S.F. Residence Club, Inc. v. Baswell-Guthrie

Decision Date13 September 2012
Docket NumberCivil Action No. CV–09–S–0421–NE.
Citation897 F.Supp.2d 1122
PartiesSAN FRANCISCO RESIDENCE CLUB, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. Cheryl BASWELL–GUTHRIE, et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Charles A. Ray, IV, Maples & Ray PC, Huntsville, AL, David B. Anderson, Deanna L. Weidner, Marvis L. Jenkins, Anderson Weidner, LLC, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiffs.

E. Britton Monroe, Bryan A. Grayson, Taffi S. Stewart, Lloyd, Gray, Whitehead & Monroe, PC, James R. Shaw, Jeffrey Bartow Cannon, Jr., R. Gordon Sproule, Jr., Huie Fernambucq & Stewart, LLP, Birmingham, AL, for Defendants.

LYNWOOD SMITH, District Judge.

+-------------------+
                ¦Table of Contents  ¦
                +-------------------¦
                ¦                   ¦
                +-------------------+
                
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦Topic                                                             ¦Page No.  ¦
                +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦      ¦                                                             ¦       ¦
                +------+-------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦I.    ¦Introduction                                                 ¦1128   ¦
                +------+-------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦      ¦                                                             ¦       ¦
                +------+-------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦II.   ¦The Basic Requirements for a Deferred, Like–Kind Exchange    ¦1130   ¦
                ¦      ¦Under Section 1031                                           ¦       ¦
                +------+-------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦      ¦                                                             ¦       ¦
                +------+-------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦III.  ¦The Plaintiffs, Defendants, and Other, Non–Party Players     ¦1139   ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+-----------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦A.¦Plaintiffs                        ¦1139¦
                +----+--+----------------------------------+----¦
                ¦    ¦B.¦The Wilmer & Lee Defendants       ¦1141¦
                +----+--+----------------------------------+----¦
                ¦    ¦C.¦The Baswell–Guthrie Defendants    ¦1141¦
                +----+--+----------------------------------+----¦
                ¦    ¦D.¦The McDermott Defendants          ¦1141¦
                +-----------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦      ¦    ¦1. ¦The resolution and dismissal of plaintiffs' claims   ¦1142  ¦
                ¦      ¦    ¦   ¦against the McDermott Defendants                     ¦      ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+--------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦E. ¦Non–Parties Involved in Some Transactions¦1142 ¦
                +--------------------------------------------------------+
                
+-----------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦                                     ¦    ¦
                +----+-------------------------------------+----¦
                ¦IV. ¦The Replacement Property Acquisitions¦1144¦
                +-----------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦   ¦1.¦The Moquin transaction             ¦1145¦
                +----+---+--+-----------------------------------+----¦
                ¦    ¦   ¦2.¦The Fountain transaction           ¦1147¦
                +----------------------------------------------------+
                
+-------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦A.¦The Moquin and Fountain Acquisitions¦1147¦
                +----+--+------------------------------------+----¦
                ¦    ¦B.¦The Corporate Drive Acquisition     ¦1148¦
                +----+--+------------------------------------+----¦
                ¦    ¦C.¦The Old Madison Pike Acquisition    ¦1149¦
                +----+--+------------------------------------+----¦
                ¦    ¦D.¦The Quality Circle Acquisition      ¦1150¦
                +-------------------------------------------------+
                
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦     ¦                                                  ¦     ¦
                +-----+--------------------------------------------------+-----¦
                ¦V.   ¦Acquisitions Closed by the Wilmer & Lee Defendants¦1151 ¦
                +--------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦      ¦A.  ¦Acquisition of the “Moquin Drive” and “Fountain”         ¦1151  ¦
                ¦      ¦    ¦Properties                                               ¦      ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+---------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦   ¦1.¦Samuel Givhan's involvement            ¦1153 ¦
                +----+---+--+---------------------------------------+-----¦
                ¦    ¦   ¦2.¦The “Ireland conference call”          ¦1153 ¦
                +----+---+--+---------------------------------------+-----¦
                ¦    ¦   ¦3.¦WaMu forwards funds and forms to Givhan¦1154 ¦
                +---------------------------------------------------------+
                
