Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Van Winkle

United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Tenth Circuit

April 3, 2018

IN RE FRED DALE VAN WINKLE, Debtor.
v.
JOHN WILLIAMS, ELLEN B. WILLIAMS, and BELLEVIEW VALLEY LAND CO., INC., Defendant - Appellants. TAMMY SPRAGUE, personal representative of the estate of Fred Dale Van Winkle, Plaintiff - Appellee,

         Chapter 7

          Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico

          W.T. Martin, Jr. (Jennie D. Behles, Albuquerque, New Mexico with him on the brief) of Martin, Dugan & Martin, Carlsbad, New Mexico, Attorneys for Defendant - Appellants.

          R. "Trey" Arvizu, III Las Cruces, New Mexico, Attorney for Plaintiff - Appellee.

          Before KARLIN, Chief Judge, NUGENT, and MOSIER, Bankruptcy Judges.

          OPINION

          KARLIN, CHIEF JUDGE

         John Williams, Ellen Williams, and Belleview Valley Land Co., Inc. (the "Appellants") appeal three bankruptcy court rulings: (1) the Order Denying Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction;[1] (2) the Order Granting Partial Summary Judgment and Denying Other Relief;[2] and (3) the Final Judgment, [3]which ordered Appellants to pay $50, 000 in actual and punitive damages. Appellants contend the bankruptcy court erred in denying their motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, failing to certify issues to the New Mexico Supreme Court, finding Appellants violated the discharge injunction and a court order, and awarding compensatory and punitive damages. Because we interpret New Mexico law to allow a judgment lien to reattach upon redemption by the owner of foreclosed property, we reverse the bankruptcy court's finding that Appellants violated the discharge injunction, affirm the finding that Appellants violated a court order, and remand for further findings regarding damages.

         I. Facts

         In 2008, Fred Van Winkle (the "Debtor") brought an action against the Appellants to quiet title in Otero County, New Mexico. Appellants counterclaimed and in 2010 ultimately obtained a money judgment against the Debtor for $261, 656 (the "Judgment Lien"). Appellants filed transcripts of that judgment in Otero, Roosevelt, and Lincoln Counties, New Mexico because the Debtor owned two tracts in Otero County (one seven acre tract and one thirty acre tract-the "Otero Land"), his residence, a condominium, in Lincoln County (the "Condo"), and a one-half interest in 311 acres in Roosevelt County.

         The Debtor filed this Chapter 7 proceeding in May 2013. The Debtor claimed as exempt $60, 000 in equity in the Condo under New Mexico's homestead exemption. In Schedule D (Creditors Holding Secured Claims), the Debtor listed both the first mortgage on the Condo in the amount of $12, 000 in favor of First National Bank of Ruidoso (the "First Mortgage") as well as the Judgment Lien.

         In September 2013, soon after receiving his discharge, the Debtor filed a motion to avoid the Judgment Lien on the Condo, seeking to avoid the lien to the extent it impaired the $60, 000 homestead exemption allowed by New Mexico law. Appellants objected (as the record reveals they did at almost every turn), stating the obvious-that the Debtor could only exempt the $60, 000 sought, and no more. Before the matter could be decided, the Debtor passed away (in April 2014).

         The Debtor's daughter, Tammy Sprague, became the personal representative of his probate estate.[4] Sprague and the Appellants entered into a stipulated order resolving the Motion to Avoid Judicial Lien (the "Stipulated Order"). It valued the Condo at $100, 000 and avoided the Judgment Lien to the extent it impaired the Debtor's $60, 000 exemption-capping the Judgment Lien against the Condo to the remainder after payment of the First Mortgage and the $60, 000 exemption.

         1. Foreclosure of the Otero Land

         In August 2013, Appellants obtained stay relief to allow them to complete the 2010 action to foreclose the Judgment Lien against the Otero Land. In May 2014, the New Mexico court entered a final judgment of foreclosure; that judgment expressly provided that no in personam deficiency could be entered against the Debtor.

         The appointed special master conducted a sale of the Otero Land in July 2014. Appellants Ellen and John Williams were the high bidders, credit bidding $67, 000 of the Judgment Lien. The special master recorded a deed conveying the Otero Land to the Williamses. Appellants requested the New Mexico court amend the foreclosure judgment to specify that the deficiency judgment was then $271, 905 plus interest, after crediting the bid against the balance due (the "Deficiency Judgment"). The Deficiency Judgment provided

[t]he deficiency is a lien on the debtor's . . . real estate. While no deficiency judgment is granted on an in personam basis against the Estate of Fred Van Winkle, deceased, the lien created by the deficiency is collectable as provided . . . [by New Mexico law]. The deficiency also remains collectable by the [p]laintiffs through legal action, or actions, to enforce judgment liens as they may exist in other New Mexico counties.[5]

         Appellants recorded a transcript of the Deficiency Judgment in Otero County in August 2014 (although the only land the Debtor had owned in Otero County was the subject of the foreclosure).

