Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01198/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01198-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 

---

ROBERT L.. HOECKER 

~nitcb ~tntcs Olnurt nf j\ppcnls 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

OFFICE OF THE CLERK 

C404 UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE 

DENVER. COLORADO 80294 

January 25, 1990 TELEPHONE 

( 303) 844-3157. 

CLERK (FTSl 564·3157 

TO : ALL RECIPIENTS OF THE CAPTIONED OPINION 

RE: No. 87-1198; Clark v. Goldberg 

Opinion filed by Judee James K. Logan on January 2, 1990 

Attached is the second corrected page 6 to be substituted 

for page 6 ih the opinion filed on January 2, 1990. The citation 

to Colo. R. Civ .. P. 103(i) on line ~has been corrected. 

PF:kmh 

enclosure 

By,, 

Sincerely, 

ERT L. 

atrick Fisher 

Chief Deputy Clerk 

Appellate Case: 87-1198 Document: 01019297086 Date Filed: 01/02/1990 Page: 1 
87-1198; Clark v. Goldberg 

Opinion filed on 1/2/90 by Judge Logan. 

' 

response or within sixty days following the issuance of a summons, 

or be "thereafter barred." Colo. R. Civ. P. 103(i) (subsequently 

amended and renumbered at Colo. R. Civ. P. 103(ll)(b)). Mrs. 

Goldberg's failure to assert her claim at the December 10, 1981 

hearing resulted in a conclusive determination that the property 

was properly garnished. Id. Cf. Hartner v. Davis, 68 P.2d 456, 

457 (Colo. 1937) (third party claimant in attachment must file 

intervention proceedings within statutory period of thirty days 

after levy; fact that intervention occurred before final judgment 

and distribution of sale proceeds not sufficient). Such a 

determination must be given claim preclusive effect by this court. 

We are unpersuaded by Mrs. Goldberg's argument that she had 

no quarrel with the garnishment itself, only the proposed 

distribution of the proceeds. Absent some agreement to the 

contrary, once a third party claimant has conceded that the 

disputed property may be garnished by a creditor, she is estopped 

from thereafter claiming the proceeds of the garnishment. See 

Hartner, 68 P.2d at 457; accord Dodder v. Moberly, 28 Okla.· 334, 

114 P. 714, 716 (1911). There is no evidence of any such 

agreement in this case. 

Mrs. Goldberg also argues that the results of the 

December 10, 1981 hearing should be set aside by this court 

because (1) the district court had no jurisdiction over her, and 

(2) she had no notice that her property rights were to be 

conclusively determined at ihat time. These arguments are equally 

unpersuasive. 

-6-

Appellate Case: 87-1198 Document: 01019297086 Date Filed: 01/02/1990 Page: 2 
)tlnitd• ~tatcs Qlonrt of Appeals 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

OFFICE OF THE CLERK 

C404 UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE 

DENVER. C'0).0RAOO 80294 

ROBERT L. HOECKER January 9, 1990 CLERK 

TO : ALL RECIPIENTS OF THE CAPTIONED OPINION 

RE: No. 87-1198; CLARK, et al. v. GOLDBERG. et al. 

Opinion filed on January 2, 1990 by Judge James 

K. Logan 

TELEPHONE 

13031 844·31!57 

IFTSl !564·31!57 

Attached is a corrected page 6 to be substituted for page 6 

in the opinion sent to you on January 2, 1990. The citations 

to Colo. R. Civ. ~· in the second and third lines on page 6 

have been corrected. 

Please call this office if you have questions. 

RLH :kmh 

attachment 

Sincerely, 

ROBERT L. HOECKER, Clerk 

Appellate Case: 87-1198 Document: 01019297086 Date Filed: 01/02/1990 Page: 3 
No. 87-1198; Clark, et al. v. Goldberg, et al. 

Opinion filed on 1/2/90 by Judge James K. Logan. 

response or within sixty days following the issuance of a summons, 

or be "thereafter barred." Colo. R. Civ. P. 103(h) (subsequently 

amended and renumbered at Colo. R. Civ. P. 103(ll)(b)). Mrs. 

Goldberg's failure to assert her claim at the December 10, 1981 

hearing resulted in a conclusive determination that the property 

was properly garnished. !d. Cf. Hartner v. Davis, 68 P.2d 456, 

457 (Colo. 1937) (third party claimant in attachment must file 

intervention proceedings within statutory period of thirty days 

after levy; fact that intervention occurred before final judgment 

and distribution of sale proceeds not sufficient). Such a 

determination must be given claim preclusive effect by this court. 

