Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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.

Slaugh v. MArianne Poseley Wagner Marrquardt Neidigh

United States District Court, D. Idaho

July 9, 2018

ROXANNE L. SLAUGH, an individual, in her capacity as Successor Trustee of the Neidigh Trust, dated April 21, 2010 and amended June 10, 2015, Plaintiff,
v.
MARIANNE POSELEY WAGNER MARRQUARDT NEIDIGH, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT AND SANCTIONS (Docket No. 98) PLAINTIFF'S CROSS-MOTION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT AND SANCTIONS (Docket No. 107)

          RONALD E. BUSH CHIEF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Now pending before the Court are (1) Defendant's Motion for Enforcement of Judgment and Sanctions (Docket No. 98), and (2) Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Enforcement of Judgment and Sanctions (Docket No. 107). Having carefully considered the record and otherwise being fully advised, the Court enters the following Memorandum Decision and Order:[1]

         BACKGROUND

         Unfortunately, the latest round of briefing confirms that the parties' ability to work cooperatively toward bringing this case to a close remains an elusive, and regrettable, failure. Counsel for the parties continue in an acrimonious relationship, marked in part by at-times toxic and disparaging written correspondence lobbed back and forth. Hence, in a case in which each side needs to have the benefit of cooperation in order to serve the best interests of the clients, the case instead slogs on, with the parties incapable of satisfying the Court's February 18, 2018 Judgment. Most recently, each party has filed a motion to enforce the Judgment, while simultaneously seeking sanctions for the other's conduct alleged to have either interfered with actions that the Court previously ordered be taken, or by failing to take such actions. And, in doing so, each side claims the high ground.

         More than a year ago, this case settled in a settlement conference with Magistrate Judge Candy W. Dale. Yet, unlike nearly every other such case that goes through a settlement conference resulting in a settlement, the parties did not complete their settlement, and the history of the case before this Court continued. As part of that continuing saga, the Defendant moved to enforce the settlement agreement consistent with her understanding of the settlement's terms. PLAINTIFF stridently opposed the motion, but on September 28, 2017, the Court granted, in part, and denied, in part, Defendant's motion, ordering:

A settlement agreement exists between the parties and Plaintiff is to be paid $136, 000, with the IBEW retirement and Fidelity accounts being applied toward that amount. In this respect, the Motion is GRANTED. To the extent Defendant requests that Plaintiff either take less than $136, 000 and/or be ordered to account for any taxable events related to any distributions from these accounts, that request is rejected. In this respect, the Motion is DENIED.

9/28/17 MDO, p. 11 (Docket No. 78). Four days later, Defendant requested clarification of the Court's September 28, 2017 Order, which Plaintiff again opposed.[2] On November 30, 2017, the Court granted, in part, and denied, in part, Defendant's request, ordering:

         A settlement agreement exists between the parties and Plaintiff is to be paid $136, 000, with the IBEW retirement and Fidelity accounts being applied toward that amount. Plaintiff is to receive $136, 000 after any withholding. In this respect, Defendant's Request is DENIED.

         The El Dorado account belongs to Defendant, with Defendant being entitled to its balance as of May 3, 2017. Additionally, all rent proceeds collected from the properties that Defendant is understood to own following the May 3, 2017 settlement agreement (less any management fees incurred) belong to Defendant. In these respects, Defendant's Request is GRANTED.

         11/30/17 Order, pp. 4-5 (Docket No. 86).

         On February 28, 2018, the Court issued a Judgment enforcing the settlement that had been reached between the parties, taking into account the parties' proposed judgments along with the above-referenced Orders. In relevant part, the Judgment fully and finally resolved all claims asserted between the parties in four different legal actions (including this proceeding), and incorporated the following terms:

         1. Plaintiff shall receive the sum of $136, 000.00, funded by the IBEW retirement and Fidelity accounts (and such other funds held in the Lukins & Annis, P.S. IOLTA Trust Account in the event any portion of the settlement amount remained unsatisfied after payment from the IBEW retirement and Fidelity accounts;

         2. Plaintiff shall retain the 11 gold coins in her possession;

         3. Plaintiff shall receive possession and clear title to the Harley Davidson Motorcycle belonging to the Estate of Robert Neidigh, which is in the possession of Defendant.

         4. Plaintiff shall receive family pictures or photo albums that remain in existence;

         5. Plaintiff shall receive one or more of the 13 firearms belonging to the Estate of Robert Neidigh;

         6. Defendant shall receive possession of and clear title to the Real Property owned by The Neidigh Trust, dated April 21, 2010, Roxanne Slaugh, trustee, generally located at 10620 N. Reed Road, Hayden, Kootenai County, Idaho;

         7. Defendant shall receive possession of and clear title to the Real Property owned by The Neidigh Trust, dated April 21, 2010, Roxanne Slaugh, trustee, generally located at 5543 37th Avenue, Sacramento, Sacramento, County, California;

         8. Defendant shall receive possession of and clear title to the Real Property owned by The Neidigh Trust, dated April 21, 2010, Roxanne Slaugh, trustee, generally located at 4385 Wabasso Lane, Garden Valley, El Dorado County, California;

         9. Defendant shall receive all assets of the Estate of Robert Neidigh not otherwise described as belonging to Plaintiff in this Judgment, to include but not be limited to:

a. The balance of the bank account(s) at El Dorado Savings Bank as of May 3, 2017, including any rent proceeds collected in relation to the three above-referenced properties as of May 3, 2017 (less any management fees incurred).
b. The proceeds of the sale of a certain Ford truck in the amount of approximately $8, 500.00; and c. A Toyota Camry automobile.

         10. Each party shall take all necessary steps, in good faith and cooperation, to accomplish the transfers in ownership (including deeds and titles) needed to effectuate the terms of the Judgment;

         11. Plaintiff and Defendant, and their counsel, shall execute and sign a Stipulation for Order of Dismissal, with Prejudice, as to three of the four non-probate 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.