         In March 2015, approximately eight months after the sale, Sprague amended the Debtor's Schedule B (Personal Property) to add as an asset of the bankruptcy estate the New Mexico statutory right of redemption in the Otero Land. She then filed a motion seeking abandonment of the estate's interest in that right of redemption. Neither Appellants nor the trustee objected, and the bankruptcy court granted the motion. Immediately thereafter, Sprague timely filed a petition in state court to redeem the Otero Land and deposited in the court registry the $73, 200 required by statute. Appellants responded first by asserting Sprague was required to pay the entire remaining Deficiency Judgment to successfully redeem. They also filed a new petition to foreclose the Deficiency Judgment along with a motion for summary judgment. The petition to redeem remains pending in the state court, and Appellants still hold title to the Otero Land.

         2. Foreclosure of the Condo

         Appellants were simultaneously trying to enforce the Judgment Lien against the Condo. One of the Appellants, John Williams, purchased the First Mortgage from First National Bank of Ruidoso in August 2013. In May 2015, Appellants filed a complaint in Lincoln County seeking to foreclose the First Mortgage and the Judgment Lien encumbering the Condo. The prayer for relief in the amended foreclosure complaint requested, among other things, that Williams be granted judgment on the note he claimed to have purchased for $15, 034, plus "[i]nterest at the rate of 20% per annum . . .; plus [] Late Charges . . .; plus [] Rent in the amount of $13, 650 through April 20, 2015."[6] Ultimately, Appellants prayed that the proceeds of any Special Master's sale be applied to satisfy (1) the First Mortgage to Williams; (2) the homestead exemption; and (3) "the balance of [Appellants'] judgment lien-payable to [Appellants]."[7]

         3. The Adversary Proceeding

         Soon after the Condo foreclosure was filed, Sprague filed an adversary proceeding in the bankruptcy court alleging the Appellants violated the discharge injunction and the terms of the Stipulated Order. The parties agreed to a stay of both foreclosure actions. Appellants filed a motion to dismiss the adversary proceeding for lack of jurisdiction (the "Motion to Dismiss"), [8] which the bankruptcy court denied along with a motion to reconsider that dismissal.[9]

         Sprague filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Liability for violation of the discharge injunction and for failure to comply with the Stipulated Order. Appellants responded, but also sought to rescind their agreement to stay the foreclosure cases[10] and to certify legal issues to the New Mexico Supreme.[11]The bankruptcy court entered the Order Granting Partial Summary Judgment and Denying Other Relief and the Opinion that: (1) denied certification of issues to the New Mexico Supreme Court; (2) granted partial summary judgment against Appellants for violation of the discharge injunction; (3) declined to enter summary judgment on the issue of violation of the Stipulated Order without additional factfinding; and (4) denied Appellants' motion to set aside the stay of the foreclosure actions.[12]

         The bankruptcy court conducted a trial on the issue of whether Appellants violated the Stipulated Order and whether damages were warranted for violation of the discharge injunction and the Stipulated Order. In its Final Judgment and Opinion, the bankruptcy court held that Appellants had willfully violated the discharge injunction by their actions in the Otero Land foreclosure and had violated the Stipulated Order by their actions in the Condo foreclosure.[13] The bankruptcy court awarded Sprague $33, 161.70 in actual damages and attorneys' fees, and $16, 838.30 in punitive damages, for an even $50, 000 in damages.

         II. Appellate Jurisdiction & Standards of Review

         "With the consent of the parties, this Court has jurisdiction to hear timely-filed appeals from 'final judgments, orders, and decrees' of bankruptcy courts within the Tenth Circuit."[14] An order resolving all claims asserted in an adversary proceeding is a final order for purposes of appeal.[15] Neither party elected for these appeals to be heard by the United States District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(c). Accordingly, this Court has jurisdiction over these matters.

         Appellate courts review the denial of a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction de novo.[16] Similarly, a grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo.[17] The denial of a motion for certification of a question of state law is reviewed for abuse of discretion.[18] Whether a creditor violated the discharge injunction is a question of law reviewed de novo.[19] Whether the violation of the discharge injunction was willful is a factual finding reviewed for clear error.[20] A determination that an action violated a court order is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.[21] Finally, an award of damages and attorneys' fees for violation of the discharge injunction or for violation of a court order is reviewed for abuse of discretion.[22]

         III. Analysis

         1. The Bankruptcy Court's Jurisdiction

         Appellants argue the bankruptcy court erred in determining it had jurisdiction over the adversary proceeding in light of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine "precludes federal district courts from exercising appellate jurisdiction over actually-decided claims in state courts" and "adjudicating claims inextricably intertwined with previously-entered state court judgments."[23] This is because the Supreme Court is the only federal court empowered to exercise appellate jurisdiction to reverse or modify a state court judgment.[24] As very recently clarified by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Mayotte v. U.S. Bank, N.A., [25] a Rooker-Feldman issue only exists to the extent a federal action "tries to modify or set aside a state-court judgment because the state proceedings should not have led to that judgment." In other words, there is a Rooker-Feldman issue if the federal suit alleges that a defect in the state court proceedings should invalidate the state judgment.

