FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT A ugus t 3, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 13691

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 03 -032 39 -C V -T W T -1 D E N N I S F I T Z G E R A L D , P l ai nt i ff -C ou nt er D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t,

v ersu s R O B E R T B E R IN G H A U S , i n d i v i d u al l y a n d in h is r e p r e s e n ta tiv e c ap a c ity , A L L -S T A R A U T O M O T IV E G R O U P , L L C , a G e o r g ialim ite d liab ility c o m p a n y , D ef endant s- C ou nt er C l ai m an t s-C ro ss

D e f e n d a n ts , S H E L L E Y B E R I N G H A U S , in d iv id u a lly , D efen d an t -C ro ss C la im a n t- A p p e lle e .Honora ble David G. Trag er, United States District Judg e for the Easter

n District of New * York, sitting by

designation. 2

______________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( A u gu s t 3, 2006) B ef ore B IR C H and C A RN E S , C i rc ui tJudg es , and T R A G E R , D i stri ctJudg e. * P E R C U R I A M: D enni s F i t zger al d app ea l s ( 1) the deni al of hi s m ot i on for part i al sum m ary j udgm e nton hi s f

r audul e nttr a ns f

e r s c l a i m a ga i ns tR obe rta nd S he l l e y B e r i nghaus an d (2 ) th e en try o f su m m ary j u d g m en tfo r S h el l ey B eri n g h au s o n h er cro ssm o t i o n fo r su m m ary j u d g m en to n th atcl ai m . O n ap p eal , F i t zg eral d ad v an ces a new theory of “ tw o transfe rs ” thatw as no tra i se d b el ow i n h i s m ot i on for s um m ary j ud gm ent . W e dec l i ne t o revi ew thi s new theory because i ti s notprop er l y bef ore u s, an d w e A F F IR M th e ju d g m en t o f th e d istrict co u rt w ith re g ar d to F it zg er ald ’s f r au d u le n t tr a n s f

e rc la im . I . B AC KG RO UN D W e a d o p t th e f

o ll o w in g b ac k g ro u n d in fo rm atio n fr o m th e d istrict co u rt’s or de rda t e d 13 A pr i l 2005.3 P l a i nt i f f D e nni s F i t z ge r a l d a nd D e f e nda ntR obe rtB e r i nghaus (“ M r. B eri n g h au s”), ci t i zen s o f C o l o rad o an d G eo rg i a resp ect i v el y, f o rm e d tw o lim ite d liab ility c o m p a n ie s , B e r in g M o to r s , L L C a n d A llS t a rA ut om ot i ve G r oup, [ L L C ] ( “ A l l - S t a r ” ) , i n c onne c t i on w i th the pur c ha s e a nd ope r a t i on of tw o aut om obi l e de a l e r s hi ps i n the m e tr oA t l ant a are a. F i t zger al d’ s pri m ary r ol e w as t o p rovi de capi t al t o o pen the deal er shi ps, w hi l e M r. B er i ng haus prov i ded capi t al and served as the m anager of e ac h com pany. In M ar ch 20 01 , F i t zger al d and M r. B e r i nghaus f

orm e d A l l - S t a r . T he pa rt i e s e xe c ut e d a n ope r a t i ng a gr e e m e nta nd m e m be r s ’ a gr e e m e nt . P ur s ua ntt o the t e rm s of the m em b ers’ ag reem en t , M r. B eri n g h au s w as o b l i g at ed t o p u rch ase F i t z ge r a l d’ s i nt e r e s ti n the c om pa ny thr ough as e r i e s of a nnua l buy dow ns , orr e pur c ha s e obl i ga t i ons . B e gi nni ng on M a y 1, 2002, a nd concl ud i ng on M ay1, 20 05 , M r. B er i ng haus w as pers on al l y obl i gat ed t o repurchase 20 0, 00 0 u ni t s of F i t zger al d’ s m em bers hi p i nt er es tea ch ye arfor $1. 00 per uni t . O n M ay1, 20 02 , M r. B er i ng haus re pu rc hase d 2 0 0 ,0 0 0 m e m b e r s h ip u n its f o r$ 2 0 0 ,0 0 0 .0 0 . H o w e v e r , h e f a ile d to r e pur c ha s e F i t z ge r a l d’ s i nt e r e s ti n 2003 a nd 2004. I n a ddi t i on, he in d ic a te d th a t h e w o u ld n o t r e p u r c h a s e a n y a d d itio n a l m e m b e r s h ip u n its in 2 0 0 5 . F itz g e r a ld th e n f ile d th is s u it f

