WFCM 2016-LC25 West Bay Area Boulevard, LLC v. Tyler
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:21-cv-08865
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In WFCM v. Tyler, Judge Broderick adopted the damages report and granted West Bay’s summary-judgment motion, entering judgment against Tyler.
West Bay Area Boulevard, LLC received a judgment against Cheryl Tyler under the guaranty. The judgment awarded the lender a $3,785,183.97 deficiency, specified prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and $402,600.75 in attorneys’ fees.
What happened
WFCM 2016-LC25 West Bay Area Boulevard, LLC v. Tyler involved a lender’s effort to recover under a guaranty securing an $8.35 million loan to Kornbluth Texas, LLC. The court had already determined liability and was reviewing the damages recommendation from Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang.
Cheryl Tyler objected to awarding $153,427.50 for legal fees paid to Okin Adams Bartlett Curry LLP in the borrower’s bankruptcy proceedings. She argued that West Bay had not incurred those fees under the guaranty and that one category of fees was improper. The court found that these arguments had not been raised earlier and were forfeited, and also found them unpersuasive on the merits.
Judge Broderick adopted the report in its entirety and granted West Bay’s motion for summary judgment. The court directed entry of judgment against Tyler for $3,785,183.97 in deficiency damages, prejudgment interest at 10% per year, post-judgment interest at 10% per year, and $402,600.75 in attorneys’ fees.
The detailed version
- WFCM 2016-LC25 West Bay Area Boulevard, LLC v. Tyler · No. 1:21-cv-08865
- Vernon Broderick
- Aug. 22, 2025
Background
West Bay Area Boulevard, LLC sued Cheryl Tyler under a guaranty securing an $8.35 million loan to Kornbluth Texas, LLC. The court had previously granted West Bay’s motion for summary judgment on liability. This opinion addressed the damages recommended by United States Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang in a report and recommendation.
Judge Wang recommended a deficiency award of $3,785,183.97, prejudgment interest at 10% per year, post-judgment interest at 10% per year, and attorneys’ fees of $402,600.75. Tyler objected only to the recommendation that West Bay receive $153,427.50 for fees paid to Okin Adams Bartlett Curry LLP, which represented the borrower in bankruptcy proceedings.
Okin Fees
Tyler argued that the Okin fees were not expenses “incurred by Lender” under the guaranty and that an “employment applications” entry represented unrecoverable fees for pursuing fees. The court held that Tyler had forfeited these arguments because she did not present them to Judge Wang despite having the opportunity to do so.
The court also rejected the arguments on their merits. Applying Texas law, which the parties agreed governed the guaranty, the court interpreted the guaranty’s promise that Tyler would reimburse West Bay for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses, including counsel fees, incurred in collecting the guaranteed obligations or enforcing the guaranty. The court concluded that West Bay incurred the Okin fees by paying them. It also found that West Bay had shown the fees were reasonable. Judge Wang had already reduced the Okin fees by five percent for vague or administrative entries, and Tyler did not identify a specific additional improper charge.
Remaining Damages and Disposition
Neither party objected to the recommended deficiency amount, interest, or non-Okin attorneys’ fees. Judge Broderick therefore reviewed those portions for clear error and found none. He adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety and granted West Bay’s motion for summary judgment.
The Clerk was directed to enter judgment against Tyler and award West Bay:
- A deficiency amount of $3,785,183.97; - Prejudgment interest at 10% per year, stated as $581.65 per day; - Post-judgment interest at 10% per year; and - Attorneys’ fees of $402,600.75.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.
Related cases
- Trustees of the District Council No. 9 Painting Industry Insurance Fund v…Jan 2023
- United States of America, f/u/o/b Profex, Inc. and Profex, Inc. v. Westchester…Oct 2025
- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, f/u/o/b PROFEX, INC. and PROFEX, INC. v. WESTCHESTER…Sep 2025
- Drywall Tapers and Painters of Greater New York Local Union 1974, Affiliated…Sep 2025
- Trustees of the District Council No. 9 Painting Industry Insurance Fund v…Jul 2025
- Trustees Of The New York City District Council Of Carpenters Pension Fund…Jun 2025