Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Great American Insurance Co. v. Thompson

October 24, 2006

GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, PLAINTIFF,
v.
KATHARINE THOMPSON, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: S. Arthur Spiegel United States Senior District Judge

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 74), Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion (doc. 80), and Defendant's Reply Memorandum in Further Support of its Motion (doc. 81). Also before the Court are Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude Deposition Testimony of Rod Pasion and Piers Mackenzie from Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 77), Defendant's Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion (doc. 82), and Reply of Plaintiff in Support of their Motion (doc. 83). For the reasons stated herein, the Court DENIES Defendant's motion for summary judgment.

Furthermore, because the Court denies Defendant's motion for summary judgment irrespective of any testimony from Rod Pasion or Piers Mackenzie, the Court finds it unnecessary to rule on Plaintiff's motion to exclude Mr. Pasion and Mr. Mackenzie's deposition testimony.

I. Background

The facts in this case, as taken from the parties' motions and pleadings, are fairly characterized as follows. The current action between Defendant Katharine Shaw Wallace Thompson and Plaintiff Great American Life Insurance Company arose from a judgment debt owed by Morley P. Thompson, Sr. ("Mr. Thompson") to Plaintiff (doc. 9). Mr. Thompson is a non-party to this suit and married to Defendant (Id.). In 2004, Plaintiff filed a multi-count complaint in Hamilton County Common Pleas Court asserting primary claims of fraudulent transfer and civil conspiracy against Defendant and Mr. Thompson (Id.). Plaintiff later began pursuing debt judgment against Mr. Thompson in the Northern District of California (Id.). After Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its state court suit, Plaintiff filed this action pursuing a single claim against Defendant for civil conspiracy to commit fraudulent transfer (Id.).

Plaintiff asserts that Defendant conspired with her husband to hide his personal property and other property so that his creditors, including Plaintiff, could not seize it (doc. 80). The parties agree that Plaintiff's claim involves three distinct alleged conveyances: (1) Defendant's purchase of Mr. Thompson's personal property, (2) Mr. Thompson's conveyance of his interest in Defendant's Woodside home, and (3) Defendant and Mr. Thompson's filing of joint tax returns after their 1999 marriage. The facts regarding these alleged conveyances are fairly described as follows.

A. Bills of Sale

Defendant concedes that she purchased all of Mr. Thompson's personal property between 2001 and 2002 (doc. 9). These purchases are evidenced in three bills of sale executed by Mr. Thompson (doc. 80). A bill of sale dated May 16, 2001 purports to convey all of Mr. Thompson's personal property located at four residences in Cincinnati, California, Colorado, and Florida to Defendant, as well as four vehicles, including two Jaguars (Id.). This bill of sale conveyed the property in exchange for $300,000. The $300,000 was deposited into a Bank One account held by Thompson Associates (doc. 80).

A second bill of sale dated October 10, 2001 purported to convey all the paintings, prints, and photographs in all four of Mr. Thompson's residences to Defendant (doc. 74). In exchange, Defendant wrote a check for $92,445.03 to UBS for the purpose of paying Mr. Thompson's interest payment due to that company (Id.).

Finally, an October 1, 2002 bill of sale purports to convey all personal property located at Mr. Thompson's Cincinnati office to Thompson in exchange for $42,500 (Id.). This money was transferred by Defendant to Washington Mutual to make a payment on Defendant's $2.4 million dollar debt to that company (Id.).

Although Plaintiff did not file a lawsuit against Mr. Thompson until 2004, at the time of the bills of sale, Mr. Thompson had incurred over $5 Million in debt to Plaintiff (doc. 15).

B. Interest in Woodside Residence

In 2001, Mr. Thompson arranged for Defendant to borrow $2.4 from Washington Mutual, secured by a mortgage on Defendant's home in Woodside, California (doc. 74). At the time the home was held in a trust, so a "grant deed"*fn1, containing Mr. Thompson's signature, was executed to put the title of the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.