Weavers fight to halt Martha’s Vineyard sale

Latest filing argues that the receiver should preserve disputed assets until the Farm Credit lawsuit is decided

10:06 a.m. July 1, 2026

DUANE CROSS
MCO Publisher•Editor

Fawn and Keith Weaver are asking a federal judge to stop the court-appointed receiver from selling Uncle Nearest’s Martha’s Vineyard property, arguing the sale would change ownership before the lawsuit at the center of the case is decided.

The motion, filed Wednesday, July 1, in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, asks the court to stay its June 15 order allowing the receiver to sell real and personal property in Martha’s Vineyard.

To the Weavers, the question is plain: Can a receiver appointed to preserve disputed assets begin selling them before the debt, liability and ownership issues in the case have been decided?

Their answer is no.

The proposed sale is not a routine housekeeping matter, they argue. It is an irreversible step, one that could not easily be undone if the court later reconsiders the order or if an appeals court decides the sale should not have been allowed.

Money can be held. A house, once sold, is gone.

“The challenged order authorizes an irreversible sale of property before the underlying claims in this action have been adjudicated,” the motion states.

The case is Farm Credit Mid-America, PCA v. Uncle Nearest, Inc., et al. It is pending before Judge Atchley, with Magistrate Judge Steger also assigned.

Preservation or liquidation?

The heart of the filing is the line between preserving assets and liquidating them.

The court appointed the receiver on Aug. 22, 2025. According to the Weavers, that appointment was meant to safeguard disputed assets and preserve value while the lawsuit moved through court.

They say that is not what is happening now.

In the July 1 motion, the Weavers argue the receiver has moved beyond protecting assets and is now beginning to sell them off before any trial, final debt determination or ruling on Farm Credit’s right to force liquidation.

They describe the Martha’s Vineyard sale as “the first step” in a broader plan to “dissipate the entire estate.”

That is the fight now before the judge.

A receiver may be appointed to protect property while a lawsuit is pending. But selling contested property before the underlying claims are decided is a different matter, the Weavers argue. In their view, preservation has become liquidation.

The June 15 order allowed the receiver to sell the Martha’s Vineyard real estate and personal property. It also said net proceeds could not be released to Farm Credit while the underlying claims remain pending.

That safeguard is not enough, the Weavers say.

Their argument is that the harm comes from the sale itself. Once the property is transferred, ownership changes. Control is lost. The status quo disappears.

The motion says the order “will permanently alter ownership rights, disposition rights, and the status quo” before Farm Credit’s claims have been adjudicated.

More than the house

The real estate is not their only objection.

The Weavers also challenge the sale of personal property at the Martha’s Vineyard residence. According to the filing, the receiver has been given authority to sell personal property even though no full inventory has been completed and no ownership determination has been made.

The receiver “has admitted that he has not inventoried the personal property in the residence,” the motion states, and no information has been presented to the court identifying who owns it.

That matters because personal property can belong to different people or entities. Without an inventory, valuation or ownership review, the Weavers argue, the court cannot know exactly what is being sold, what it is worth or whose rights may be affected.

Put more simply: they say the receiver has authority to sell property that has not yet been fully identified.

Due process questions

The proposed sale also reaches beyond the parties now standing before the judge, according to the Weavers.

Their filing argues that shareholders and unsecured creditors of Uncle Nearest could be harmed if company assets are sold before the case is resolved. Unsecured creditors are owed more than $13 million by “conservative estimates,” according to the motion.

Selling assets now, they say, could make it harder for those creditors to recover money later. Equity holders also could lose value tied to their investments if assets are sold without notice and an opportunity to be heard.

The motion points to federal procedures for receiver sales of real property, including notice to interested parties, a hearing, appraisals, publication of proposed sale terms and protections that allow for a higher bid under certain conditions.

Their point is that this is not just a two-party fight between Farm Credit and Uncle Nearest. In their view, a sale could affect investors, creditors and others with financial interests in the company or its property.

“As long as there is no notice and opportunity to be heard by investors and those with interests in any of the property of Uncle Nearest, Inc., there has been no valid sale which complies with procedural due process,” the motion states.

Receiver accused of crossing the line

The Martha’s Vineyard property is the immediate issue. The larger fight is over the receiver’s authority.

The Weavers allege the receiver has exceeded the original scope of the receivership order. Their filing says the receiver has terminated them from Uncle Nearest without court authorization and has indicated he signed a letter of intent to sell all company assets to an undisclosed third party.

Those are allegations in the Weavers’ motion. The court has not resolved them in this filing.

But they show how much is now at stake.

The Weavers are not simply asking the judge to stop one sale. They are asking the court to take a harder look at the direction of the entire receivership. They say the receiver is no longer just maintaining assets while the lawsuit plays out. They say he is moving toward selling the company piece by piece.

“None of these goals are related to preservation of the assets,” the motion states.

The filing also says the Martha’s Vineyard property is worth less than 1 percent of the total debt that appears to be at issue in the case. The Weavers argue that makes the sale less meaningful as a debt-recovery tool and more troubling as the first step in a larger liquidation strategy.

What the court must weigh

To win a stay, the Weavers must clear a familiar legal test: show serious questions, show harm that cannot easily be fixed later, show Farm Credit would not be substantially injured by a pause, and show the public interest favors keeping the property in place for now.

They argue those factors weigh in their favor.

On the merits, they say they do not have to prove today that they will ultimately win. They only have to show serious legal questions, especially when the harm could be permanent.

On irreparable harm, a completed sale cannot easily be reversed later, they argue. If the property is sold to a third party, the loss of control and ownership would be immediate.

On harm to Farm Credit, they argue a stay would not materially hurt the lender because the court has already ordered that proceeds from any sale not be released to Farm Credit while the underlying claims remain pending.

They also say the property is not in immediate danger of being lost or losing value. A stay, they argue, would simply keep things as they are until the court reconsiders the issue or an appeal can be heard.

Their public-interest argument is straightforward: when disputed property is on the line, the court should move carefully before allowing a sale that may not be reversible.

What the Weavers want

The Weavers are asking the court to stay the June 15 order while they pursue an anticipated motion for reconsideration and any appeal.

They also ask the judge to temporarily stop any sale-related activity, including marketing, signing sale documents, closing, transfer or conveyance of title.

If the court does not immediately grant the stay, they ask for an expedited briefing schedule and hearing.

They also ask the judge not to require a bond, arguing federal rules do not require one in every case.

The motion was filed by Curtis Johnson and Florence Johnson of Johnson & Johnson, P.C., in Memphis.

What happens next

The filing does not decide the dispute. It asks the judge to hit pause.

Farm Credit, the receiver or other parties may respond. The court will then decide whether the Martha’s Vineyard sale can move forward now or must wait while the Weavers seek reconsideration or appeal.

For now, the question before the court is not who ultimately wins the Farm Credit lawsuit.

It is whether Uncle Nearest assets can be sold before that fight is decided.