Quilling v. Trade Partners, Inc. et al, No. 1:2003cv00236 - Document 1734 (W.D. Mich. 2008)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 1715 , denying 1718 Frank Taber's objections, granting 1658 Receiver's motion for an order determining the right of "irrevocable beneficiaries" and releasing fun ds from the registry of the Court; "irrevocable beneficiaries" shall be considered the same as any other viatical investor who has an allowed Class "C" claim; all investors shall be afforded a pro rata distribution in accord with the Plan of Distribution previously approved by the Court; Clerk is directed to pay the funds and all accrued interest to the Receiver, with such funds to be included in funds to be distributed to allowed claimants; signed by Judge Robert Holmes Bell (Judge Robert Holmes Bell, kcb)

Download PDF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION MICHAEL J. QUILLING, Plaintiff, File No. 1:03-CV-236 v. HON. ROBERT HOLMES BELL TRADE PARTNERS, INC., et al., Defendants. / MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody filed a Report and Recommendation ( R&R ) on June 25, 2008, recommending that the Receiver s motion for an order determining the rights of irrevocable beneficiaries and releasing funds (Dkt. No. 1658, Receiver s Mot.) be granted, and that irrevocable beneficiaries be considered the same as any other viatical investor who has an allowed Class A claim. (Dkt. No. 1715, 6/25/08 R&R.) Frank Taber has filed objections to the R&R. (Dkt. No. 1718, Obj. to R&R.) This Court is required to make a de novo determination of those portions of the R&R to which objection has been made, and may accept, reject, or modify any or all of the Magistrate Judge s findings or recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The Magistrate Judge noted in her R&R that none of the 226 individuals identified by the Receiver as irrevocable beneficiaries objected to being treated the same as the other Class A claimants except Mr. Mueller, whose claim has been resolved, and Mr. Taber, who was never an irrevocable beneficiary. (R&R 5.) Mr. Taber does not object to the Magistrate Judge s factual finding that he was never an irrevocable beneficiary. Mr. Taber testified at the June 5, 2007, hearing that he was not an irrevocable beneficiary. (Dkt. No. 1593, 6/5/07 Hr g Tr. 104.) He also notes in his objections that he is not and has never been an irrevocable beneficiary. (Obj. to R&R 3.) Neither does Mr. Taber purport to object on behalf of other irrevocable beneficiaries to their recommendation on how they should be treated. Instead, Mr. Taber s objections to this R&R simply supplement his objections to the Magistrate Judge s March 3, 2008, R&R which addressed the treatment of Mr. Taber s claim. (Dkt. No. 1689, 3/3/08 R&R.) On September 16, 2008, the Court adopted the Magistrate Judge s March 3, 2008, R&R. (Dkt. No. 1733.) Mr. Taber s current objections do not suggest any basis for reconsidering that order. Neither do they suggest a basis for rejecting the Magistrate Judge s June 25, 2008, R&R. No other objections have been filed to the Magistrate Judge s June 25, 2008, R&R. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge s recommendation that the irrevocable beneficiaries should be considered the same as any other viatical investor who has an allowed Class A claim. Accordingly, 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Frank Taber s objections to the Magistrate Judge s June 25, 2008, R&R (Dkt. No. 1718) are DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Receiver s motion for an order determining the right of irrevocable beneficiaries and releasing funds from the registry of the Court (Dkt. No. 1658) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that irrevocable beneficiaries shall be considered the same as any other viatical investor who has an allowed Class A claim. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all investors shall be afforded a pro rata distribution in accord with the Plan of Distribution previously approved by the Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to pay the funds and all accrued interest to the Receiver, with such funds to be included in funds to be distributed to allowed claimants. Dated: September 17, 2008 /s/ Robert Holmes Bell ROBERT HOLMES BELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.