JMB/Urban 900 Development Partners, Ltd v. Hazan

1
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION
In re: 	Case No. 16-10389-RAM
LIZA HAZAN a/k/a 	Chapter 11
ELIZABETH HAZAN,
Debtor.
_________________________________/
JMB/URBAN 900 DEVELOPMENT
PARTNERS, LTD,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Adv. Proc. No. 16-01188-RAM
LIZA HAZAN,
Defendant.
_________________________________/
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
WRIT OF EXECUTION AND OTHER PENDING MATTERS
The pending matters in this adversary proceeding are the latest chapter in a long-
running battle between Christopher Kosachuk and Liza Hazan, the defendant here and
Robert A. Mark, Judge
United States Bankruptcy Court	_____________________________________________________________________________
ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on July 28, 2026.
Case 16-01188-RAM Doc 62 Filed 07/28/26 Page 1 of 14

2
debtor in the above-captioned, closed chapter 11 case. 	The Court has previously denied
Mr. Kosachuk’s motions to reopen the chapter 11 case, both a motion filed by him
individually and a motion filed by Mr. Kosachuk on behalf of the plaintiff in this adversary
and creditor in the chapter 11 case, JMB/Urban Partners 900 Ltd. (“JMB”). 	Following
confirmation of the Debtor’s plan of reorganization and closure of the chapter 11 case, JMB
assigned its claim in the chapter 11 case and the non-dischargeable judgment entered in
this adversary to Mr. Kosachuk. The pending matters all turn on the answer to the following
question: Is the JMB judgment enforceable?
The Court is familiar with the “lengthy and tortuous history” of litigation between Mr.
Kosachuk and the Debtor that has spread across multiple cases in multiple forums. 	See
Order Dismissing Appeal [DE# 1407 in the Main Case]. 	This is yet another attack by Mr.
Kosachuk against the Debtor in this drawn-out, never-ending saga. 	In this instance, Mr.
Kosachuk 	prevails 	and, 	for 	the 	reasons 	that 	follow, 	the 	subject 	judgment 	remains
enforceable.
Background Facts and Procedural History
On July 20, 2016, the Court entered the Agreed Final Judgment [DE# 21] in favor of
the Plaintiff, JMB and against the Debtor-Defendant, Liza Hazan (the “Debtor”) in the
amount of $275,000. In the Agreed Final Judgment, the Debtor agreed, among other things,
that the Agreed Final Judgment was non-dischargeable in the above-captioned chapter 11
case no. 16-10389-RAM (the “Main Case”) pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2). 	The Court
will discuss the Agreed Final Judgment in further detail, below.
On June 25, 2025, in the Main Case, Christopher Kosachuk filed the Transfer of
Claim Other than for Security [DE# 1480 in the Main Case] wherein Mr. Kosachuk disclosed
that he acquired Proof of Claim No. 4-2 filed by JMB against the Debtor. That claim served
Case 16-01188-RAM Doc 62 Filed 07/28/26 Page 2 of 14

3
as the basis of this adversary proceeding and was reduced to the Agreed Final Judgment.
As such, Mr. Kosachuk is now the owner of the Agreed Final Judgment.
This adversary proceeding was assigned to me on December 8, 2025. At that time,
the following matters were pending before the Court:
A. JMB Urban Development [Partners,] LTD’s Motion to Reinstate Illinois State
Court Judgment Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 349(b) [DE# 28] (the “Motion to
Reinstate”) filed by JMB;
B. The Motion for Writ of Execution [DE# 31] filed by JMB;
C. The Motion for Postjudgment (sic) Writ of Garnishment [DE# 32] (the “Truist Bank
Motion”) filed by JMB;
D. The Motion for Postjudgment (sic) Writ of Garnishment [DE# 33] (the “Regions
Bank Motion”) filed by JMB;
E. The Motion for Postjudgment (sic) Writ of Garnishment [DE# 34] (the “TD Bank
Motion”) filed by JMB;
F. Hazan’s Motion to Strike ECF 30, ECF 31, ECF 32, ECF 33, and ECF 34 [DE#
35] (the “Motion to Strike”) filed by the Debtor; and
G. The Request for Judicial Notice Pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 201 [DE#
36] filed by the Debtor.
Thereafter, the parties filed the following documents:
H. Hazan’s Request for Judicial Notice Pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence Rule
201 [DE# 45] (together with DE# 36, the “Debtor’s Requests for Judicial Notice”)
filed by the Debtor;
I. 	Notice of Filing and Request for Judicial Notice [DE# 44] (“JMB’s Request for
Judicial Notice”) filed by JMB;
J. 	Motion to Compel [DE# 52] filed by JMB;
K. Motion to Strike Motion to Compel Doc 52 and Notice of Filing Doc 53 Hazan’s
Reply ECF50-51 and Motion for Sanctions [DE# 56] (the “Motion to Strike JMB’s
Motion to Compel”) filed by the Debtor; and
L. 	Motion to Set Status Conference [DE# 60] filed by JMB.
Case 16-01188-RAM Doc 62 Filed 07/28/26 Page 3 of 14

