Southern Management Corporation v. Charles Jewell, No. 12-2319 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2319 SOUTHERN MANAGEMENT CORPORATION RETIREMENT TRUST, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHARLES TIMOTHY JEWELL, Defendant Appellant, and ROBERT FULTON ROOD, IV, Defendant, and GARY A. ROSEN, Trustee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District Judge. (8:11-cv-03059-DKC; 08-17199; 09-00188) Submitted: June 24, 2013 Decided: Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. July 17, 2013 Charles Timothy Jewell, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Sweeney, YUMKAS VIDMAR & SWEENEY, LLC, Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Southern Management Corporation Retirement Trust ( SMCRT ) filed an adversary proceeding in the bankruptcy case of Robert F. Rood, IV, alleging that Charles Timothy Jewell, Rood, and numerous other persons and entities were liable for fraud, civil conspiracy, assets under Maryland fraudulent law, and had conveyance engaged transfers of assets of the bankruptcy estate. of in corporate unauthorized The bankruptcy court found that Jewell was liable for civil conspiracy in the amount of $500,000, and for fraudulent conveyance of corporate assets in the amount of $7,100. this judgment, court. and Jewell noted The district court affirmed his further appeal to this Finding no error and no abuse of discretion, we affirm the judgment of the bankruptcy court. Jewell challenged the admission into evidence of a document dated April 2006, that proposed to award him shares in Kore Holding, Inc., a company controlled by Rood, in exchange for consulting services. He contends that the document was not signed and executed, and therefore was not admissible. Because the document was not admitted for the purpose of showing that Jewell received the stock, but rather to refute his contention that he had no business relationship with Kore Holding or Rood prior to April 2008, we find no abuse of discretion by the 3 bankruptcy court in admitting this evidence. See Westberry v. Gislaved Gummi AB, 178 F.3d 257, 261 (4th Cir. 1999). Jewell also contends that the bankruptcy court erred by allowing Suzanne Hillman to testify as an expert in forensic accounting, and Supplement to admitting Expert into evidence Report. The a document admission of entitled the Expert Report was stipulated, and the Supplement to the Expert Report was admitted into evidence without objection. A party waives appellate review of a court s decisions concerning the admission of evidence if he fails to timely object to those rulings at trial. See Fed. R. Evid. 103(a); DiPaola v. Riddle, 581 F.2d 1111, 1113 (4th Cir. 1978). Here, Jewell voiced no objection to the admission of the expert report or the supplement to the expert report. Thus, he failed to preserve for appeal any challenge to the admission of this evidence. Jewell also challenges the bankruptcy court s qualification of Hillman as an expert in forensic accounting. Hillman was initially so qualified during the hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction. Jewell failed to object at that time to her qualifications to testify as an expert. During the as trial when SMCRT sought to present her testimony an expert, Jewell challenged her qualifications based on the fact that her website did not identify her as an expert in forensic accounting and questioning her 4 objectivity, given her relationship to David Hillman, the CEO of SMCRT. questioned whether Hillman involved in this case. had prior knowledge Jewell also of the loans Hillman testified that she did not have information concerning the loans until after the case began and she received the materials in response to the subpoenas to the banks. Hillman also explained that her function in the case was merely to record the financial transactions: and white. It s fairly black Either a check goes through the account and clears or it does not. There s not a lot of interpretation on that. This court reviews the lower court s decision to admit expert testimony discretion. under Fed. R. Evid. 702 for abuse of United States v. Wilson, 484 F.3d 267, 273 (4th Cir. 2007) (citing Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 152 (1999)). experience Here, the bankruptcy court had reviewed Hillman s and expertise during the preliminary injunction hearing and found that she qualified to testify as an expert in forensic accounting. Faced with the challenges to her objectivity and the fact that her website failed to list her as a forensic objections accountant, insufficient the to bankruptcy overcome Hillman qualified as an expert. in the expert. Cir. bankruptcy court s the court found determination these that We find no abuse of discretion decision to qualify Hillman as an See United States v. Johnson, 617 F.3d 286, 293 (4th 2010) (noting the process 5 of forensic data extraction requires some specialized knowledge or skill or education that is not in the possession of the jurors ). Jewell also contends that his defense was prejudiced by the bankruptcy court s decision to prohibit him from calling Rood as a witness in his defense in accordance with the court s decision to preclude Rood from testifying in the adversary proceeding due to Rood s numerous discovery violations. This court reviews the decision to sanction a party for discovery violations for abuse of discretion. Mutual Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass n v. Richards & Assocs., Inc., 872 F.2d 88, 92 (4th Cir. 1989). Factors to consider in reviewing a discovery sanction are whether the violations were done in bad faith, any prejudice to other parties, the need for deterrence, and whether a less severe sanction would be effective. Southern States Rack & Fixtures, Inc. v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 318 F.3d 592, 597 (4th Cir. 2003). The relevant inquiry as applied to Jewell is whether Jewell was prejudiced by the refusal to allow Rood to testify. The court heard arguments from both parties, asserting that Rood was a necessary witness. with Jewell When asked for a proffer of what testimony Jewell sought from Rood, he asserted that Rood could testify about the operations of Kore Holdings, his interactions with Jewell, and started working with Kore and Rood. 6 the timing of when Jewell Jewell also sought Rood s testimony concerning what happened with Bay Capital and Ben Lyons since [Jewell] wasn t involved in any of that. The bankruptcy court noted that Jewell had personal knowledge of and would be able to testify as to all of the areas for which he sought Rood s testimony. Thus, the bankruptcy court adhered to its ruling prohibiting Rood from testifying. Jewell then conclude rested that bankruptcy and Jewell court s witness. his defense has refusal case without testifying. not shown any prejudice to allow him to call We from Rood the as a As the court noted, Jewell had personal knowledge of could testify concerning all of the areas for which he sought to present Rood s testimony with the exception of what happened with Bay Capital and Ben Lyons. However, Jewell was not held accountable for any fraudulent conduct that occurred with respect to Bay Capital, and therefore he was not prejudiced by not being able to present this evidence. cannot show testimony, he we was find prejudiced no abuse by of the Because Jewell disallowance discretion by the of Rood s bankruptcy court s refusal to allow Jewell to call Rood as a witness. See Camper v. Home Quality Mgmt., Inc., 200 F.R.D. 516, 518 (D. Md. 2000). Jewell also challenges whether there was sufficient evidence from which the court determined that he was liable for fraud and civil conspiracy. To uphold the determination that 7 Jewell was involved in civil conspiracy, the evidence must establish that Jewell agreed with one or more other persons to accomplish an unlawful act or to use unlawful means to accomplish an act not itself illegal and that the act or means employed resulted in loss or damage to the plaintiff. Mackey v. Compass Mktg., Inc., 892 A.2d 479, 485 (Md. 2006). Jewell s conviction may also be upheld upon a finding that he knew of a violation of law encouragement to and the gave persons substantial engaging in assistance conduct. the or See Alleco, Inc. v. Harry & Jeannette Weinberg Found., Inc., 665 A.2d 1038 (Md. 1995). We have reviewed the evidence in light of these standards and have determined that the bankruptcy court did not err in finding Jewell liable for civil conspiracy in the amount of $500,000. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8013; Loudoun Leasing Dev. Co. v. Ford Motor Credit Co. (In re K & L Lakeland, Inc.), 128 F.3d 203, district judgment. legal before 206 (4th court s Cir. order 1997). Accordingly, upholding the we affirm bankruptcy the court s We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 8
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.
