Buy This Entire Record For
Wellin v. Wellin
United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division
March 12, 2019
Keith Wellin, individually and as Trustee of the Keith S. Wellin Florida Revocable Living Trust u/a/d December 11, 2001, Plaintiff,
Peter J. Wellin, Cynthia W. Plum, and Marjorie W. King, individually and as Co-Trustees and Beneficiaries of the Wellin Family 2009 Irrevocable Trust u/a/d November 2, 2009, and Friendship Management, LLC, Defendants. Lester S. Schwartz, as Trust Protector of the Wellin Family 2009 Irrevocable Trust, Plaintiff,
Peter J. Wellin, Cynthia W. Plum and Marjorie W. King, individually and as Co-Trustees and Beneficiaries of the Wellin Family 2009 Irrevocable Trust, Friendship Management, LLC, and Cynthia W. Plum as Manager of Friendship Management, LLC, Defendants. Peter J. Wellin, Cynthia W. Plum and Marjorie W. King, as Co-Trustees of the Wellin Family 2009 Irrevocable Trust, Counterclaim Plaintiffs,
Lester S. Schwartz, Esq., as Trust Protector of the Wellin Family 2009 Irrevocable Trust u/a/d November 2, 2009, and Keith Wellin, as Grantor of the Wellin Family 2009 Irrevocable Trust u/a/d November 2, 2009, Counterclaim Defendants. Peter J. Wellin, Cynthia Wellin Plum, and Majorie Wellin King, Individually and as Co-Trustees and Beneficiaries of the Wellin Family 2009 Irrevocable Trust u/a/d November 2, 2009, Plaintiffs,
Wendy Wellin, Individually and as Trustee of the Keith S. Wellin Florida Revocable Living Trust u/a/d December 11, 2001, Defendants.
C. Norton United States District Judge
above referenced case is before this court upon the Special
Master's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 672 in
2:13-cv-1831 DCN) on the motion filed by the Wellin Children
to issue a protective order prohibiting Lester Schwartz and
Larry McDevitt from reconvening the deposition of Marjorie W.
court is charged with conducting a de novo review of
any portion of the Special Master's report to which a
specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in
that report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, absent
prompt objection by a dissatisfied party, it appears that
Congress did not intend for the district court to review the
factual and legal conclusions of the Special Master.
Thomas v Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Additionally, any
party who fails to file timely, written objections to the
Special Master's report pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1) waives the right to raise those objections at the
appellate court level. United States v. Schronce,
727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 467 U.S.
1208 (1984). No objections have been filed to
the magistrate judge's report and
de novo review of the record indicates that the
Special Master's report accurately summarizes this case
and the applicable law. Accordingly, the Special Master's
report and recommendation is ADOPTED, and
the court ORDERS that upon reconvening the
deposition of Marjorie King and following completion of
questioning by the other deponents, McDevitt shall be allowed
to re-ask the following question of Ms. King, as well as
follow-up questions specific to the subject of the inquiry in
that question, but only if the witness answers the question
in the affirmative:
any point, did you tell your attorneys that Tina Green, an
employee of Keith Wellin and Wendy Wellin, was relaying to
you privileged conversations that were taking place between
Wendy and her attorneys.
witness answers the above question in the negative, further
questioning of the witness is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
parties are hereby notified that any right to appeal this
Order is governed by Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of
In Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d
841 (4th Cir. 1985), the court held "that a pro
se litigant must receive fair notification of the
consequences of failure to object to a magistrate
judge's report before such a procedural default will
result in waiver of the right to appeal. The notice must be
'sufficiently understandable to one in appellant's
circumstances fairly to appraise him of what is
required.'" Id. at 846. Plaintiff was
advised in a clear manner that his objections had to be filed
within ten (10) days, and he ...