4
By separate Order, the Court denied JMB’s Motion to Reinstate. See DE# 38. Later,
JMB withdrew the Truist Bank Motion, the Regions Bank Motion, and the TD Bank Motion.
See DE#’s 47, 48, and 49. And in its Response in Opposition to the Motion to Strike [DE#
50], JMB states that “Mr. Kosachuk has recorded the certification [of the Agreed Final
Judgment] in the District Court [for the Southern District of Florida] under case number 26-
[cv]-20112-JAL (the “District Court Case”) and the District Court has already and correctly
issued the writs of garnishments to various bank which is why Mr. Kosachuk withdrew the
pending writs of garnishment with this Court.” 	DE# 50 at pg. 2. 	Therefore, the Debtor’s
Motion to Strike is moot to the extent that it requests the Court to strike the Certification of
Judgment 	for 	Registration 	in 	Another 	District 	[DE# 	30] 	(the 	“Bankruptcy 	Clerk’s
Certification”) and the now-withdrawn Truist Bank Motion, the Regions Bank Motion, and
the TD Bank Motion.
Accordingly, the only matters that remain pending are JMB’s Motion for Writ of
Execution [DE# 31], the Debtor’s request in the Motion to Strike [DE# 35] to strike the Motion
for Writ of Execution, the Debtor’s Requests for Judicial Notice [DE#’s 36 and 45], JMB’s
Request for Judicial Notice [DE# 44], JMB’s Motion to Compel [DE# 52], the Debtor’s Motion
to Strike JMB’s Motion to Compel [DE# 56], and JMB’s Motion to Set Status Conference
[DE# 60].1
As stated in the introduction to this Order, the overarching issue is the enforceability
of the Agreed Final Judgment. 	The Agreed Final Judgment provides, in relevant part, as
follows: “This Non Dischargeability Judgment shall be the surviving judgment against [the
1 In addition to the papers previously listed in this Order, the Court has also reviewed: (i) JMB Urban 900
Development Ltd’s Response in Opposition to the Motion to Strike [DE# 42]; (ii) JMB Urban 900 Development
Ltd’s Objections to Hazan Request for Judicial Notice [DE# 43]; (iii) JMB’s Response in Opposition to Motion
to Strike [DE# 50]; (iv) JMB’s Response in Opposition to Request for Judicial Notice [DE# 51].
Case 16-01188-RAM Doc 62 Filed 07/28/26 Page 4 of 14