We are unpersuaded by Mrs. Goldberg's argument that she had 

no quarrel with the garnishment itself, only the proposed 

distribution of the proceeds. Absent some agreement to the 

contrary, once a third party claimant has conceded that the 

d~sputed property may be garnished by a creditor, she is estopped 

from thereafter claiming the proceeds of the garnishment. See 

Hartner, 68 P.2d at 457; accord Dodder v. Moberly, 28 Okla. 334, 

114 P. 714, 716 (1911). There is no evidence of any such 

agreement in this case. 

Mrs. Goldberg also argues that the results of the 

December 10, 1981 hearing should be set aside by this court 

because (1) the district court had no jurisdiction over her, and 

(2) she had no notice that her property rights were to be 

conclusively determined at that time. These arguments are equally 

unpersuasive. 

-6-

Appellate Case: 87-1198 Document: 01019297086 Date Filed: 01/02/1990 Page: 4 
PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

SECURITIES INVESTOR PROTECTION ) 

CORPORATION, ) 

Applicant, 

RALPH M. CLARK, as Trustee for 

the LIQUIDATION OF INSTITUTIONAL SECURITIES OF COLORADO, 

INC., 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Fl,LED u~~itci S~ates C'x_trr ~f Appeals 

fenth C!r·-..::: 

JAN 2.- 1990 

~OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 87-1198 

ABRAHAM B. GOLDBERG, et al. 

Defendants, 

MARGO GOLDBERG, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the District of Colorado 

(D.C. Civil No. 76-M-961) 

Submitted on the briefs: 

Bruce McMillen, Saguache, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant. 

William D. Scheid of Scheid and Horlbeck, Denve~, Colorado, for 

Plaintiff-Appellee. 

Before LOGAN, ANDERSON, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges 

LOGAN, Circuit Judge. 

Appellate Case: 87-1198 Document: 01019297086 Date Filed: 01/02/1990 Page: 5 
This is an appeal from a district court ruling that Margo 

Goldberg has no claim to corporate stock in Pro Scan Inc. and in 

Robert Halmi, Inc. acquired by her husband during their marriage. 1 

We affirm the district court's determination that Mrs. Goldberg 

has waived and is now estopped from claiming any rights to the 

property. 2 

Margo and Abraham Goldberg were married in 1969, which 

marriage continued until Mrs. Goldberg filed for divorce on 

June 4, 1981. In 1977, Mr. Goldberg pleaded guilty to a series of 

securities fraud charges leveled against him by the Securities and 

Exchange Commission for acts he committed during 1975-76, during 

his tenure as Vice President of Institutional Securities of 

Colorado, Inc. (ISOC), a broker-dealer. Ralph M. C~ark, a trustee 

in liquidation (the Trustee), was appointed to represent the 

1 Mrs. Goldberg also complains that the district court did not 

resolve issues of her ownership rights in a condominium in Vail 

and an option in stock of American Genetics Inc, which she says 

are dependent upon the outcome of Pro Scan and Halmi issues. In 

reviewing the record, we note that there is no discussion of these 

items in the district court's order. The order does state that 

the bankruptcy judge, as special master, held Mrs. Goldberg had no 

interest "in any of the assets" held by the Trustee. II R. tab 46 

at l. And the court's order contained the following statement: 

"It is this Court's understanding that the only dispute between 

the parties has beeri the [Pro Scan and Halmi] stock proceeds, and 

that they are able to resolve the interests of Margo Goldberg in 

other assets which have come into the control of the trustee." 

Id. at 6. Thus, the district court's order appears to be a final 

disposition of all issues before it. We are given no information 

or arguments that enable us to consider rfghts in a Vail 

condominium or a stock option in American Genetics; therefore, we 

express no opinion on those matters. 

2 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has 

determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

as?ist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); lOth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 87-1198 Document: 01019297086 Date Filed: 01/02/1990 Page: 6 
interest of !SOC customers pursuant to the Securit~es Investor 

Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78aaa et seq. The Trustee eventually 

obtained large judgments against Mr. Goldberg. From 1978 to 1981, 

the Trustee set about locating and levying upon Mr. Goldberg's 

assets to satisfy the debt. During this period, Mr. Goldberg 

continued to work in various business endeavors, during which he 

acquired the stock at issue in this proceeding. Both parties 

appear to agree that these stocks are separate from and not 

proceeds of the fraud perpetrated on !SOC customers. 