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦      ¦B.  ¦Acquisition of the “Corporate Drive” Property           ¦1157  ¦
                +------+----+--------------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦      ¦C.  ¦The Role of California Attorney Jeffrey Weiss           ¦1159  ¦
                +------+----+--------------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦      ¦D.  ¦Reformation of Titles to the Properties Closed by Givhan¦1160  ¦
                +------+----+--------------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦      ¦E.  ¦The Issue of the $50,000 Check                          ¦1161  ¦
                +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦     ¦                                                     ¦      ¦
                +-----+-----------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦VI.  ¦Acquisitions Closed by the Baswell–Guthrie Defendants¦1161  ¦
                +------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦      ¦A.  ¦Lead–Up to Old Madison Pike and Quality Circle           ¦1161  ¦
                ¦      ¦    ¦Acquisitions                                             ¦      ¦
                +------+----+---------------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦      ¦B.  ¦Old Madison Pike (a/k/a “Tech Point”)                    ¦1162  ¦
                +------+----+---------------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦      ¦C.  ¦Quality Circle                                           ¦1165  ¦
                +------+----+---------------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦      ¦D.  ¦Possible Conflict of Interest                            ¦1169  ¦
                +------+----+---------------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦      ¦E.  ¦Dispute With McDermott                                   ¦1169  ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+---------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦                                         ¦    ¦
                +----+-----------------------------------------+----¦
                ¦VII.¦Choice of Governing Law                  ¦1170¦
                +---------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦      ¦A.  ¦The Public Policy Exception to the Rule of               ¦1172  ¦
                ¦      ¦    ¦Lex Loci Delicti                                         ¦      ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦      ¦    ¦1. ¦The Alabama Legal Services Liability Act             ¦1172  ¦
                +------+----+---+-----------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦      ¦    ¦2. ¦Plaintiffs' argument that non-clients can assert     ¦1174  ¦
                ¦      ¦    ¦   ¦common-law claims against Alabama attorneys          ¦      ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦     ¦  ¦  ¦a.¦Cunningham v. Langston, Frazer, Sweet & Freese, P.A.  ,¦1174 ¦
                ¦     ¦  ¦  ¦  ¦727 So.2d 800 (Ala.1999)                                   ¦     ¦
                +-----+--+--+--+-----------------------------------------------------------+-----¦
                ¦     ¦  ¦  ¦b.¦Fogarty v. Parker, Poe, Adams & Bernstein, L.L.P.,  961¦1174 ¦
                ¦     ¦  ¦  ¦  ¦So.2d 784 (Ala.2006)                                       ¦     ¦
                +-----+--+--+--+-----------------------------------------------------------+-----¦
                ¦     ¦  ¦  ¦c.¦Smith v. Math,   984 So.2d 1179 (Ala.Civ.App.2007)         ¦1175 ¦
                +-----+--+--+--+-----------------------------------------------------------+-----¦
                ¦     ¦  ¦  ¦d.¦Line v. Ventura,  38 So.3d 1 (Ala.2009)                    ¦1176 ¦
                +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦      ¦    ¦3. ¦Analysis of the cases relied upon by plaintiffs, and ¦1178  ¦
                ¦      ¦    ¦   ¦their application to public policy                   ¦      ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦      ¦                                                             ¦       ¦
                +------+-------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦VIII. ¦Inconsistencies Among the Allegations of the Complaint, the  ¦1180   ¦
                ¦      ¦Uncontested Facts, and Arguments in Briefs                   ¦       ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+---------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦A. ¦Claims Against the Wilmer & Lee Defendants¦1180 ¦
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • United States v. Chambers, Case No. 3:09-cv-961-J-34JRK
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
    • 22 May 2014
    ...a gain from the sale, the amount of the gain is subject to taxation. See San Francisco Residence Club, Inc. v. Braswell-Guthrie, 897 F. Supp.2d 1122, 1130 (N.D. Ala. 2012). The Internal Revenue Code provides that the gain from the sale or other disposition of property is the amount realized......
  • Morse v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama
    • 2 July 2019
  • Roberson v. Balch & Bingham, LLP
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 23 July 2021
    ... ... Balch and his former employer, Drummond Company, Inc ... ("Drummond"). [ 1 ] The operative complaint for ... San Francisco Residence Club, Inc. v ... Baswell-Guthrie , 897 F.Supp.2d ... ...
  • Roberson v. Balch & Bingham, LLP
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 21 January 2022
    ... ... Balch and his former employer, Drummond Company, Inc ... ("Drummond"). [ 1 ] The operative complaint for ... San Francisco Residence Club, Inc. v ... Baswell-Guthrie , 897 F.Supp.2d ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT