Cheryl Followell v. United States ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                       United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 07-3017
    ___________
    Cheryl Jane Followell, As Executrix     *
    of the Estate of Betty Jane Gurley;     *
    Gurley Refining Company, a              *
    Partnership; William M. Gurley,         *
    *
    Plaintiffs - Appellants,    *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                * District Court for the Eastern
    * District of Arkansas.
    United States of America,               *
    *
    Defendant - Appellee.       *
    ___________
    Submitted: May 15, 2008
    Filed: July 3, 2008
    ___________
    Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, BEAM and BYE, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    BYE, Circuit Judge.
    Cheryl Followell, as executrix, brings this action on behalf of the estate of her
    deceased mother, Betty Gurley. Followell and Gurley Refining Company ("GRC")
    (collectively, "Plaintiffs") appeal an order of the district court1 dismissing this action
    for failure to state a claim. We affirm.
    1
    The Honorable William R. Wilson. Jr., United States District Judge for the
    Eastern District of Arkansas.
    The dispute between Plaintiffs and the Environmental Protection Agency
    ("EPA") has, as the district court noted, "a long and tortuous history" reaching back
    more than twenty years when the EPA filed a civil action in 1987 alleging Plaintiffs
    violated the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act
    of 1980 ("CERCLA"). The parties are familiar with the factual and procedural
    history, which is also recited in the district court's opinion, Followell v. United States,
    No. 4:07CV00225WRW, 
    2007 WL 1959152
    (E.D. Ark. July 02, 2007). Thus, we
    repeat only minimal facts as relevant here. The EPA initially brought suit against
    GRC, Gurley Refining Company, Inc., R.A. Caldwell, William Martin Gurley, Betty
    Gurley, and Larry Gurley. Later, the CERCLA claims against Betty Gurley and GRC,
    who are herein Plaintiffs, were dismissed with prejudice. The remaining defendants
    were eventually found liable for almost $20 million as a result of two separate
    successful CERCLA suits.
    During the course of the CERCLA litigation, William Gurley fraudulently
    transferred roughly $17 million in assets to Betty Gurley. After judgment was entered
    against him, he declared bankruptcy. For over a decade, William Gurley, Betty
    Gurley, and GRC have engaged in "vexatious litigation" to prevent the EPA from
    collecting the debt. Multiple federal courts, including the Eleventh Circuit and
    bankruptcy courts in Florida and Tennessee, have held the EPA is entitled to the assets
    transferred to Betty Gurley. Plaintiffs filed this action on March 15, 2007, seeking a
    declaratory judgment claiming the EPA is barred from seeking any portion of its claim
    from the fraudulent transfers to Betty Gurley because it failed to pursue a fraudulent
    conveyance action in the original CERCLA suit.
    The district court dismissed Plaintiffs' claim with prejudice on the grounds of
    res judicata and collateral estoppel, finding Plaintiffs had more than ample opportunity
    to litigate their claims, and have in fact recently litigated this same claim in
    Bankruptcy Court in Orlando, Florida. See In re Gurley, 
    357 B.R. 868
    (Bankr. M.D.
    Fla. 2006). After a careful de novo review, Lundquist v. Rice Mem'l Hosp., 238 F.3d
    -2-
    975, 976 (8th Cir. 2001) (setting forth the standard of review), we agree with the
    district court's conclusion res judicata precludes Plaintiffs' "relitigation of a claim on
    grounds that were raised or could have been raised in the prior action." Lane v.
    Peterson, 
    899 F.2d 737
    , 741 (8th Cir. 1990).2 As the district court appropriately
    stated:
    Plaintiffs have litigated and relitigated the issue of the EPA's entitlement
    to funds that are part of the Gurley bankruptcy estate. They have
    brought the same claims under various guises, but the substance is
    always the same . . . . Plaintiffs have engaged in vexatious litigation,
    clogging the dockets of bankruptcy courts, district courts, appellate
    courts, and the United States Supreme Court . . . . Plaintiffs are playing
    fast and loose with the Court in their ongoing attempt to avoid payment
    of the judgment EPA obtained in the CERCLA actions. Their efforts
    have involved numerous court orders, all adverse to their position. It is
    time to stop wasting judicial resources with frivolous arguments.
    Followell, 2007 WL at *6-7.
    For the reasons stated by the district court in its opinion, we affirm its decision
    pursuant to Eighth Circuit Rule 47B.
    ______________________________
    2
    The Lane court notes, "In its generic sense 'res judicata' is a broad term that
    encompasses both issue preclusion and claim 
    preclusion." 899 F.2d at 741
    n.3
    (internal citations omitted).
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-3017

Filed Date: 7/3/2008

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/14/2015