On November 17, 1981, after Mrs. Goldberg had filed an action· 

to dissolve the marriage, the state court having jurisdiction of 

the case granted Mrs. Goldberg's ex parte motion for a temporary 

restraining order (TRO) prohibiting either spouse from disposing 

of property until rights to such property were established. The 

TRO specifically prohibited transfer of the Pro Scan stock. 

If he did not know earlier of Mrs. Goldberg's dissolution 

action and of the TRO, the Trustee became aware of them when he 

attempted to levy on 2,000,000 shares of Pro Scan stock stock 

transfer agents held for Mr. Goldberg. Consequently, the Trustee 

filed an application in federal district court for an order 

requiring Mrs. Goldberg to amend the TRO so that he could levy on 

the Pro Scan stock. The Trustee served a copy of the application 

on the lawyer handling Mrs. Goldberg's divorce.· 

On December 10, 1981, the federal district court held a 

hearing on the application. There is some conflict over whether 

Mrs. Go~db~rg attended the hearing. Mrs. Goldberg avers that she 

did not, but the hearing transcript indicates that her attorney, 

-3-

Appellate Case: 87-1198 Document: 01019297086 Date Filed: 01/02/1990 Page: 7 
Kevin Shine, was appearing "with Mrs. Goldberg.'' II R. tab 39, 

Ex. H at 2. Follo~ing off-the-record discussion, Mrs. Goldberg, 

through her attorney, agreed to seek a modification of the TRO in 

state court. There is little discussion on record concerning this 

agreement, except for Attorney Shine's stated concern that any 

excess funds, following sale of the stock, be turned over to the 

state court for distribution. Id. Mrs. Goldberg's failure to 

object to or appeal from the federal court's order, and her 

subsequent request to the state court to incorporate into the TRO 

by reference the entirety of the federal court order, satisfy us 

that the district court order embodied the agreement reached 

between the Trustee and Mrs. Goldberg. 

In July 1982, the Trustee attempted to levy on 100,000 shares 

of stock in Robert Halmi, Inc., then in the possession of 

J. Daniel Bell & Co. Inc. The garnishee resisted garnishment 

because of the outstanding TRO prohibiting transfer of Goldberg 

property. Alleging agreement of Mrs. Goldberg, the Trustee 

applied for an order in federal district court directing Bell to 

turn over the Halmi stock. The application specifically requested 

"[t]hat the securities should be sold and the proceeds therefrom 

applied in partial reduction of the Trustee's Judgment." I R. tab 

17 at 3. The district court entered an order directing Bell to 

turn over the stock upon receipt of notice that the Goldberg TRO 

had been modified. That order incorporated the ·"partial 

reduction" language quoted above. I R. tab 18 at 2. Mrs. 

Goldberg petitioned the Colorado state court to modify the TRO "in 

accordance with the Order of the United States District Court.'' 

-4-

Appellate Case: 87-1198 Document: 01019297086 Date Filed: 01/02/1990 Page: 8 
II R. tab 39 Ex. N at 1. An order modifying the TRO was so 

entered. Id. Ex. 0. Mrs. Goldberg made no timely objection to 

the language of the application, order or modification. 

On December 5, 1983, the Trustee filed a proposed 

distribution order in the district court which would distribute to 

ISOC customers, inter alia, the full value of the Halmi and Pro 

Scan stock. Mrs. Goldberg filed an objection to the distribution 

order asserting a claim for one-half of the value of these blocks 

of stock as part of her portion of the marital estate, in accord 

with her interpretation of the state court's order· dividing the 

marital property. The Trustee contends that, regardless of its 

status as marital property, Mrs. Goldberg's past actions with 

regard to the stock constituted a waiver of her interest and that 

she is estopped from asserting a property interest in the stock at 

this late date. 

It is our view that Mrs. Goldberg, at the time of the hearing 

on the order to show cause, was in the position of a third party 

claiming ownership of property being garnished to satisfy the 

debts of another. By obtaining the TRO, Mrs. Goldberg was assured 

of notice in the event of a ~arnishment of property held in her 

husband's name. While in a slightly different form, the order to 

show cause, and her appearance at the hearing, are analogous to an 

intervention by a third party claimant to the garnished property. 

Mrs. Goldberg had notice of the garnishment and appeared (in 

person and/or through her attorney) in court with the opportunity 

to contest it. Under Colorado law, a third party claimant must 

contest the garnishment of the property at the time set for a 

-5-

Appellate Case: 87-1198 Document: 01019297086 Date Filed: 01/02/1990 Page: 9 
response or within sixty days following the issuance of a summons, 

or be ''thereafter barred." Colo. R. County Court Civ. P. 403(h) 

(subsequently amended and renumbered at Colo. R. County Court Civ. 

