998). See Def.'s Mem. Supp. at 12-13. Mr. Preston neglects to mention, however, that Hart concerned the interpretation of Virginia's divorce laws governing the equitable distribution of "hybrid property" (i.e., property that is part separate and part marital) following a divorce. See Hart, 497 S.E.2d at 504-06. How a Virginia court might equitably determine to distribute the Windover Property between the Prestons in a hypothetical divorce — a highly fact-specific determination based on a variety of factors not relevant to this case — has no bearing as to whether Ms. Preston's transfer of her interest in the property to Mr. Preston is avoidable pursuant to the FDCPA. Mr. Preston provides no legal authority suggesting that Virginia's laws governing the equitable distribution of property upon a divorce are applicable here. Indeed, the relevant Virginia statute appears to be limited by its own terms to divorce proceedings. See Va.Code Ann. § 20-107.3(A) (stating that the court shall classify property as separate, marital, or hybrid "[u]pon decreeing the dissolution of a marriage, and also upon decreeing a divorce from the bond of matrimony, or upon the filing with the court ... of a certified copy of a final divorce decree").
Moreover, even if Virginia's divorce laws were applicable, Mr. Preston does not argue that the Windover Property would be classified as hybrid property, which appears to turn on whether Mr. Preston's conveyance to Ms. Preston in 2008 was a gift, one of the central issues of fact in genuine dispute in this case. See Va.Code. Ann. § 20-107.3(A)(3)(f) ("When separate property is retitled in the joint names of the parties, the retitled property shall be deemed transmuted to marital property. However, to the extent that the property is retraceable by a preponderance of the evidence and was not a gift, the retitled property shall retain its original classification."). Finally, the Court notes that even if Virginia's laws concerning the equitable distribution of hybrid property upon divorce were applicable, the issue of whether Ms. Preston made any payments towards the mortgage of the Windover Property or made any capital improvements to the property also remains in genuine dispute.
Mr. Preston is not entitled to summary judgment on this basis.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will deny both the Government's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 47) and Defendant James W. Preston's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 46). An order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is separately and contemporaneously issued.