o rb r e a c h o f

c o n tr a c t. [T h e d istrict co u rt] en tere d p ar ti al su m m ar y ju d g m en t i n F it zg er ald ’s fa vo r i n the am ou ntof $6 00 , 00 0, base d o n M r. B er i ng haus’ s bre ac h a n d a n tic ip a to ry r e p u d ia tio n o f th e A ll- S tarM e m b e r s ’ A g r e e m e n t. I n a ddi t i on t o hi s c l a i m s f orbr e a c h a nd a nt i c i pa t ory br e a c h of c ontr a c ta ga i ns tM r . B e r i nghaus , the P l a i nt i f f a s s e rt [ e d] ac l a i m f

or f r audul e nttr a ns f

e ra ga i ns tM r . B e r i nghaus a nd hi s w i f e , D e f e nda nt S h e lle y B e r in g h au s ( “M r s . B e r in g h au s ” ) . D u r in g af o u r - d a y p e r io d in S ep t em b er o f 2 0 0 3 , M r. B eri n g h au s w ro t e a n u m b er o f ch eck s t o cash draw n o n an A l l -S t arac coun t . In t ot al , ni ne checks w er e w ri tt en for a t ot al am ou ntof $4 11 , 00 0. 00 . T he ca sh fr om the A l l -S t arac coun tw as then g i ven t o M rs . B er i ng haus. D uri ng thi s s am e per i od of t i m e, M r. B e r in g h au s au th o r iz e d tw o w ir e tr a n s f e r s f r o m a n A ll- S ta ra c c o u n t, o n e f o r $ 3 2 5 ,0 0 0 .0 0 an d an o th erfo r $ 8 6 0 ,0 0 0 .0 0 , t o th e B er in g h au s’s pers on al j oi ntac coun t . F i t zger al d con t ends thatthese ca sh and w i re transfe rs re nd er ed A l l -S t arand M r. B er i ng haus i nsol ventand w er e done f orthe purpos e of

a voi di ng M r . B e r i nghaus ’ s de bta r i s i ng outof the breac h o f the A l l -S t arM em bers ’ A gree m ent . T hu s, he as se rt s that4

th e tr a n s f

e r s c o n s titu te f

r au d u le n t tr a n s f

e r s f r o m M r . B e r in g h au s to M r s . B e r i nghaus , i n c ontr a ve nt i on of the G e or gi aU ni f

orm F r audul e nt T r a ns f e r s A c t , O . C . G . A . § 18- 2- 70 e ts e q. F i t z ge r a l d m ove [ d] f or p art i al su m m ary j u d g m en to n th i s cl ai m as t o b o th d efen d an t s. M rs. Be r i n g h au s c r o s s - mo v e [ d ] f o rs u mma ry j u d g me n to n th i s c l a i m. R 8-88 at2-4 (ci t at i on s and footno t e om i tt ed). I n tha tor de r , the di s tr i c tc ourtgr a nt e d M r s . B e r i nghaus ’ s c r os s - m ot i on f or sum m ary j ud gm enton F i t zger al d’ s f raud ul enttransfe rs cl ai m , and d eni ed F itz g e r a ld ’s m o tio n f

o rs u m m a ry ju d g m e n t o n th a t s a m e c la im . U n d e rO .C .G .A . § 1 8 - 2 - 7 4 ( a ) , “[ a ] tr a n s f

e rm a d e o ro b lig a tio n in c u rr e d b y ad e b to ris f r au d u le n t a s to ac r e di t or. . . i f

the de bt orm a de the tr a ns f e rori nc urr e d the obl i ga t i on” a nd one of tw o lis te d c o n d itio n s a r e s a tis f ie d . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt s ta te d th a t: F i t z ge r a l d ba s e s hi s f

r audul e nttr a ns f

e rc l a i m on tr a ns f

e r s m a de f

r om A l l - S t a ra c c ount s . T hus , A l l - S t a r , notM r . B e r i nghaus , w a s the tr a ns f e r orof f unds . D e s pi t e r e pe a t e d r e f e r e nc e s t o the f

a c ttha tthe fund s w er e transfe rr ed ou tof A l l -S t arac coun t s, F i t zger al d ass ert s that a n y d is tin c tio n b e tw e e n M r . B e r in g h au s a n d A ll- S taris im m a te r ia l. R 8-88 at5. R ef

er enci ng the l aw on l i m i t ed l i abi l i ty c om pani es , such as A l l -S t ar , the c ourtnot e d tha t“ the tr a ns f e rof m one y f r om the A l l - S t a ra c c ount s , a l though phy s i c a l l y pe r f

orm e d by M r . B e r i nghaus , w a s a n a c t i on of A l l - S t a r . ” I d. a t6. T he di s tr i c tc ourtc onc l ude d tha t“ F i t z ge r a l d’ s c l a i m f a i l s f ortw o r e a s ons : ( 1) F i t z ge r a l d l a c ks s t a ndi ng t o a s s e r tthe c l a i m be c aus e he ha s f a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h a d e b to r - c r e d ito rr e la tio n s h ip w ith th e tr a n s f e r o r[ A ll- S ta r ]; a n d ( 2 ) th e p r o p e rty tr a ns f e rr e d w a s pr ope rty of

A l l - S t a r , notM r . B e r i nghaus . ” I d. a t5.On 17 June 2005, the district cour t entere d final judgment for F itz g erald ag ainst Mr. 1 Beringhaus on his motion for partial summary judgment on the contract claim, which is not be fo reuson

a pp e al. 5 O n 21 A pr i l 2005, F i t z ge r a l d f i l e d am ot i on f

orr e c ons i de r a t i on, w hi c h the di stri ctcourtdeni ed on 6 M ay20 05 . O n 1 5 Jun e 200 5, the di stri ctcourtent er ed f i na l j udgm e ntf

orM r s . B e r i nghaus a ga i ns tF i t z ge r a l d i n he rc r os s - m ot i on f or s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. O n 5 J u ly 2 0 0 5 , F itz g e r a ld f ile d an o tic e o f

ap p e a l, 1 de s i gna t i ng the 15 J une 2005 j udgm e ntf orM r s . B e r i nghaus on he rc r os s - m ot i on f o rs u m m a ry ju d g m e n t a n d th e r e la te d 1 3 A p r il 2 0 0 5 o r d e r . I I . DI S CUS S I ON O n ap p eal , F i t zg eral d arg u es th atth e d i stri ctco u rterred i n g ran t i n g M rs. B e r in g h au s s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t b e c au s e it ig n o r e d th e f a c t th a t th e r e w e r e tw o s e ts of transfe rs : the fi rs t , w hen A l l -S t ar , throu gh M r. B er i ng haus, di stri bu t ed $1 , 59 6, 00 0 from A l l -S t arac coun t s t o M r. B er i ng haus; and the se cond , w hen M r. B e r in g h au s tr a n s f

e rr e d th a t m o n e y to M r s . B e r in g h au s . B e f o r e w e c a n p r o c e e d to th e m e r its o f

th is a r g u m e n t, w e m u s t f ir s t d e te rm in e w h e th e rF itz g e r a ld r a is e d th is

“ tw o -tran sfers” th eo ry b el o w , an d , i f so , i n w h atm o t i o n s i tw as rai sed . W e al so m us tde t e rm i ne w ha tm ot i ons ha ve be e n appe a l e d t o us . T he r e a r e tw o gr oups of m e m or a ndaa nd m ot i ons a ti s s ue : ( 1) thos e r e l a t i ng t o F i t z ge r a l d’ s m ot i on f or s um m a ry j udgm e nta nd M r s . B e r i nghaus ’ s c r os s - m ot i on f ors um m a ry j udgm e ntIn his “ Statement o f I ssue ”in his initial brie f o n a pp e al, F itzg erald f

ra me s th eissueonly 2 as “[w]hether the district cour t erre d when it denied F itz g erald’s motion for partial summary judgment o n his f

ra ud ulent t ra ns fersc laim . . . [and, ] ins te ad, gra nte d D e fenda

nt[’ s] . . . cro ss motion for summary

judgment on that claim.” Appe llant’s Br . at 1. In his “Standard of Review” in his ini tial brief on a

ppeal, F itz g erald states only that he “a

ppeals the district c ourt’s denial of his moti on for summary

judgment on his fraudulent tra nsfer s claim and grant of summar y judgment for Mrs. B eringhaus on that claim.” I d. at 10.

