Summary
In Garcia, I concluded that there was no parting with "money or money's worth" because the holder of the mortgage had not loaned any money to the mortgagor (the mortgagee had arranged for a third party company in the Dominican Republic to transfer the funds to the mortgagor, and the mortgagee had not made any payments to the third party company).
Summary of this case from Equity Investment Partners, LP v. U.S.Opinion
No. 01-945-CIV-GOLD
October 31, 2002
Attorneys for Plaintiff: Deborah Morris, Esq. with the U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division from Washington, D.C. Also Stacy Bressler, Esq. from Ft. Lauderdale, FL.
Attorney for Defendant: Rafaela Landron, Pro se from Concord, CA.
Attorney for Defendant: Angel Garcia, Pro se and Margarita Garcia, Pro se from Coral Gables, FL.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
THIS CAUSE is before the court upon defendants Landron and the Garcias motions for reconsideration [DE #144, and DE #145]. On September 2002, the court entered an order [DE #136] granting defendant United States' motion for summary judgment.
This court repeatedly has stated that motions for reconsideration are disfavored and should be granted only when the movant shows newly discovered evidence, clear error, manifest injustice, or an intervening change in law. See Compagnoni v. United States, No. 94-813-Civ, 1997 WL 416482 *1 (S.D. Fla. 1997); United States v. Palm Beach Cruises, S.A., 204 B.R. 634, 639 n. 1 (S.D. Fla. 1996) (citations omitted). Defendants contend that the order on summary judgment should be reconsidered because the court overlooked material parts of the record and failed to consider relevant case law. Specifically, defendants Landron and the Garcias contend that the court overlooked the receipts filed by Landron with regard to the $69,000 loaned to the Garcias. In order to demonstrate clear error, defendants must do more than simply restate their previous arguments, and any arguments defendants failed to raise in the earlier motion will be deemed waived. See McCoy v. Macon Water Authority, 966 F. Supp. 1209, 1222 (S.D. Ga. 1997); see also Matasantos Comm. Corp. v. Applebee's Int'l, Inc., 245 F.3d 1203, 1209 n. 2 (10th Cir. 2001) (finding that party waived theory on motion for reconsideration that was not raised in original motion). As this court has stated:
A motion for reconsideration should not be used as a "vehicle to present authorities available at the time of the first decision or to reiterate arguments previously made". [It is an improper use] of the motion to reconsider to ask the Court to rethink what the Court . . . already thought through — rightly or wrongly. . . . The motion to reconsider would be appropriate where, for example, the Court has patently misunderstood a party, or has made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the Court by the parties, or has made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension. . . . Such problems rarely arise and the motion to reconsider should be equally rare.Compagnoni at *2 (citing Z.K. Marine, Inc. v. M/V Archigetis, 808 F. Supp. 1561, 1562 (S.D. Fla. 1992)) (emphasis added) (denying reconsideration motion where party asked court to "rethink" its previous order).
Defendants have failed to present any new and relevant case law and have not pointed to any material misstatement of the facts by the court. Although a "motion for reconsideration is not an opportunity for a party to improve upon his arguments or to try out new arguments" or "to vent . . . dissatisfaction with the Court's reasoning", this is precisely what defendants Landron and the Garcias have attempted to do in their motions for reconsideration. McCoy, 966 F. Supp. at 1222. The Garcias attached as an exhibit a late filed pleading by plaintiff/trustee that attempted to supplement its brief regarding summary judgment. The plaintiff had filed this brief well beyond the time limit and it was therefore not considered in the court's summary judgment ruling.
Defendants exhibit one — plaintiffs supplement in opposition to the United States' motion for summary judgment — is now before the court in this motion for reconsideration. Since the plaintiff has not filed a motion for reconsideration, the brief will only be considered with regard to the Garcias' claims. The Garcias specifically asks this court to enter judgment in favor of defendant Landron with the United States receiving only those monies left over after the Landron mortgage has been satisfied.
In exhibit one, plaintiff argues that the United States' interest in the homestead sale is inferior to the interest of the Landron mortgage. Even though the plaintiffs brief was filed after the court entered its order on summary judgment, the issues raised by the plaintiff were analyzed in the court's order, including the priority of interests. The plaintiff noted in her brief that Landron has parted with "money's worth" because she maintains that she is obligated to repay the loan connected tot he Garcia home, but neither Landron nor the Garcias provided the court with any documentation that any such parting took place. Thus, the plaintiffs brief, attached to the defendants' motion as exhibit one, provides no new argument or evidence to warrant a reconsideration of this court's summary judgment order.
In addition, defendant Landron claims that contrary to this court's conclusion, she has parted with money or money's worth because she has a receipt confirming that she was loaned $69,000 for the Garcias and is obligated to repay those funds. During oral argument, Landron confirmed what was already evident from the documentation provided to the court — all transfer of money went directly from a company in the Dominican Republic to the Garcias. Landron made it clear that she never actually paid the Garcias any money out of pocket; she is simply obligated to repay the loan that was made to the Garcias. But the receipt that she has provided does not confirm any such obligation. In fact, the receipt simply states that she received $69,000 from certain individuals and the documentation is a second mortgage loan, but does not list any obligation to repay. All other undisputed facts and documentation indicate that Landron never directly received any money from those individuals identified on the receipt submitted. All funds in dispute went directly to the Garcias.
It is clear that the company or individuals that loaned the funds to the Garcias at the request of defendant Landron parted with money or money's worth, but that company or those individuals are not parties to this action. Neither the Garcias nor Landron has provided this court with any new and relevant case law or material facts to compel this court to reconsider its entry of summary judgment in favor of the United States.
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED THAT Defendants' motions for reconsideration [DE #144 and DE #145] are DENIED.