Attorneys Who Aided Debtors Hit With $4.5 Million In Attorney Fees

We now rejoin the litigation in Nagel v. Westin still in progress, and which was the subject of my article UVTA Held Not To Require A Third-Party Transferee In Nagel (Jan. 24, 2021). A quick disclaimer that after I wrote that article, I was hired as an expert witness by the Nagel parties, but prior to trial was disqualified due to a perceived conflict of interest (some years previously, one of the attorneys for the defendants called me about possibly serving as an expert but never followed up); however, the description that follows will come solely from the Order After Hearing (Sept. 7, 2023) issued in that case, and other public filings only, and nothing from my personal knowledge. Further, what shall be related below is about the rulings and basis therefore from the Superior Court of Santa Barbara County, and thus is subject to reversal on appeal, i.e., everything that I write about below is subject to being a clean scratch a couple of years hence. With all those necessary caveats, let’s now continue.

To recap, plaintiffs Nicole Nagel and ESY Investments, LLC, purchased a residence from Tracy and his wife Linda Westen in 2011, but there were defects in the residence that lead to an arbitration and ultimately a judgment against the Westens in 2014 for about $4.6 million. Instead of paying the judgment, the Westens bought a home in Texas (which has a homestead protection unlimited in amount), and engaged in other conduct meant to defeat Nagel’s collection of the judgment.