6 an d (2 ) th o se rel at i n g t o F i t zg eral d ’ s m o t i o n fo r reco n si d erat i o n . W e ad d ress th o se r e la tin g to th e m o tio n f

o rr e c o n s id e r a tio n f

ir s t. W hi l e F i t z ge r a l d, w ho i s r e pr e s e nt e d by c ouns e l , c l e a r l y r a i s e d the “ tw otr a ns f e r s ” the ory i n hi s m ot i on f orr e c ons i de r a t i on, he doe s notr a i s e the i s s ue of th e d en i al o f h i s m o t i o n fo r reco n si d erat i o n i n h i s i n i t i al b ri ef o n ap p eal . B ecau se 2 F i t z ge r a l d doe s notr a i s e the i s s ue of the de ni a l of

hi s m ot i on f

orr e c ons i de r a t i on on appe a l , w e w i l l notr e vi e w i t . S e e W i l ke r s on v. G r i nne l l C orp. , 270 F . 3d 1314, 13 22 (11th C i r. 20 01 ) ( ho l di ng thati ss ues notra i se d i n the i ni t i al bri ef on appeal a r e de e m e d aba ndone d) ; s e e a l s o A c c e s s N ow , I nc . v. S outhw e s tA i r l i ne s C o. , 385 F .3 d 1 3 2 4 , 1 3 3 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( “A n y is s u e th a t a n ap p e llan t w a n ts th e C o u rt to a ddr e s s s houl d be s pe c i f i c a l l y a nd c l e a r l y i de nt i f i e d i n the br i e f

. . . . O ur r e qui r e m e nttha tthos e c l a i m s a n appe l l a ntw i s he s t o ha ve c ons i de r e d on appe a l be u n a m b ig u o u s ly d e m a r c a te d s te m s f r o m th e o b v io u s n e e d to a v o id c o n f u s io n a s to the i s s ue s tha ta r e i n pl a y a nd thos e tha ta r e not . ” ( quot a t i ons a nd c i t a t i ons om i tt e d)“The [] distributions /transfers from All-Star to Mr. B eringhaus constituted the first set of 3 transfers. . . . The[] transf ers f rom Mr. B eringhaus to Mrs. B eringhaus constituted the sec ond set[] of transf

ers, a nd were the one s subject to beingvoided as fraudulent by Fitzgerald.” Appellant’s B r. at 15. 7 ( e m pha s i s a dde d) ) . W hi l e F i t z ge r a l d br i e f l y m e nt i ons the de ni a l of hi s m ot i on f

or r e c ons i de r a t i on i n hi s r e pl y br i e f , A ppe l l a nt ’ s R e pl y B r . a t8, tha tdoe s notpr ovi de us w i th the gr ounds t o r e vi e w thi s i s s ue . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S m i th, 416 F . 3d 1 3 5 0 , 1 3 5 2 n .1 ( 1 1 th C ir .) ( e x p la in in g th a t th e p ru d e n tia l ru le o f d e c lin in g to c ons i de ri s s ue s notr a i s e d i n apa rty ’ s i ni t i a l br i e f i s “ w e l l - e s t abl i s he d” i n our ci rc ui t ), ce rt . deni ed, __ U . S . __ , 12 6 S . C t . 78 4 (20 05 ). T h u s , w e c o n s id e ro n ly th o s e a n te c e d e n t m e m o r a n d aa n d m o tio n s r e la tin g to th e d en i al o f F i t zg eral d ’ s m o t i o n fo r su m m ary j u d g m en tan d th e g ran to f M rs. B e r i nghaus ’ s m ot i on f

ors um m a ry j udgm e nton tha tc l a i m . W e r e vi e w de novo the d e n ia l o rg r a n t o f

am o tio n f

o rs u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. S e e H o llo m a n v . M a il- W e ll C orp. , 443 F . 3d 832, 836 ( 11th C i r . 2006) . B e c aus e F i t z ge r a l d c onc e de d dur i ng oral ar gu m entand i n h i s bri ef on appeal thatthe fi rs ttransfe r f rom A l l -S t art o M r. 3 B er i ng haus w as no tfr audu l entun der O . C . G . A . § 1 8-2-74 (a ), w e nee d n otre vi ew th e la w f u ln e s s o f th a t tr a n s f

