United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RECOMMENDED RULING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
RECONSIDER OR MODIFY RECOMMENDED ORDER ON MOTION FOR CONTEMPT
B. FITZSIMMONS, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
October 5, 2017, this Court issued a recommended ruling and
order finding defendant Charles Pappas in contempt of Judge
Eginton's January 19, 2016 Order. [Doc. #312]. Defendant
moves the Court to reconsider and modify, “in a limited
respect, ” the Court's Order, taking into account
factual developments since the entry of the
Order. Plaintiff objects to the modification of
reasons that follow, defendant's Motion to Reconsider or
Modify Recommended Order on Motion for Contempt [Doc.
#313] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in
part. Upon reconsideration, the Court adheres to the
Recommended Ruling and Order and DENIES
defendant's request to modify the Order. [Doc. #312].
October 5, 2017, defendant concluded the sale of Normandies
Park. He states that at the time of the August 29, 2017,
hearing on the Motion for Sanctions and Finding of Contempt,
engaged in ongoing efforts to sell the Normandies Park
trailer park and adjacent properties in a transaction that
contemplated that the purchaser of the property would make
payments to Plaintiff in an undetermined amount of between
$400 and $500 per month for a period of five years. It
appears that these contemplated payments are the
“Normandies Park stream of income” referenced in
the recommended ruling.
[Doc. #313 at 1 (emphasis added)]. The Court's reference
to the “Normandies Park stream of income” was in
the event Mr. Pappas started to pay Ms. Parris rental income
that to date had not been paid. At the time of the hearing
and through the filing of the recommended ruling, defendant
made no record, or other showing, that there was a pending
sale of the Normandies Park, LLC properties or any agreement
with a prospective purchaser as he has set forth above.
plaintiff was indeed paid $28, 000 on October 5, 2017, the
payment was made by David Scott Heap, an unrelated third
party. Contrary to representations made in the Motion for
Reconsideration, the $28, 000 was not equity proceeds from
the sale of Normandies Park but rather a payment Ms. Parris
was able to negotiate with Mr. Heap, the new owner, by virtue
of her judgment lien. Mr. Pappas did not make this payment.
defendant argues that this lump-sum payment “resulted
in a single substantial payment rather than a slower
‘stream of income' as contemplated by the
order.” [Doc. #313 at 2]. He reasons that the payment
of $28, 000 is the
equivalent to monthly payments of $466 for five years. In
order to effectuate the intent of the Court's order in
light of the factual development not known to the Court at
the time of the Order, defendant respectfully requests that
the payment schedule of $800 per month be modified to reflect
this payment, resulting in a monthly payment due of $334.
Id. Plaintiff points out that she filed a judgment
lien on Normandies Park; “[a]s such, Ms. Parris has
always been entitled to the proceeds of the sale of
Normandies Park up to the value of her judgment.” [Doc.
#318 at 3]. Thus, “[t]o permit Pappas to offset
repayment of the proceeds from the sale of the Barbara Street
property with proceeds from the sale of Normandies Park would
essentially allow him to repay Ms. Parris with her own
money.” Id. Further, she argues that
[i]t would be doubly unjust to reduce the amount Pappas has
been ordered to pay based on Ms. Parris's agreement with
the new owner of Normandies Park because Pappas substantially
dissipated the value of Normandies Park by failing to pay any
taxes on the property over the past five or more years.
Pappas allowed these taxes to accrue despite receiving, and
failing to turn over to Ms. Parris approximately $100, 000 in
excess rent since judgment and the order to turn over rents
Allowing Pappas to benefit from the $28, 000 payment to Ms.
Parris by Mr. Heap would reward Pappas's prior defiance
of the Court's orders and further diminish her recovery