This case arose from the collapse of Wedgewood Properties, LLC, a Nevada company managed by attorney Shawn Weera that operated as a Ponzi scheme. Investors Connie Rogers and William Stephen invested a total of $635,000 between 2013 and 2016. After discovering tax liabilities and misrepresentations, they sued Weera and settled for $900,000, receiving $550,000 in cash and a promissory note. When Weera died and the company filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, the Trustee, Jeff A. Moyer, sued the investors to recover the funds as fraudulent transfers and preferential payments. The Trustee argued the investors knew or should have known of the fraud and that the garnishment of their settlement funds occurred within the 90-day preference period. The Bankruptcy Court found the investors acted in good faith and that the garnishment was perfected before the bankruptcy filing, leading to the Trustee's appeal.
The Panel addressed two primary issues. First, regarding the good faith defense under 11 U.S.C. § 548(c), the court applied the Sixth Circuit's 'hybrid' test from In re Meoli, which balances subjective intent with objective factors. The court found that while the investors had some 'red flags' regarding the investment's performance, they lacked actual knowledge that Wedgewood was a Ponzi scheme. The court distinguished the investors from sophisticated entities, noting their age and limited financial experience. It held that the presence of red flags does not automatically defeat good faith; rather, the defense ends only when a transferee obtains definite information that they can no longer 'legitimately cling to' their belief that the transfer was valid. The court also found that the investors' attorney, David Foster, did not have actual knowledge of the Ponzi scheme, and his limited suspicions could not be imputed to the clients to defeat their defense. Second, regarding the preference period, the court analyzed Michigan law on garnishment perfection. Under federal bankruptcy law, a transfer is perfected when a creditor can no longer be primed by a judicial lien. The court found that under Michigan law, a non-periodic garnishment lien attaches upon service of the writ. Although the service was technically defective because it did not include a follow-up registered mail, Michigan Court Rule 2.105(K)(3) prevents dismissal for improper service if the defendant received actual notice. Since the bank received actual notice on August 14, 2018, the lien was perfected outside the 90-day preference period, rendering the subsequent transfer of funds non-preferential.
The decision protects elderly investors who receive funds from fraudulent schemes if they lack actual knowledge of the fraud, even if they were aware of some irregularities. It clarifies that in the Sixth Circuit, technical defects in garnishment service do not invalidate a lien if the garnishee received actual notice, allowing creditors to perfect their claims outside the preference period more easily. The case is remanded with instructions to uphold the Bankruptcy Court's judgment, leaving the investors' settlement proceeds intact.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download