5
Debtor] and shall be deemed to replace the Pre-petition Judgment, which shall no longer
be valid or enforceable.” DE# 21 at ¶ 2. 	The “Pre-petition Judgment” referred to in the
Agreed Final Judgment is a state court judgment, dated October 14, 2011 and modified on
October 23, 2013, in favor of JMB and against the Debtor in the amount of $300,000 plus
attorneys’ fees and pre- and post-judgment interest, entered by the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois in Case No. 2005-L-13785 (the “Illinois Judgment”). In the Main Case, JMB
filed proof of claim no. 4-2 in the amount of $664,380.47, representing the amount of the
Illinois Judgment plus awarded attorneys’ fees and pre- and post-judgment interest. Copies
of JMB’s proof of claim and the Illinois Judgment are attached as Exhibits A and B,
respectively, to the Complaint of JMB/Urban 900 Development Partners, Ltd. Objecting to
Dischargeability of Certain Debts of the Debtor Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(2) and (6)
[DE# 1] (the “Complaint”). 	In settlement of the Complaint, the Court entered the Agreed
Final Judgment in the amount of $275,000, which, as mentioned, the Debtor agreed would
be non-dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2).
The Agreed Final Judgment further provides, in relevant part:
• 	The Debtor shall have eighteen months from the date of the filing of the
Petition for relief [i.e., January 11, 2016] (the “First Anniversary Date”) to
pay $275,000.00 without interest. Thereafter commencing with the First
Anniversary Date, any then unpaid balance of The Non Dischargeability
Judgment amount shall accrue interest at the rate of 2.5% above the then
current federal judgment interest rate per annum. DE# 21 at ¶ 1(a).
• 	In the event that the Debtor has failed to pay and satisfy this Non
Dischargeability Judgment within two years of the date of entry (the
“Second Anniversary Date”), JMB may then and in that event proceed to
execution on this Non Dischargeability Judgment. DE# 21 at ¶ 3.
• 	JMB agrees to receive and credit The Non Dischargeability Judgment with
all payments made to JMB, including all payments made under and
pursuant to the Debtor’s Plan of Reorganization, with payments credited
first to payment of accrued interest, if any, and then to principal. DE# 21
at ¶ 1(b).
Case 16-01188-RAM Doc 62 Filed 07/28/26 Page 5 of 14

6
• 	In the event that a Plan is confirmed and the Debtor defaults in making
payments to JMB and/or other creditors in connection with the payments
required under the confirmed Plan, (a) the Debtor will still be entitled to pay
and 	satisfy 	this 	Non 	Dischargeability 	Judgment 	before 	the 	Second
Anniversary Date; and (b) JMB will refrain from exercising any rights that
may be granted under the confirmed Plan to enforce the Plan, until after
the Second Anniversary Date[.] DE# 21 at ¶ 4 (emphasis added).
• 	JMB agrees to support and vote for Debtor’s Plan of Reorganization so
long as said Plan requires payment to JMB in the amounts set forth in this
Non Dischargeability Judgment prior to the Second Anniversary Date, and
does not treat JMB in a manner less favorable to other unsecured creditors
under the plan with respect to its now agreed upon $275,000 unsecured
nondischargeable claim. DE# 21 at ¶ 5.
The Debtor filed her petition for relief on January 11, 2016, so the “First Anniversary
Date” was July 11, 2017. The Agreed Final Judgment was entered on July 20, 2016, so the
“Second Anniversary Date” occurred on July 20, 2018. 	Thus, relevant to the matters
pending before the Court, the Agreed Final Judgment provides that (a) JMB agrees to
receive and credit all payments received under a confirmed plan against the Agreed Final
Judgment; (b) JMB agrees not to execute on the Agreed Final Judgment until after July 20,
2018, assuming the Agreed Final Judgment has not been fully satisfied by that date; (c)
JMB agrees to support confirmation of the Debtor’s plan as long as the plan incorporates
the Agreed Final Judgment and does not discriminate unfairly against it; and (d) JMB agrees
that, if the Debtor defaults on its payments to JMB under the confirmed plan, it will not
exercise any rights it has under the confirmed plan until after July 20, 2018.
On June 12, 2018, just 38 days prior to the Second Anniversary Date, the Court
confirmed the Debtor’s fourth amended plan. 	See DE# 563 in the Main Case (the “Plan”)
and DE# 691 in the Main Case (the “Confirmation Order”). The Agreed Final Judgment is
treated in class 13 of the Plan, which provides:
Case 16-01188-RAM Doc 62 Filed 07/28/26 Page 6 of 14

7
Claim # 4 in the amount of $664,380.47. 	Claim # 4 will be paid 41% of the
amount or 275,000.00 per settlement before the second anniversary of the
entry of the agreed final judgment on or before July 20, 2018 in favor of JMB
in case Adversary proceedings 16-01188-AJC. 	Adversary proceeding
case closed on 7/22/16 and Case settled 16-01188-AJC. DOC 21 Case 16-
01188-AJC Order approving agreed final Judgment in favor of JMB
entered on July 20, 2016.
CLAIM SETTLED
Plan at pg. 21 (emphasis in original). Neither the Plan nor the Confirmation Order include
any default remedies or enforcement provisions.
Mr. Kosachuk, through a separate entity called NLG, LLC (“NLG”), appealed the
Confirmation Order. 	On April 20, 2022, District Court Judge Darrin P. Gayles dismissed
NLG’s appeal. See DE# 1089 in the Main Case. The chapter 7 trustee of NLG’s bankruptcy
estate appealed Judge Gayles’ dismissal order to the Eleventh Circuit, see DE# 1145 in the
Main Case, which was then voluntarily dismissed on August 22, 2022. 	See DE# 1318 in
the Main case.
Even though the Confirmation Order did not become final until well after the Second
Anniversary Date, JMB’s position, now through Mr. Kosachuk, is that “[n]o payments have
been made and the full balance is due on the unsatisfied and unstayed JMB Judgment.”
DE# 31 at ¶ 4. 	The Debtor does not dispute the fact that she has not paid any portion of
the amounts owed under the Agreed Final Judgment.
Previously, Mr. Kosachuk, through JMB, filed a motion in the Main Case to reopen
the Main Case, dismiss the Main Case, and restore creditors to their pre-petition status,
arguing that the Debtor had defaulted on the Plan. On July 8, 2025, the Court entered the
Order Denying Motion to Reopen and to Dismiss Case [DE# 1484 in the Main Case] (the
Case 16-01188-RAM Doc 62 Filed 07/28/26 Page 7 of 14

8
“July 8th Order”).2 In the July 8th Order, the Court denied Mr. Kosachuk’s motion without
prejudice to JMB seeking to enforce its rights in a non-bankruptcy forum. 	The Court
explained that, “[d]enying the Motion does not eliminate Mr. Kosachuk’s right to enforce the
Transferred [JMB] Claim. 	Like any binding contract, Mr. Kosachuk, through JMB, can
enforce his rights under the Debtor’s confirmed plan in a non-bankruptcy forum through a
simply claim for breach of contract.” July 8th Order at pg. 2.3
Several months later, in December 2025, Mr. Kosachuk filed the Motion for Writ of
Execution of the Agreed Final Judgment. 	Shortly thereafter, on January 8, 2026, Mr.
Kosachuk, through JMB, commenced the District Court action, seeking enforcement of the
Agreed Final Judgment.
The Court has reviewed the docket in the District Court Case commenced by Mr.
Kosachuk on January 8, 2026. 	In the District Court Case, Mr. Kosachuk registered the
Agreed Final Judgment as a foreign judgment using the Bankruptcy Clerk’s Certification of
the Agreed Final Judgment. 	See DE# 1 in the District Court Case. 	Mr. Kosachuk filed
motions for writ of garnishment regarding certain financial institutions [DE#’s 13, 14, 20, and
21 in the District Court Case], the Deputy Clerk of the District Court issued writs of
2 JMB and Mr. Kosachuk appealed the July 8th Order. See DE# 1490 in the Main Case. On September 17,
2025, Chief U.S. District Court Judge Cecilia Altonaga entered an Order dismissing the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction. See DE# 1503 in the Main Case. Thereafter, JMB and Mr. Kosachuk appealed Chief Judge
Altonaga’s dismissal order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Case No. 25-13692-JJ. See
DE# 1504 in the Main Case. As of the entry of this Order, the July 8th Order remains on appeal before the
Eleventh Circuit.
3 At the time of entry of the July 8th Order, I was unaware of JMB’s Agreed Final Judgment. In his motion to
reopen the Main Case, Mr. Kosachuk just referenced the acquisition of JMB’s claim in the Main Case and the
Debtor’s alleged default under the Plan. Mr. Kosachuk did not state that the JMB claim had been resolved by
entry of the Agreed Final Judgment and, because I was not the presiding judge when the Agreed Final
Judgment was entered, I had no knowledge of the Agreed Final Judgment’s existence. The Court’s reference
in the July 8th Order to Mr. Kosachuk enforcing JMB’s claim in a non-bankruptcy forum was not intended to
preclude Mr. Kosachuk from enforcing the Agreed Final Judgment, which I had no knowledge of when I
entered the July 8th Order. Therefore, the July 8th Order does not bar Mr. Kosachuk from pursuing his current
efforts to enforce the Agreed Final Judgment.
Case 16-01188-RAM Doc 62 Filed 07/28/26 Page 8 of 14

9
garnishment [DE#’s 15, 16, 26, and 27 in the District Court Case], and the financial
institutions have all filed answers to the writs of garnishment [DE#’s 25, 31, 33, and 41 in
the District Court Case]. The Debtor filed a motion to strike the Agreed Final Judgment and
a supplement thereto addressing the garnishment motions and writs [DE#’s 17 and 29 in
the District Court Case]. 	On January 28, 2026, the District Court held a hearing on the
Debtor’s motion to strike, including the supplement thereto, and took the matter under
advisement.
On February 23, 2026, Magistrate Judge Marty Fulgueira Elfenbein entered the
Order, a copy of which is filed at DE# 58 in this Adversary Proceeding (the “District Court
Order”). In finding the District Court Case related to the Debtor’s main bankruptcy case and
this adversary proceeding, and acknowledging the similar matters pending before this
Court, the District Court ruled:
The enforceability of that judgment, and whether it survives the confirmed
Chapter 11 plan as an independently executable instrument, turns entirely on
events and rulings in the Bankruptcy Court. A ruling by this Court permitting
or barring collection on that judgment could alter Hazan’s liabilities and
freedom of action, and would directly impact the Bankruptcy Court’s ongoing
administration of the overlapping enforcement and plan-effect disputes it is
already actively managing.
District Court Order at pg. 6. The District Court further ruled:
Although this action is ‘related to’ In re Hazan and the Adversary Proceeding,
the [District] Court declines to transfer or refer it to the Bankruptcy Court. 	The
referral mechanism under 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) and Local Rule 87.2 exists to
channel bankruptcy-related disputes to the court best positioned to resolve
them. That purpose is not served where, as here, the party seeking transfer
simultaneously argues in the Bankruptcy Court that it is powerless to provide
the very collection relief at issue here. Indeed, the Court takes judicial notice
that, in the Adversary Proceeding before the Bankruptcy Court, Hazan
contends that the [Agreed Final] Judgment is unenforceable, that collection
cannot proceed in the bankruptcy forum, and that Kosachuk must start over
with a new breach-of-contract action in state court; yet, before this Court, she
simultaneously argues that the Bankruptcy Court is the proper forum. Further
underscoring 	the 	forum-shopping 	concern, 	Hazan 	removed 	Kosachuk’s
separate state court action against her — filed in response to the Bankruptcy
Case 16-01188-RAM Doc 62 Filed 07/28/26 Page 9 of 14

10
Court’s directive that Kosachuk pursue his claims in a non-bankruptcy forum
— to this Court in Case No. 25-CV-23860-EIS, thereby ensuring that even the
very forum the Bankruptcy Court directed Kosachuk to use was pulled into
federal court at Hazan’s initiative. 	See Removal Action, Case No. 25-CV-
23860-EIS, ECF No. [1]. In short, until five days ago when the Removal Action
was dismissed, the same two litigants (Hazan and Kosachuk) were fighting
about overlapping debt collection issues in three different forums — the
Bankruptcy Court, the Removal Action pending before Judge Sanchez, and
this action.
A transfer under these circumstances to the Bankruptcy Court would not
channel this dispute to a single coherent forum — it would effectively ensure
that no court has authority to adjudicate Kosachuk’s collection efforts. The
Court will not facilitate that outcome.
District Court order at pgs. 6-7 (internal citations and footnote omitted). Finally, the District
Court stayed the District Court Case pending this Court’s rulings on the matters pending
before it, finding:
[T]he Bankruptcy Court is the court best positioned to resolve the threshold
questions on which this case turns. Whether the confirmed plan superseded
the [Agreed Final] Judgment, whether it remains independently enforceable,
and whether collection efforts based on it are procedurally proper are all
questions that arise directly from the Bankruptcy Court’s own prior orders and
the structure of the confirmed plan.
District Court Order at pg. 8.
Discussion
In the Motion to Strike, the Debtor argues that the Agreed Final Judgment is not
independently enforceable because (i) the Agreed Final Judgment was incorporated into
the Plan and, therefore, is superseded by the rights granted to JMB in the Plan and JMB is
bound by the Plan and the Confirmation Order under section 1141(a); (ii) the July 8th Order
limits JMB’s rights to enforce the Plan through a breach of contract claim filed in another
forum; (iii) enforcement of the Agreed Final Judgment in this Adversary Proceeding and
permitting JMB to file a breach of contract claim in another forum court would allow for an
impermissible double-recovery; and (iv) JMB is time-barred from enforcing the Agreed Final
Case 16-01188-RAM Doc 62 Filed 07/28/26 Page 10 of 14

