Insurance Interpleader Settlement.

Byline: R.I. Lawyers Weekly Staff

Where a defendant has claimed to be entitled to what remains of settlement funds in an interpleader action after payment of a codefendant's counsel fees, a U.S. magistrate judge's recommendation that the claim be rejected should be adopted because the claimant does not have priority to the settlement funds.

"In the R&R, Magistrate Judge Sullivan recommends that the Court deny Paula Caramadre's ('Ms. Caramadre') motion, in which she argues that she is entitled to what remains of the Settlement Fund after payment of Joseph Caramadre's ('Mr. Caramadre') attorneys' fees. ... In sum, Ms. Caramadre challenges (1) the criminal restitution order entered in Mr. Caramadre's long-resolved criminal case; and (2) Magistrate Judge Sullivan's sound conclusion that Ms. Caramadre does not have priority to the Settlement Funds in this interpleader action.

"With respect to the collateral attack of Mr. Caramadre's restitution order, non-parties do not have standing to appeal or otherwise attack restitution orders; rather, only a defendant has a 'judicially cognizable interest' in his sentence, which includes the restitution order.

"As noted in the R&R, this Court entered its restitution order in Mr. Caramadre's criminal case in February 2014, after a three-day evidentiary hearing. See Amended Judgment, ECF No. 247, Cr. No. 11-186. Mr. Caramadre waived his right to appeal, including from the restitution order. The time to attack that order as ill-considered has long passed, and, even if it had not, Ms. Caramadre has no standing to mount such a challenge.

"In her Objection, Ms...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT