Larry Bruce Thacker, et al. v. John E. Venn, Jr.

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-12079
________________________
D.C. Docket Nos. 5:15-cv-00062-RH-GRJ; 12-bkc-50370-KKS
LARRY BRUCE THACKER,
Debtor.
__________________________________________________________________
LARRY BRUCE THACKER,
CARLOTTA APPLEMAN THACKER,
as Trustees of the Thacker Family Revocable Living Trust,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
versus
JOHN E. VENN, JR.,
Defendant - Appellee.
Case: 16-12079 Date Filed: 01/30/2017 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(January 30, 2017)
Before WILSON and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges, and HALL,∗ District
Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Appellants Larry and Carlotta Thacker appeal the district court’s affirmance
of the bankruptcy court’s grant of summary judgment for the appellee, bankruptcy
trustee John Venn Jr., based on collateral estoppel. After careful review of the
record and the parties’ briefs, and with the benefit of oral argument, we find no
merit to Thacker’s claims and affirm.
We review a bankruptcy court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. In re
Optical Techs, Inc., 246 F.3d 1332, 1335 (11th Cir. 2001). This litigation
originated over seven years ago, in 2009. Since then, Thacker has argued several
times that his transfers of property into a trust were not fraudulent. But several
courts have found otherwise and have affirmed the Florida state court’s findings of
multiple badges of fraud stemming from Thacker’s transfers.
The bankruptcy court properly gave collateral estoppel effect to the Florida
state court judgment that found Thacker’s transfers of property to be fraudulent. In
∗ Honorable James Randal Hall, United States District Judge, for the Southern District of
Georgia, sitting by designation.
Case: 16-12079 Date Filed: 01/30/2017 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

3
summarizing it’s decision to affirm the application of collateral estoppel, the
district court recalled that “[t]he state court avoided []Thacker’s fraudulent
transfers . . . [and that] ruling was correct. Even more clearly, [that] ruling was and
is binding.” Thacker v. Venn, No. 5:15-cv-62-RH/GRJ, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
43450, at *12 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 31, 2016). After de novo review, we agree with the
thorough and well-reasoned decision of the courts below.
AFFIRMED.
Case: 16-12079 Date Filed: 01/30/2017 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --