Sale hearing puts Nearest Green appeal on the clock

Judge refuses fast-track review of dismissed bankruptcy; Weavers seek to stop MV sale, expanded receivership

3:35 p.m. June 2, 2026

DUANE CROSS
MCO Publisher•Editor

A proposed $2.595 million sale of a Martha’s Vineyard property has put a hard deadline on the widening court dispute over Uncle Nearest, with a hearing set for June 11 unless an appeals court intervenes first.

On Tuesday, June 2, Fawn Weaver, Keith Weaver, and Grant Sidney, Inc., asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to temporarily stop portions of the federal receivership overseeing Uncle Nearest-related assets. Their motion seeks to halt the Martha’s Vineyard sale process and pause a recent order placing Grant Sidney under the receiver’s control.

The same day, U.S. District Judge Charles E. Atchley Jr. rejected a separate request, filed in the name of Uncle Nearest, Inc., to fast-track an appeal of the company’s dismissed Chapter 11 bankruptcy case or send that appeal directly to the Sixth Circuit.

The filings put two immediate questions before the courts: whether the receivership can extend to Grant Sidney, and whether assets can be sold while related challenges to the receivership and the dismissed bankruptcy case remain unresolved. The Weavers argue that once property is sold to an outside buyer, an appellate victory may come too late to restore what was lost.

Court-appointed receiver Phillip G. Young Jr. is urging the court to let the property-sale hearing proceed. His attorneys argue there is no new emergency, only a sale dispute the Weavers and Grant Sidney have been litigating for months.

• Read the latest filings

A June 11 hearing now looms

The immediate issue is a Martha’s Vineyard property included among the receivership assets.

Young filed a motion in February seeking approval to sell the real and personal property to a third-party buyer for approximately $2.595 million. The court later required three appraisals, publication of the proposed sale in the Vineyard Gazette, and an opportunity for qualified overbids.

According to Young’s June 2 filing, all three appraisals valued the property at $2.6 million.

The court-approved sale schedule gives potential competing buyers until June 5 to submit an overbid. The proposed sale is set for a hearing at 2 p.m. ET on June 11 at the federal courthouse in Knoxville.

The Weavers and Grant Sidney argue that immediate intervention by the Sixth Circuit is necessary. In their filing, they say a sale to a third party could leave an appeals court unable to provide meaningful relief if they ultimately prevail.

They also say the risk stretches beyond the Massachusetts property. Their motion states that Young has disclosed a signed letter of intent for the sale of substantially all assets of Uncle Nearest Inc., Uncle Nearest Real Estate Holdings Inc., and Nearest Green Distillery Inc., with a formal asset purchase agreement expected within approximately 45 days.

The filing does not identify the potential buyer. A letter of intent does not complete a sale, and the filing does not state that a final asset purchase agreement has been submitted to the court.

Young, in his response filed in the related bankruptcy appeal, says the Weavers and Grant Sidney have already had months to oppose the Martha’s Vineyard sale, including objecting to the proposed sale and the appraisers. The June 11 hearing, he argues, is where those objections should be heard.

“There is no emergency that should stop this hearing from going forward,” Young wrote.

Bankruptcy filing remains at center of separate appeal

Running alongside the property-sale dispute is a separate appeal over whether Uncle Nearest could file for bankruptcy after Young was appointed receiver.

Fawn Weaver filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy petitions on behalf of three receivership entities on March 17 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.

Young and Farm Credit Mid-America, the creditor whose lawsuit led to the receivership, moved to dismiss the cases. They argued that Weaver no longer had authority to file bankruptcy petitions for the companies because that authority belonged to the court-appointed receiver.

The bankruptcy court agreed and dismissed the cases on March 19. A notice of appeal in the Uncle Nearest matter was filed on March 20.

In a 40-page appellate brief filed Monday, June 1, attorneys appearing for Uncle Nearest argue the bankruptcy court read too much into the receivership order. They contend the order did not expressly remove the board’s authority to file for Chapter 11 protection and argue Sixth Circuit precedent requires clearer language before that authority can be displaced.

The brief also challenges a supplemental memorandum opinion the bankruptcy court entered after the notice of appeal was filed. Attorneys for Uncle Nearest argue the bankruptcy court no longer had authority to expand its reasoning once the appeal had begun.

Those arguments remain undecided.

Receiver seeks dismissal over missed deadline

Before Atchley reaches the substance of the bankruptcy appeal, he must also decide whether it should be dismissed over a missed briefing deadline.

Young filed a motion on Monday, June 1, arguing the opening brief was due May 29 – 30 days after the appeal record was transmitted to the district court. Because the brief was not filed by that date, he argues, the appeal may be dismissed under federal bankruptcy rules.

Attorneys appearing for Uncle Nearest filed the brief on June 1 and asked the court to extend the deadline through that date. They characterize the delay as minimal and argue no party was harmed, particularly because an earlier request asking the judge to expedite and manage the appeal schedule was still pending.

Atchley did not rule on the missed-deadline dispute in his June 2 order.

Instead, he notified the parties that he would consider Young’s motion to dismiss the appeal, Uncle Nearest’s requested extension, and its challenge to the bankruptcy court’s supplemental opinion alongside the merits of the appeal.

For now, the bankruptcy appeal remains pending, but the missed deadline presents a procedural issue that could end it before the larger legal question is resolved.

Judge refuses expedited review of bankruptcy appeal

Atchley did resolve one issue Tuesday, June 2: He denied Uncle Nearest’s request for emergency, expedited consideration of the bankruptcy appeal.

Attorneys appearing for the company had argued that the dismissal wrongly blocked access to bankruptcy relief and that the continuing receivership was causing irreparable harm.

Atchley found neither argument justified moving the appeal ahead of other matters on the court’s docket.

The judge wrote that Uncle Nearest’s argument assumes it will ultimately prevail, while the interaction between a federal receivership and a bankruptcy filing is more complicated than the company’s motion suggested. Success on appeal, he wrote, is “not a foregone conclusion.”

Atchley also pointed to his recent order in the underlying Farm Credit case, where he denied a motion to end the receivership and found the receivership was more beneficial than harmful to Uncle Nearest.

Based on that finding, Atchley said Uncle Nearest had not shown irreparable harm requiring emergency review.

He also denied the request to certify the bankruptcy dispute for direct appeal to the Sixth Circuit, finding the company had not identified which required statutory basis supported the request.

Grant Sidney challenges inclusion in receivership

The Sixth Circuit motion raises a related but separate issue: whether Atchley should have expanded the receivership to include Grant Sidney.

In their Tuesday, June 2, filing, the Weavers and Grant Sidney describe Grant Sidney as a separate holding company and argue that the court placed it under receivership control without sufficient findings to disregard its separate corporate status.

They are asking the Sixth Circuit to pause that expansion while the appeal is considered.

The motion also makes clear that the Weavers and Grant Sidney are not asking the appeals court to dissolve the receivership entirely at this stage. They are asking the court to stop the expanded receivership and property sale activities from altering the case before appellate review can occur.

The receiver’s position has been that continued court control is necessary to protect property and financial interests tied to the Farm Credit litigation.

The underlying case began in July 2025, when Farm Credit sued Uncle Nearest entities, Fawn Weaver, and Keith Weaver over an alleged breach of a loan agreement. Atchley appointed Young as receiver in August 2025.

Attorneys seek to withdraw as appeals proceed

As the case moves through multiple courts, attorneys have also sought to withdraw from representing the Weavers and Grant Sidney in related proceedings.

On June 2, Michael E. Collins and the Nashville firm Manier & Herod, P.C., asked the Sixth Circuit to allow them to withdraw as co-counsel in the appeal challenging the receivership orders. The filing states Curtis D. Johnson Jr. of Johnson & Johnson, P.C., has entered an appearance and will serve as lead counsel for the appeal.

In a separate federal case in New York involving the Weavers, Grant Sidney, and Farm Credit, James L. Walker Jr. and J. Walker & Associates, LLC, filed a motion on May 29 seeking to withdraw as counsel, citing a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. Walker stated that substitute local counsel was being arranged.

The attorney changes do not alter the immediate deadlines in Tennessee. Unless a court orders otherwise, overbids for the Martha’s Vineyard property are due June 5, with a sale hearing scheduled for June 11.

That hearing is set to proceed while the appeals remain unresolved – leaving the court to decide whether one receivership asset may be sold before the broader disputes over the receivership and the dismissed bankruptcy case are resolved.