1

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

CLIFFORD CUNIFF

 Chapter 7

 Case No. 20-12088 KHK

Creditor/Plaintiff, 

v. 

BRANDI AUSTIN MCINTYRE

Debtor/Defendant. 

 Adversary No. ____________

 Complaint to Determine and 

 Object to Dischargeability of Debt 

COMPLAINT 

Plaintiff Clifford Cuniff (“Plaintiff” or “Mr. Cuniff”) respectfully brings this adversary 

proceeding pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6), 18 U.S.C. § 1964, and Bankruptcy Rules 4007 and

7001 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure objecting to any discharge of Defendant 

Brandi Austin McIntyre’s (the “Debtor” or “Ms. McIntyre”) debt to Mr. Cuniff and seeking an 

order determining that the judgments obtained by Mr. Cuniff against Ms. McIntyre are excepted 

from discharge. In support of his complaint, Plaintiff states as follows: 

INTRODUCTION

1. This adversary proceeding relates to In re Brandi A. McIntyre No. 20-12088 KHK 

(Bankr. E.D. Va.) now pending in this Court (the “Bankruptcy Case”). 

2. Mr. Cuniff, as detailed further below, is seeking satisfaction of multiple judgments 

based on RICO and the return of certain monies stolen from his attorney trust account during his 

career as a litigator. He holds general unsecured claims against the Debtor pursuant to judgments 

entered and modified in the Anne Arundel County Maryland Circuit Court case styled Clifford 

Cuniff v. Davonne Evans, et al. Case Number C-02-CV-18-001050 (the “Judgments”). A copy of 

Case 21-01003-KHK Doc 1 Filed 01/08/21 Entered 01/08/21 18:08:27 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 6
2

the Judgments is attached and incorporated as Exhibit 1. The Judgments include multiple

violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (“RICO”).

3. The facts set forth in this Complaint were presented to a jury during a three-day

long trial, resulting in a verdict being returned in favor of Mr. Cuniff. Hence, the facts supporting

this complaint are all matters of record.

4. The jury concluded that the Debtor not only received, directly, money stolen by her 

mother from Mr. Cuniff’s Trust account, but also an array of goods and services purchased directly 

with these stolen proceeds. Then, separately, that jury concluded that the Debtor conspired with 

other members of the crime family to extort Mr. Cuniff and then to even convert restitution funds 

from other sources specifically designated to repay Mr. Cuniff. These activities resulted in 

multiple judgments against the Debtor under the RICO statute.

5. Ms. McIntyre’s debts to Mr. Cuniff are not dischargeable because they are damages 

from a willful and malicious injury perpetrated by Ms. McIntyre, the Debtor, against Mr. Cuniff. 

PARTIES

6. Plaintiff Clifford Cuniff is an individual residing in Maryland and a creditor in the 

Bankruptcy Case now pending before this Court.

7. Defendant Brandi A. McIntyre is an individual residing in Prince William County, 

Virginia and the debtor in the Bankruptcy Case now pending before this Court.

JURISDICTION & VENUE

8. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 

157 and 1334, and 11 U.S.C. § 523. This Adversary Proceeding is a core proceeding pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(I). 

9. Venue in the Eastern District of Virginia is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1409(a).

Case 21-01003-KHK Doc 1 Filed 01/08/21 Entered 01/08/21 18:08:27 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 6
3

FACTS

10. Mr. Cuniff has practiced law in Maryland since 1981. His longtime secretary and 

bookkeeper is the Debtor’s mother, DaVonne Evans (“Mrs. Evans”). From 2007 to 2016, Mrs. 

Evans stole $1,506,722 from Mr. Cuniff’s attorney trust account. Upon discovery, Mr. Cuniff selfreported the theft to Maryland Bar Counsel and the State’s Attorney. He further then voluntarily 

replenished all stolen trust funds from his private funds to make affected clients whole. Mr. Cuniff 

was fully exonerated by the State’s Attorney and the Attorney Grievance Commission from any 

culpability in the theft, including any negligence or ethical breach in auditing his trust account. 

11. A jury found that of that stolen money, $108,692.72 was transferred to Debtor’s 

joint bank account with her then husband Bradley McIntyre (“Mr. McIntyre”). In addition, Mrs. 

Evans wrote checks to Debtor and Mr. McIntyre totaling $8,725, paid for their vacations to the 

Dominican Republic and elsewhere, and paid for property in kind such as Louis Vuitton handbags 

and jewelry for the Debtor, all from the stolen funds.

12. On November 11, 2016, at a meeting in Mr. Cuniff’s office, Debtor acknowledged 

that she was implicated in her mother’s theft enterprise and gave assurances of complete restitution 

for said theft. 

13. Debtor and her then husband and co-conspirator, Bradley McIntyre, returned to Mr. 

Cuniff’s office on November 16, 2016 where Debtor’s husband, admittedly acting for himself and 

Debtor, proceeded to extort Mr. Cuniff by threatening to report Mr. Cuniff to the States Attorney 

and Maryland State Bar Counsel on fabricated criminal and ethical charges. 

