DKT 498 MOTION AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF INTERESTED PARTY SOUTHERN STAR CAPITAL, LLC TO MODIFY STAY PROVISION SET FORTH IN RECEIVER ORDER

On 05/24/24, Southern Star Capital, LLC (“SSC” or “Lender”) is the holder of two commercial real estate mortgage loan (the “Loans”), the borrowers being DJD Land Partners, LLC and Wall 009, LLC. (“DJD” or “Wall 009”). Both loans are secured by real property that is not claimed as a homestead and provided his evidence.

Download File

Related News

8 Critical Errors Made by the District Court in the SEC Case Against Timothy Barton

Learn about the 8 critical errors made by the District Court in its handling of the SEC case against Timothy Barton. These mistakes violated due process, destroyed businesses, and wrongly accused an innocent man.

DKT 528 RECEIVER’S OMNIBUS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS FOR APPROVAL OF SALE OF AMERIGOLD SUITES AND HALL STREET

On 07/10/24, In support of two pending motions [Dkts. 500 and 502] (the “Motions”), Cort Thomas, as the court-appointed Receiver, files this Consolidated Reply to

The Gillespie Property Dispute – 1 of the Shocking Case of Unjust Seizure and Severe Constitutional Rights Violations

In the intricate legal proceedings surrounding Timothy Barton, the inclusion of Gillespie Property in the Receivership estate has ignited considerable controversy. Gillespie, notably distinct from

DKT 130 MAXIMILIEN BARTON AND RELATED ENTITIES’ NOTICE OF APPEAL

On 01/12/23, Interested Parties Maximilien Barton; Gillespie Villas LLC, Venus59 LLC, TRTX Properties LLC, MXBA LLC, Titan Investments LLC, TC Hall, LLC, and Titan 2022

DKT 558 RECEIVER’S MOTION FOR “SHOW CAUSE” HEARING, SANCTIONS, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT

On 08/23/24, Receiver Cortney C. Thomas (the “Receiver”) respectfully requests that the Court schedule a “Show Cause Hearing” compelling Defendant Timothy Barton (“Barton”) to appear

DKT 548 ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTIONS FOR EXEMPTION FROM RECEIVERSHIP AND JUDGMENT

On 08/14/24, Two motions from Daniel Crow pertaining to Venus 59, LLC (“Venus 59”). In both motions, Crow argues he owns 90% of Venus 59,