‘The Court’s Orders are not suggestions’

2:56 p.m. March 31, 2026

DUANE CROSS
MCO Publisher•Editor

A federal judge has ordered the receiver in the Uncle Nearest case to produce, by April 9, the evidence he says shows Fawn Weaver violated court orders, escalating a sanctions fight that has become one of the most closely watched disputes inside the sprawling receivership.

At issue are what the receiver describes as unauthorized bankruptcy filings and Weaver’s public comments about the case – disputes that reach a deeper question running through the litigation: who had authority to act for the receivership entities once the court installed a receiver.

In his latest order, U.S. District Judge Charles E. Atchley Jr. left little doubt that the court is taking the accusations seriously.

“The Court’s Orders are not suggestions,” Atchley wrote as he directed Receiver Phillip G. Young Jr. to file and serve the materials he believes show Weaver violated one or more court directives. The judge also gave Weaver until April 16 to file a sur-reply responding to that evidence and granted her motion for leave to do so.

• Judge Atchley's Order | Weavers' Limited Objection

Two Fronts, One Receivership

Taken together, the latest filings show the receivership’s conflicts widening in two directions: over whether Weaver and her lawyers defied the court, and over how a Martha’s Vineyard property tied to the estate should be appraised as a sale moves ahead.

That matters because this case has long been about more than one motion or one asset. It has become a steady fight over control – who may speak for the entities, who may make legal decisions for them, and how property tied to the estate should be protected, valued, and sold. In that environment, even procedural disputes have taken on outsized importance.

The receiver’s expedited sanctions motion asks the court to penalize Weaver and/or her lawyers over Chapter 11 petitions filed on behalf of Uncle Nearest, Nearest Green Distillery, and Uncle Nearest Real Estate Holdings. The motion also points to what the receiver characterizes as Weaver’s “media blitz” surrounding those petitions.

Atchley did not decide whether sanctions are justified. But he did require the receiver to produce the material he says supports those accusations before the court goes further. The judge also noted that Weaver had not yet had an opportunity to respond to that evidence and that the receiver first sought injunctive sanctions in his reply brief.

Appraisal Fight on Martha’s Vineyard

In a separate filing, Fawn Weaver and Keith Weaver challenged the receiver’s proposed path for valuing the Martha’s Vineyard property. Their limited objection centers on one proposed appraiser, Matthew Bellas of Bellas Appraisal Services. The Weavers say he is not sufficiently disinterested because, by the receiver’s own account, Bellas and his firm had already been engaged by the proposed buyers’ lender to appraise the property in connection with the contemplated sale.

The Weavers argue that prior involvement creates either a conflict of interest or, at a minimum, disqualifies Bellas from serving as a neutral appraiser for the receivership estate.

They also reject any suggestion that qualified appraisers for Martha’s Vineyard are hard to find. Their filing says a basic Yelp search turned up multiple additional appraisal firms serving Martha’s Vineyard and the surrounding region, undercutting any claim that viable options are scarce. The objection further argues that appraisal work involving Martha’s Vineyard often draws professionals not only from the island but also from Boston, Falmouth, and the broader Cape Cod area.

What's Next

For now, the court has not decided whether sanctions will be imposed. But Atchley has made clear that the receiver must now produce the proof he says he has – and that Weaver will have a chance to answer it – before the court decides whether the latest fight in the Uncle Nearest receivership merits sanctions.