Won Sun Lee v. Won Bok Lee
| Decision Date | 15 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 4:20CV138 (RCY) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
| Parties | WON SUN LEE, Plaintiff, v. WON BOK LEE, Defendant. |
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 13) and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 18). The motions have been fully briefed, and the Court dispenses with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court, and oral argument would not aid in the decisional process. E.D. Va. Loc. Civ. R. 7(J). For the reasons stated below, the Court will deny Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 13) and grant Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No 18).
The parties are largely in agreement on the material facts. Won Sun Lee (“Plaintiff”) and Won Bok Lee (“Defendant”) are brothers. (Compl. ¶¶ 1-3, ECF No. 1.) On July 23, 2002, Defendant obtained a default judgment (“2002 Federal Judgment”) against Plaintiff for $141, 059.44 plus attorney's fees of $499.50. (Id. ¶ 6.) On May 21, 2004, Defendant filed a “Request to File Notice of Lien” in the Circuit Court of Howard County, Maryland, (“the Circuit Court”) based on the 2002 Federal Judgment. (Id. ¶ 7.) The Circuit Court entered a notice of lien and a judgment (“State Judgment”). (Id. ¶ 8.) Instead of using the date of the 2002 Federal Judgment, July 23, 2002, as the date of the State Judgment, the Circuit Court used the date of entry, June 1, 2004. (Id. ¶ 9.)
On July 23, 2015, Defendant filed a request to renew the State Judgment. (Id. ¶ 11.) Under Maryland Rule 2-625, a money judgment expires twelve years from the date of entry or the date of the most recent renewal. Md. R. 2-625. And thus, the trouble began. If the twelve-year period is determined by the date of the 2002 Federal Judgment, the State Judgment expired on July 23, 2014. However, if the twelve-year period is determined by the date the State Judgment was entered, it expired on June 1, 2016.
At this time, Plaintiff had a one-eighth interest in a parcel of land (“the Korean Property”) located in South Korea. (See Mem. Supp. Pl. Summ. J. at 4, ECF No. 14; Decl. Won Yung Uh Ex. G at 3, 6-8, ECF No. 16-7; Mem. Supp. Def. Summ. J. at 2, ECF No. 19.) On June 10, 2015, prior to filing the request to renew the State Judgment, Defendant placed a lien on the Korean Property through the Yeoju Branch of the Suwon District Court (“the Yeoju Branch Court”). (Mem. Supp. Pl. Summ. J. at 4; Decl. Won Yung Uh Ex. G at 8; Mem. Supp. Def. Summ. J. at 3.) On August 10, 2015, Defendant placed another lien (jointly “the Korean Liens”) on the Korean Property through the Yeoju Branch Court. (Mem. Supp. Pl. Summ. J. at 4; Decl. Won Yung Uh Ex. G at 8; Mem. Supp. Def. Summ. J. at 3.) Plaintiff alleges that both of the liens were based on the 2002 Federal Judgment. (Mem. Supp. Pl. Summ. J. at 4.)
On March 24, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to vacate renewal of judgment with the Circuit Court, claiming that the State Judgment had expired on July 23, 2014. (Compl. ¶ 13.) The Circuit Court denied the motion to vacate renewal of judgment and granted the motion for renewed judgment on June 2, 2016. (Id. ¶ 14.)
Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the Circuit Court on July 6, 2016. (Id. ¶ 15.) Defendant moved to strike the notice of appeal as untimely, and on August 9, 2016, the Circuit Court struck the notice of appeal. (Id.) Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Maryland Court of Special Appeals on August 17, 2016, arguing that the notice of appeal was timely and that the renewed judgment should be vacated. (Id. ¶ 16.)
Meanwhile, in South Korea, Defendant filed a request with the Yeoju Branch Court to enforce the 2002 Federal Judgment, and the Yeoju Branch Court approved the request on January 11, 2017. (Decl. Won Yung Uh Ex. M at 2-3, ECF No. 16-13.) Plaintiff appealed this decision to the Suwon District Court, which affirmed the Yeoju Branch Court decision on April 18, 2018. (Id. at 4.)
On December 4, 2018, Plaintiff, and the other seven owners of the Korean Property, entered into an agreement (“the Sale Contract”) with a third party. (Mem. Supp. Pl. Summ. J. at 4; Decl. Won Yung Uh Ex. I at 2-3, ECF No. 16-9.) Under the Sale Contract, one of the owners, Min Young Lee, was to act as a representative of the other seven owners. (Decl. Won Yung Uh Ex. I at 5.) The scope of her authority is unclear.