11
Judgment because it waited more than five years to collect, citing Fla. Stat. § 95.11(2)(a),
Balfour Beatty Bahamas, Ltd. v. Bush, 170 F.3d 1048 (11th Cir. 1999), and Kilby v. Ilgen (In
re Kilby), 196 B.R. 627, 629-30 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1996).
The Debtor’s first, second, and third arguments fail for several reasons. As described
above, the Debtor agreed that the Agreed Final Judgment is non-dischargeable pursuant to
11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2). 	While the Agreed Final Judgment provided that the Debtor may
incorporate the terms of the Agreed Final Judgment into the Plan in exchange for JMB
supporting confirmation of the Plan and crediting all payments received under the Plan
against the Agreed Final Judgment, the fact that the Agreed Final Judgment is non-
dischargeable and, therefore, remains independently enforceable beyond confirmation of
the Plan is not in question. The Agreed Final Judgment expressly provides that JMB agrees
not to execute on the Agreed Final Judgment until the Second Anniversary Date (i.e., July
20, 2018) if the Debtor does not fully satisfy the Agreed Final Judgment by that date.
It is undisputed that the Debtor has not made any payments on the Agreed Final
Judgment and that the balance of the Agreed Final Judgment, plus interest, remains
outstanding. It is also undisputed that neither the Plan nor the Confirmation Order provides
for any default remedies or enforcement provisions. Because the Second Anniversary Date
has passed and the Agreed Final Judgment remains due and owing, JMB is entitled to
proceed to execution of the Agreed Final Judgment. 	And while the July 8th Order does
state that Mr. Kosachuk must enforce the Plan through a breach of contract claim filed in
another forum, the Court, as acknowledged above, was unaware of the existence of the
Agreed Final Judgment and its terms at the time of entering the July 8th Order. Therefore,
while Mr. Kosachuk remains entitled to enforce the terms of the Plan in another forum, he
Case 16-01188-RAM Doc 62 Filed 07/28/26 Page 11 of 14

12
also, as the now-owner of the Agreed Final Judgment, is entitled to enforce and execute on
the Agreed Final Judgment.
This is consistent with a prior ruling made by late-Bankruptcy Judge A.J. Cristol, who
was the primary judge presiding over the Main Case and this Adversary Proceeding and the
judge who signed the Agreed Final Judgment, in the Court’s Order Granting Motion to
Reopen Case to Approve Final Report, and Enter Discharge of Reorganized Debtor [DE#
766] (the “Discharge Order”). 	In the Discharge Order, Judge Cristol overruled NLG’s
objection to the entry of discharge because the Agreed Final Judgment had not been
satisfied. Judge Cristol explained:
JMB is not affected by the relief sought and has not objected to the Debtor
receiving a general discharge. Pursuant to the settlement of the [A]dversary
[P]roceeding, [citing the Agreed Final Judgment], the Reorganized Debtor
and 	JMB 	agreed 	that 	JMB 	has 	a 	non-dischargeable 	judgment 	of
$275,000.00. 	Thus, after receiving its pro rata share of distributions under
the Plan, JMB may continue to pursue payment of its claim outside the Plan.
. . . JMB . . . may pursue the remaining amounts of [its] respective non-
dischargeable debt[] outside the Plan. Because the entry of a discharge [of
the claims of the unsecured creditors who were paid in full under the Plan]
will not affect JMB . . ., the Court sees no reason to withhold the discharge
when the Debtor has otherwise established entitlement to same.
Discharge Order at pgs. 8-9.
Regarding the Debtor’s argument that enforcement of the Agreed Final Judgment in
this Adversary Proceeding and permitting JMB to file a breach of contract claim in another
forum court would allow for an impermissible double-recovery, neither JMB nor Mr.
Kosachuk argue that such double-recovery would be permissible. 	It is not. 	And this
argument is not a valid basis to deny the Motion for Writ of Execution.
Finally, the Debtor’s last argument, that the Agreed Final Judgment is time-barred
under Fla. Stat. § 95.11(2)(a), is without merit. 	That statue sets a five-year statute of
limitations for any action, other than for the recovery of real property, on a judgment of any
Case 16-01188-RAM Doc 62 Filed 07/28/26 Page 12 of 14