14. When that extortion attempt was rebuffed, Debtor’s husband bargained with Cuniff, 

for Debtor and himself, to exchange two cashier’s checks totaling $75,065.41, remitted by others 

but designated specifically to Mr. Cuniff as payee for restitution for the known theft, for a full and 

Case 21-01003-KHK Doc 1 Filed 01/08/21 Entered 01/08/21 18:08:27 Desc Main

Document Page 3 of 6
4

complete release of liability for Debtor and himself for the entire $1.5 million theft. He had been 

tasked with delivering them to Mr. Cuniff but refused to transfer them when his bargaining

attempts failed.

15. When the extortion and then bargaining attempts failed to coerce full liability 

releases from Mr. Cuniff, Debtor and Mr. McIntyre diverted those cashier’s checks to Mrs. Evans, 

who had perpetrated the original massive theft. These were converted to Mrs. Evans’ own use 

despite that the original remittiturs were other individuals. At the trial, Ms. Florence Caviness, the 

Debtor’s grandmother, testified that she had provided the bulk of these proceeds and intended them 

to be paid to Mr. Cuniff. She never learned of their actual conversion, and was lied to when she 

inquired. 

16. This extortion, fraud, theft, and conversion conspiracy provided the requisite 

predicates for the RICO-racketeering claims asserted by Mr. Cuniff against the Debtor at the trial 

which resulted in the verdicts and judgments now at issue. The complete factual foundation for 

them was already presented to, and accepted by, a jury and then confirmed on post judgment 

motions by the Trial Court.

17. The abundant and unrefuted facts of the extortion, fraud, theft, and conversion 

conspiracy to which Debtor was a full and eager partner are matters now of record. The facts show 

that the Debtor acted willfully and maliciously in receiving money, goods, and services stolen from 

Cuniff and acted willfully and maliciously in threatening him and further converting restitution 

funds designated for Mr. Cuniff.

COUNT 1: NONDISCHARGEABLE DEBT FOR 

WILFULL AND MALICIOUS CONDUCT

18. Mr. Cuniff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all other paragraphs of this 

Complaint.

Case 21-01003-KHK Doc 1 Filed 01/08/21 Entered 01/08/21 18:08:27 Desc Main

Document Page 4 of 6
5

19. Debtor repeatedly received and was unjustly enriched by stolen proceeds from Mr. 

Cuniff’s attorney trust account, including direct transfers of money but also vacations and personal 

property paid by such stolen proceeds. 

20. Debtor, with full knowledge that Mr. Cuniff was owed restitution for money stolen 

from his trust account, conspired to convert cashier’s checks made out to Mr. Cuniff specifically 

intended by other payees as restitution for stolen money. 

21. Instead of delivering that restitution, Debtor conspired to blackmail and then 

bargain Mr. Cuniff into ending all civil and legal attempts at recovery or of prosecution for the 

$1.5 million stolen by Debtor’s family. 

22. The foregoing acts were willful and malicious and performed with substantial 

certainty to cause injury to Mr. Cuniff and his property. These acts were wrongful and done without 

just cause, as evidenced by the Debtor’s conspiracy to threaten and blackmail Mr. Cuniff. These 

acts were clearly malicious. 

WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, Plaintiff requests that this Court determine that the 

Judgments obtained by the Plaintiff are nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) and 

grant such other and further relief as this case may require and the Court deems just and proper. 

COUNT 2: ATTORNEYS’ FEES

23. Mr. Cuniff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all other paragraphs of this 

Complaint. 

24. Mr. Cuniff is the prevailing Plaintiff in a RICO case and thus entitled to “threefold 

the damages he sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney’s fee.” 18 U.S.C. 

§ 1964.

25. Monitoring and further litigation are essential to the long-term success of Mr. 

Case 21-01003-KHK Doc 1 Filed 01/08/21 Entered 01/08/21 18:08:27 Desc Main

Document Page 5 of 6
6

Cuniff’s RICO suit, and thus are a “cost of the suit” under the statute. 

26. Mr. Cuniff has suffered costs including reasonable attorney’s fees in bringing this 

adversary complaint and in pursuing the satisfaction of his RICO judgment. 

WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, Plaintiff requests that this Court order the payment of 

reasonable attorneys’ fees and grant such other and further relief as this case may require and the 

Court deems just and proper.

Dated: January 8, 2021 Respectfully Submitted, 

/s/ Kellie Budd

______________________________

Kellie Budd, VSB No. 72084

Mahdavi, Doumar, Budd & Levine PLLC

1530 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 170

Arlington, Virginia 22209

Tel: 703-243-3737

Fax: 703-524-7610

kbudd@mdbllaw.com 

COUNSEL FOR CLIFFORD CUNIFF

Case 21-01003-KHK Doc 1 Filed 01/08/21 Entered 01/08/21 18:08:27 Desc Main

Document Page 6 of 6