Back in the United States, on January 30, 2019, the Court of Special Appeals reversed the decision of the Circuit Court and remanded the case with instructions to vacate the renewed judgment. (Id. ¶ 19); Won Sun Lee v. Won Bok Lee, 201 A.3d 1, 18 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2019).[1]The court held that the 2002 Federal Judgment, and the lien created by it, expired in 2014. (Compl. ¶ 21); Won Sun Lee, 201 A. 3d at 18.
On March 18, 2019, Defendant filed a writ of certiorari with Maryland Court of Appeals. (Compl. ¶ 22.) Meanwhile in South Korea, Min Young Lee signed an agreement with Defendant. (Decl. Won Yung Uh Ex. I at 9.) Under the agreement, Min Young Lee would pay Defendant on April 13, 2019, and on June 27, 2019, to remove the Korean Liens on Plaintiff's interest in the Korean Property. (Id.) Min Young Lee carried out the first payment on April 23, 2019, using the portion of the sale proceeds that corresponded to Plaintiff's interest in the Korean Property. (Mem. Supp. Pl. Summ. J. at 5.)
The Maryland Court of Appeals granted the writ of certiorari on May 14, 2019. (Compl. ¶ 22.) On May 23, 2019, Plaintiff and Min Young Lee reached an agreement where Min Young Lee would not pay Defendant until the legal matters in the United States had concluded. (Decl. Won Yung Uh Ex. K at 2, ECF No. 16-11.) Despite this agreement, Min Young Lee still provided the second payment to Defendant on June 27, 2019. (Mem. Supp. Pl. Summ. J. at 5.) Once again, this payment was made using the portion of the sale proceeds from Plaintiff's interest in the Korean Property. (Id.) At some point after this payment, Plaintiff sued Min Young Lee in the Yeoju Branch Court, alleging that Min Young Lee sold his interest in the Korean Property without his consent and committed embezzlement by using that money to pay Defendant. (Decl. Won Yung Uh Ex. M at 6-7).
On January 23, 2020, the Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the Special Court of Appeals and held that the 2002 Federal Judgment expired in 2014. (Compl. ¶ 24); Won Bok Lee v. Won Sun Lee, 223 A.3d 478, 504 (Md. 2020). On April 23, 2020, Plaintiff demanded the return of the money paid to Defendant to remove the Korean Liens on the Korean Property, claiming that those payments were collected under a void decree. (Compl. ¶ 26.) Defendant did not respond to this request. (Id. ¶ 27.)
On November 19, 2020, the Yeoju Branch Court issued an opinion dismissing Plaintiff's claims against Min Young Lee. (Decl. Won Yung Uh Ex. M at 1, 7-10.) In dismissing the claims, the Yeoju Branch Court denied Plaintiff's request for restitution from Min Young Lee. (Id. at 10.)
On July 20, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Complaint. (ECF No. 1.) Defendant filed an Answer on August 19, 2020. (ECF No. 5.) On August 19, 2020, Defendant filed a Motion to Transfer. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff consented to the motion, and the case was transferred from the Richmond Division to the Newport News Division on September 1, 2020. (ECF Nos. 8-9.)
On May 14, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and a Memorandum in Support. (ECF Nos. 13-14.) Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and a Memorandum in Support on the same day. (ECF Nos. 18-19.) Defendant filed a Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment on May 28, 2021. (ECF No. 23.) On the same day, Plaintiff filed a Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 25.) Plaintiff filed a Reply on June 3, 2021. (ECF No. 26.)
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide the standard for this matter. Rule 56(a) provides that summary judgment should be granted “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). The Court must determine “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 v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 243 (1986). The evidence must be viewed “in the light most favorable to . . . the nonmovant, and draw all reasonable inferences in her favor.” Dennis v. Columbia Colleton Med. Ctr., Inc., 290 F.3d 639, 645 (4th Cir. 2002).
When both parties have moved for summary judgment, the Court must review “each motion separately on its own merits to determine whether either of the parties deserves judgment as a matter of law.” Republic W. Ins. Co. v. Williams, 212 Fed. App'x. 235, 237 (4th Cir. 2007).
“The fact that both sides moved for summary judgment does not establish that there is no issue of fact and require that judgment be granted for one side or the other.” Am. Fid. & Cas. Co. v. London & Edinburgh Ins. Co., 354 F.2d 214, 216 (4th Cir. 1965).
Each of the parties' Motions for Summary Judgment raise the same arguments. The Court has reviewed “each motion separately on its own merits to determine whether either of the parties deserves judgment as a matter of law.” See Republic W. Ins. Co. v. Williams, 212 Fed App'x. 235, 237 (4th Cir. 2007). However, in the interests of clarity, the Court will discuss the common issues raised by the two motions together. Furthermore,...
To continue reading
Request your trial