13
court. See Fla. Stat. § 95.11(2)(a). The Debtor cites Bush, 170 F.3d 1048, and Kilby, 196
B.R. at 629-30, which, at first glance, appear to support the Debtor’s argument. However,
the Eleventh Circuit has subsequently ruled in Salinas v. Ramsey, 881 F.3d 876 (11th Cir.
2018) that, in response to a certified question from the Eleventh Circuit to the Florida
Supreme Court, the Florida Supreme Court clarified that “[u]nder Florida law, post-judgment
discovery for the purpose of collecting a federal money judgment issued by a federal court
in Florida ‘is permitted for a period of twenty years from the date the judgment was entered.’”
Salinas, 881 F.3d at 876 (citing Salinas v. Ramsey, 234 So. 3d 569 (Fla. 2018)). The Florida
Supreme Court also explained that “post-judgment discovery is not an ‘action,’ and section
95.11 does not establish when it must begin.” 	Id. (citing Salinas, 234 So. 3d at 573. 	The
Eleventh Circuit further stated in a footnote that “[b]ecause the Florida Supreme Court’s
decision undermines our interpretation of Florida law in Balfour, it is no longer binding in this
Circuit.” Id. at 877 n. 2. Thus, the Court rejects Debtor’s argument that enforcement of the
Agreed Final Judgment is time-barred.
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, the Court finds that the Agreed Final
Judgment is enforceable. The open question is whether further proceedings to enforce the
Agreed Final Judgment, including issuance of a Writ of Execution, should be conducted
here in the bankruptcy court or in the District Court Case. 	In the District Court Order,
Magistrate Judge Elfenbein denied JMB’s Motion for Writ of Execution filed in the District
Court Case “without prejudice and subject to renewal, if appropriate, after the Bankruptcy
Court has ruled on the pending matters in the Adversary Proceeding.” District Court Order
at ¶ 4. Therefore, in deference to the United States District Court, this Court will defer action
Case 16-01188-RAM Doc 62 Filed 07/28/26 Page 13 of 14

14
in this Court on execution of the Agreed Final Judgment pending a further Order in the
District Court Case. 	Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. 	The Agreed Final Judgment is enforceable and JMB is entitled to execute on
the Agreed Final Judgment. 	However, the Court reserves ruling on JMB’s Motion for Writ
of Execution [DE# 31] pending a determination in the District Court Case on whether
execution on the Agreed Final Judgment should proceed in this Court or in the District Court
Case where the Agreed Final Judgment has been registered.
2. 	For the same reasons described in the Conclusion and in paragraph 1 above,
the Court reserves ruling on JMB’s Motion to Compel [DE# 52].
3. 	The Debtor’s Motion to Strike JMB’s Motion to Compel [DE# 56] is denied.
4. 	The Motion to Strike [DE# 35] is denied.
5. 	The Motion to Set Status Conference [DE# 60] is denied as moot.
6. 	The Debtor’s Requests for Judicial Notice [DE#’s 36 and 45] and JMB’s
Request for Judicial Notice [DE# 44] are denied as unnecessary.
###
Copies to:
Joel M. Aresty, Esq.
CLERK TO SERVE:
Christopher Kosachuk, as Assignee of the Plaintiff
854 Pheasant Run Rd.
West Chester, PA 19382-8144
Case 16-01188-RAM Doc 62 Filed 07/28/26 Page 14 of 14