SE Property Holdings, LLC v. Tammy T. Center, et al, No. 17-14076 (11th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 17-14076 Date Filed: 05/31/2018 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 17-14076 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:15-cv-00033-WS-C SE PROPERTY HOLDINGS, LLC, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TAMMY T. CENTER, ESTATE OF CHARLES H. TRAMMELL, BELINDA TRAMMELL, AMY T. BROWN, TRAMMELL FAMILY ORANGE BEACH PROPERTIES, LLC, TRAMMELL FAMILY LAKE MARTIN PROPERTIES, LLC, Defendants - Appellants. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama ________________________ (May 31, 2018) Before WILSON, JORDAN, and FAY, Circuit Judges. Case: 17-14076 Date Filed: 05/31/2018 Page: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: This appeal arises from a diversity suit brought under the Alabama Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act and under the Alabama common law of civil conspiracy by SE Property Holdings, LLC against several individuals and entities. SEPH sued the defendants based on allegations of fraudulent transfers of assets away from the persons and entities allegedly liable to it and with that liability pending determination in state-court litigation. After a three-day bench trial, the district court issued a thorough order making findings of fact and drawing conclusions of law, and ultimately “enjoin[ing the defendants] from further disposition of any of [certain enumerated] assets” pending the resolution of the state-court action. SE Prop. Holdings, LLC v. Center, No. 15-cv-33-WS-C, 2018 WL 279989, at *5 (S.D. Ala. Jan. 2, 2018). The defendants’ initial brief—which consists of only eight sentences of argument and two case citations, and not supplemented by a reply brief—argues that the district court was powerless to issue the order that it did. In so doing, it makes arguments and cites cases regarding the general law of preliminary injunctions rather than the AUFTA, which was the authority for the relief that the district court granted in this case. And, sure enough, a provision enumerating the AUFTA’s remedies plainly states that the relief granted here was available: In an action for relief against a transfer under this chapter, the remedies available to creditors, . . . include . . . [a]n injunction against 2 Case: 17-14076 Date Filed: 05/31/2018 Page: 3 of 3 further disposition by the debtor or a transferee, or both, of the asset transferred or of other property.” Ala. Code § 8-9A-7(a)(3)(a). See also Prescott v. Baker, 644 So. 2d 877, 880 (Ala. 1994) (quoting this same provision and observing that “the remedies afforded by the [AUFTA] . . . may be available even though a creditor’s claim has not been reduced to judgment”). In sum, the defendants argue that the district court had no authority under one source of law, but the district court relied upon a different source of law. Because the defendants’ argument fails to address the basis for the district court’s ruling, we must reject it. See Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680–81 (11th Cir. 2014). AFFIRMED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
