Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

CresCom Bank v. Terry

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division

July 6, 2017

CresCom Bank, successor by merger to Community FirstBank, Plaintiff,
Edward L. Terry; Harris Street, LLC, n/k/a CCT Reserve, LLC; Sugarloaf Marketplace, LLC; and CCT Reserve, LLC, Defendants.


          PATRICK MICHAEL DUFFY United States District Judge.

         This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff CresCom Bank's motion for supplementary proceedings (ECF No. 102). Seeking to recover a judgment debt from Defendant Edward L. Terry, CresCom asks for several forms of relief against Mr. Terry and his wife, Elaine C. Terry. For the following reasons, CresCom's motion is granted in part and denied in part.


         After several years of litigation, CresCom obtained a judgment against Mr. Terry in the amount of $1, 987, 609.55. To date, he has not paid CresCom any of that amount.

         CresCom's motion comes after roughly a year of fruitless efforts to find assets of Mr. Terry that are available for levy. It began in March 2016, when this Court gave CresCom a writ of execution covering Mr. Terry's property in South Carolina. CresCom engaged the United States Marshal's Service to execute the writ. After three unsuccessful attempts to serve the writ on Mr. Terry at the Terrys' house in Fernandina Beach, Florida, a marshal returned the writ to CresCom unsatisfied.

         Also in March 2016, CresCom served Mr. Terry with a set of post-judgment interrogatories and requests for production. Several weeks later, he answered some of the interrogatories, produced documents in response to some of the requests, and objected to the remainder of CresCom's written discovery.

         Around that time, CresCom also began seeking information and documents from Mrs. Terry about Mr. Terry's assets. Initially, in April 2016, CresCom's lawyers issued a subpoena from this Court commanding Mrs. Terry to produce documents and then appear for a deposition in Charleston, South Carolina. Mrs. Terry's attorney objected to the subpoena and advised that CresCom would need to serve a Florida-issued subpoena upon Mrs. Terry in Florida.[1]

         In June 2016, CresCom's attorneys issued another set of subpoenas-one for Mrs. Terry's deposition and another for her to produce documents-that, as demanded, originated in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. CresCom hired a process server to serve Mrs. Terry at a house in Englewood, Florida that Mr. Terry had represented to be their home. As the process server learned, however, the Terrys had actually sold that house. The process server tried several times that summer to serve Mrs. Terry at another of her Fernandina Beach residences, but he was unsuccessful.

         In November 2016, CresCom served Mr. Terry with a deposition notice, as well as a subpoena instructing him to appear for a deposition in Charleston and to provide certain information and documents in advance of the deposition. CresCom's requests for information and documents closely tracked the discovery requests CresCom had served on Mr. Terry the previous March. At the end of December, he responded to the subpoena's document request by providing some additional information and documents. He continued, however, to object to most of the requests.

         In December 2016, CresCom's counsel issued a third set of subpoenas to Mrs. Terry, this time instructing her to produce documents and appear at a deposition in Charleston the following month. A process server handed the subpoenas to Mr. Terry at a house in Charleston the Terrys use from time to time. Mrs. Terry neither complied with nor objected to the subpoenas. Instead, she made a motion to quash them. The Court denied the motion without prejudice because Mrs. Terry filed it without first talking trying to resolve the matter informally with CresCom. See Local Civ. Rule 7.02 (D.S.C.). Mrs. Terry and CresCom's attorneys then discussed the subpoenas via email. Mrs. Terry did not renew her motion.

         On January 13, 2017, Mr. Terry appeared in Charleston for his deposition, which the parties suspended without conclusion. A week later, CresCom's counsel sent the Terrys' attorneys a letter renewing CresCom's prior requests for certain documents relating to the Terrys' assets. Mr. Terry produced some of the documents requested in that letter. Mrs. Terry did not produce anything.

         The documents and testimony Mr. Terry has provided thus far indicate that he has ownership interests, either directly or indirectly, in real estate across the Southeast, that he has participated in several profit-sharing plans over the past several years, and that Mrs. Terry supports him with assets titled either in her name or in the name of entities she owns. Mr. Terry insists, however, that he has no means of paying CresCom because all his property is either already encumbered by other judgment creditors or are otherwise unavailable to CresCom. CresCom believes Mr. Terry manufactured his purported inability to pay by engaging in illegitimate asset transfers involving Mrs. Terry, their children, and a constellation of entities they own. That belief animates the motion at bar.


         CresCom filed its motion for supplementary proceedings on February 24, asking the Court to order Mr. and Mrs. Terry to produce documents, to enjoin Mr. Terry from alienating or damaging any of his property not exempt from execution, and to provide other relief in aid of its collection efforts. On March 10, Mr. and Mrs. Terry filed separate responses in opposition. After the Court granted a filing extension, CresCom replied to both of those briefs on March 27. Then, with the Court's permission, Mr. and Mrs. Terry filed a joint sur-reply on March 31.

         Meanwhile, on March 22, CresCom filed a motion seeking a writ of attachment for Terry's non-exempt property. With extensions from the Court, the parties' briefing on that related motion concluded on June 1. On June 5, the Court denied that motion without prejudice. However, the Court also found that CresCom had made a prima facie showing that supplementary proceedings are appropriate. To maintain the status quo pending further review of CresCom's supplementary proceedings motion, the Court issued a ...

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.