P. 403(ll)(b)). Mrs. Goldberg's failure to assert her claim at 

the December 10, 1981 hearing resulted in a conclusive 

determination that the property was properly garnished. Id. Cf. 

Hartner v. Davis, 68 P.2d 456, 457 (Colo. 1937) (third party 

claimant in attachment must file intervention proceedings within 

statutory period of thirty days after levy; fact that intervention 

occurred before final judgment and distribution of sale proceeds 

not sufficient). Such a determination must be given claim 

preclusive effect by this court. 

We are unpersuaded by Mrs. Goldberg's argument that she had 

no quarrel with the garnishment itself, only the proposed 

distribution of the proceeds. Absent some agreement to the 

contrary, once a third party claimant has conceded that the 

disputed property may be garnished by a creditor, she is estopped 

from thereafter claiming the proceeds of the garnishment. See 

Hartner, 68 P.2d at 457; accord Dodder v. Moberly, 28 Okla. 334, 

114 P. 714, 716 (1911). There is no evidence of any such 

agreement in this case. 

Mrs. Goldberg 

December 10, 1981 

also argues that the results of the 

hearing should be set aside by this court 

because (1) the district court had no jurisdiction over her, and 

(2) she had no notice that her property rights were to be 

conclusively determined at that time. These arguments are equally 

unpersuasive. 

-6-

Appellate Case: 87-1198 Document: 01019297086 Date Filed: 01/02/1990 Page: 10 
First, we note that the district court had exclusive 

jurisdiction over the res subject to garnishment. 15 U.S.C. 

§ 78eee(b)(2)(A). Such jurisdiction is sufficient to allow the 

court to resolve competing claims over 

personal jurisdiction over the parties. 

Civil Actions~ 1.01[3] (1983). Second, 

ownership even absent 

R. Casad, Jurisdiction in 

we note that Mrs. 

Goldberg voluntarily appeared and/or was represented by counsel at 

the hearing. She has waived, therefore, any objection to personal 

jurisdiction that she otherwise might have asserted under Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 12(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. · 12(h); In re Grand Jury 

Proceedings, 654 F.2d 268, 271 (3d Cir. 1981); Rauch v. Day & 

Night Mfg. Corp., 576 F.2d 697, 701 (6th Cir. 1978). See also 

Casad at ~~ 3.01[5][b], 6.02. 

Regarding the contention that Mrs. Goldberg lacked notice 

that her property rights were to be determined, we· observe the 

following: Mrs. Goldberg. obtained an ex parte TRO to protect the 

marital estate from dissipation during the divorce proceedings; 

the Trustee asked for a modification of the TRO in order to sell 

property that was specifically subject to the restraining order; 

and Mrs. Goldberg agreed to modify the order and release the 

property without entering any agreement with the Trustee regarding 

the protection of her interest in the property. Given that the 

stated justification for the ex parte TRO was the irreparable harm 

that would result to Mrs. Goldberg's rights if the property were 

transferred, we are unable to comprehend in what way Mrs. Goldberg 

lacked notice that her property rights were at stake in the 

hearing. Moreover, Mrs. Goldberg, without objection, petitioned 

-7-

Appellate Case: 87-1198 Document: 01019297086 Date Filed: 01/02/1990 Page: 11 
the state court to incorporate into the TRO the entirety of the 

district court order, which specifically limited her interest in 

the garnished property to "any excess shares or cash remaining in 

the Trustee's possession after full satisfaction of the Trustee's 

said judgment." II R. tab 39, Ex. I at 3, and Ex. J (emphasis 

added). We, therefore, hold that the Pro Scan stock was properly 

garnished by the Trustee and its full value is subject to 

distribution to the customers of ISOC. 

Mrs. Goldberg's objections to the distribution of the 

proceeds of the Halmi stock are equally without merit. While 

there was no specific hearing and order on the issue, Mrs. 

Goldberg, by agreement, requested a similar modification of her 

TRO· allowing the Trustee to take possession of the Halmi stock. 

For the same reasons discussed aboVe, we hold that she is barred 

by principles of claim preclusion from now asserting a claim to 

the proceeds arising from sale of the Halmi stock. 

Accordingly, the decision of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

-8-

Appellate Case: 87-1198 Document: 01019297086 Date Filed: 01/02/1990 Page: 12