e r . I n r e v ie w in g w h e th e rF itz g e r a ld r a is e d th e is s u e o f as e c o n d tr a n s f

e r , it is im p r o p e rf

o ru s to r e - c h a r a c te r iz e o n ap p e a l th e a r g u m e n ts m a d e b y F itz g e r a ld in h is m o tio n f

o rs u m m a ry ju d g m e n t b y r e f e r e n c e to h is m o tio n f

o rr e c o n s id e r a tio n .8

C f . D a vi d, 134 F . 3d a t475 ( “ [ W ] e m us tm e a s ur e the pe t i t i one r ’ s c urr e nta r gum e nt agai nstthatl i m ned i n [the] m ot i on [f or po st -c on vi ct i on re l i ef ] and adv ance d b ef

ore [ th e d is tr ic t c o u rt], n o t b y r e f e r e n c e to th e th e o ry th a t h e b e la te d ly s u r f a c e d in h is r e que s tf orr e c ons i de r a t i on. ” ) . W e ha ve c l os e l y e xa m i ne d F i t z ge r a l d’ s m ot i on f or su m m ary j u d g m en tan d i t s rel at ed m em o ran d a, R 6 -6 0 -1 , h i s resp o n se t o M rs. Be r i n g h au s ’ s mo t i o n f

o rs u mma ry j u d g me n t , R7 - 7 3 , a n d h i s r e p l y me mo r a n d u m, R 8 - 7 7 , i n a d d i t i o n t o o th e rr e l e v a n tm a t e r i a l s i n th e r e c o r d . I n s o d o i n g , we concl ud e thatF i t zger al d d i d n otcl earl y r ai se the i ss ue of a s ec on d transfe r bef ore the di s tr i c tc ourt , a nd, the r e f or e , w e w i l l notc ons i de rhi s “ tw o- tr a ns f e r s ” the ory on ap p eal . A tb est , an y referen ces t o a seco n d tran sfer fro m M r. B eri n g h au s t o M rs. B e r in g h au s a r e a m b ig u o u s . U n f o rtu n a te lyf

o rF itz g e r a ld , th a t is n o t g o o d e n o u g h . S e e U n ite d S ta te s v . R e y e s - V a s q u e z , 9 0 5 F .2 d 1 4 9 7 , 1 5 0 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ) . “P la in t a l k by l a w y e r s i s ne c e s s a ry f orc l e a runde r s t a ndi ng by j udge s . W he ne ve ral i t i ga nt ha s am e r i t or i ous pr opos i t i on of l a w w hi c h he i s s e r i ous l y pr e s s i ng upon the a tte n tio n o f

th e tr ia l c o u rt, h e s h o u ld r a is e th a t p o in t in s u c h c le a ra n d s im p le l an g u ag e th atth e tri al co u rtm ay n o tm i su n d erst an d i t , an d i f h i s p o i n ti s so o b s c u r e ly h in te d a t th a t th e tr ia l c o u rt q u ite e x c u s ab ly m a y f a il to g r a s p it, it w ill a va i l naughtt o di s turb the j udgm e nton appe a l . ” I d. ( quot a t i ons a nd c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) ; s e e a l s o U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M a druga , 810 F . 2d 1010, 1014 ( 11th C i r . 1987)9

( “ W e de c l i ne t o a dd the duty t o i nt e rpr e ti m a gi na t i ve l y w ha tl a w y e r s s a y t o the l on g l i stof re spon si bi l i t i es of m agi stra t es and o ther tri al j ud ges. ”) . I I I . CONCL US I ON B ec ause F i t zger al d con ce ded thatthe transfe r of f un ds fr om the A l l -S t ar a c c ountt o M r . B e r i nghaus w a s notaf r audul e nttr a ns f

e runde rG e or gi al a w a nd because F i t zger al d h as no tprop er l y r ai se d the i ss ue of a s ec on d transfe r e i ther b e lo w o ro n ap p e a l, w e w ill n o t d is tu rb th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u rt. AF F I RME D.