         Applying this reasoning here, we must consider whether the success of the claims Sprague raised in the adversary proceeding was contingent upon demonstrating any prior state court judgment was reached in error. Sprague's adversary complaint sought damages for Appellants' violation of the discharge injunction under 11 U.S.C. § 542[26] and for violation of the Stipulated Order. Appellants admit no state court has made findings or entered a decision determining those issues. The only state court findings centered around whether Appellants could foreclose the Judgment Lien and the amount of the Deficiency Judgment; Sprague's complaint challenged none of those findings.

         Furthermore, bankruptcy courts clearly have jurisdiction to review alleged violations of their own orders, including civil contempt matters arising out of core matters.[27] Issuing an order to enforce its own orders-the discharge order and the Stipulated Order-neither required the bankruptcy court to challenge the state court proceedings nor to set aside or unwind any state court decision as explained in Mayotte. Appellants argue that even if the state court had not yet issued a decision, Rooker-Feldman was nonetheless implicated because the parties had briefed some overlapping issues that the bankruptcy court might need to decide. They are wrong. The state court did not have the opportunity to enter a decision on those issues because the parties had agreed to stay the state court matters pending resolution of the adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court. In light of Mayotte, which was issued after the parties briefed the issue, but before oral argument (at which time Appellants still argued the doctrine applicable), it is simply frivolous to argue the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction.[28] Accordingly, the bankruptcy court committed no error in determining it had jurisdiction over Sprague's adversary complaint.

         2. Certification of Issues to the New Mexico Supreme Court

         "Whether to certify a question of state law to the state supreme court is within the discretion of the federal court."[29] Federal courts must "'apply judgment and restraint before certifying, ' and 'will not trouble our sister state courts every time an arguably unsettled question of state law" arises.[30] Federal courts are bound to apply state law when necessary and "must determine what decision the state court would make if faced with the same facts and issue."[31]

         As a preliminary matter, it is unclear whether Appellants are challenging the bankruptcy court's decision declining to certify questions, or this Court's own motions panel decision, which also denied certification. They elected not to brief the issue in their opening brief, instead incorporating by reference earlier briefing on the motion made to this Court.[32] They also elected not to address the issue at oral argument. Because Appellants have failed to sufficiently set forth the bankruptcy court's error in denying certification, and because "[a]n issue or argument insufficiently raised in the opening brief is deemed waived, "[33] we decline to consider the certification argument.

         3. Violation of the Discharge Injunction

         Appellants argue that their actions in recording the Deficiency Judgment, after the foreclosure sale of the Otero Land, and then demanding payment in full in response to the Debtor's petition for redemption, do not constitute postdischarge attempts to collect a prebankruptcy debt against the Debtor, notwithstanding the original debt's prebankruptcy origins. They base this argument on New Mexico case law interpreting New Mexico's redemption statute (New Mexico Statute § 39-5-18), which they claim allows judgment lienholders to re-foreclose, on an in rem basis, any remaining balance due on the already foreclosed property even after redemption by the former property owner.

         In New Mexico, the holder of a money judgment can create a judgment lien against a debtor's real property by filing a transcript of the judgment with the clerk of the county where the real estate is located.[34] That lien can be foreclosed "in the same manner as ordinary suits for the foreclosure of mortgages."[35] After foreclosure, a debtor may redeem the property within nine months by paying the purchaser the amounts set forth in New Mexico Statute § 39-5-18, or by filing a petition for redemption that is accompanied by payment of the same amounts to the county clerk.[36]

         In Construction Engineering & Manufacturing Co. v. Don Adams Mining Co., [37] the New Mexico Supreme Court held that, although a debtor need only pay the amount paid at a foreclosure sale, plus taxes, interest, and penalties, in order to redeem a foreclosed property, "[o]nce the mortgagor redeems foreclosed property, it again becomes part of his real estate and thus subject to the [prior] judgment lien and foreclosure. A foreclosure suit would then be the proper remedy to effect payment of the amount of the deficiency."[38]

         In Turner v. Les File Drywall, [39] the New Mexico Supreme Court effectively reiterated its holding that redeemed property is again subject to a previously foreclosed judgment lien. In Turner, the debtor/original owner of the foreclosed property sold his right of redemption to a third party. The third party then exercised the right of redemption. When the holder of the lien tried to re-foreclose the property now owned by the third party, the state court denied the requested relief. On appeal, the New Mexico Supreme Court rejected the lienholder's argument that a debtor can assign no greater rights than he possessed, instead favoring application of the rule that the property of one is not subject to the payment of debts held by another. As a result, it held that the judgment lien would not follow the redeemed real estate if the debtor owner transferred the property (in good faith) to a ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.