Morris v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation
Order entered that Morris is ORDERED to file with the Bankruptcy Court and serve on Federal, on or before October 15, 2014, his designation of the items to be included in the record on appeal. Accordingly, Federal shall file with the Bankruptcy Cou rt and serve on Morris, on or before October 29, 2014, a designation of any additional items to be included in the record on appeal. Additionally, the parties are instructed to advise the Court, on or before October 29, 2014, as to the status of the action to eject the Morrises from the real property. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this order to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court. Signed by Judge Kristi K. DuBose on 9/30/2014. (mcb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
DAVID GLENN MORRIS,
FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE
Miscellaneous Action No. 14-00022-KD
This action is before the Court on the Brief filed by pro se plaintiff/appellant David
Glenn Morris. (Doc. 3) Previously, the Court found that Morris had not filed in the Bankruptcy
Court and served on the appellee Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Federal) his
designation of the items to be included in the record on appeal and a statement of the issues to be
presented on appeal as required by Rule 8006 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.
(Doc. 2) The Court directed Morris to do so. (Id.) Instead of filing the designation, Morris filed
his brief. (Doc. 3) The Court has not yet set a briefing schedule.
However, Morris states in his brief that the issue is “Whether the Bankruptcy Court erred
in the granting of Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation motion” for relief from the
automatic stay. In view of Morris’ pro se status, the Court will construe the brief as satisfying
the Rule 8006 requirement that Morris file and serve a statement of the issue to be presented on
appeal. Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F. 3d 826, 829 (11th Cir. 2007).
Morris has again failed to comply with Rule 8006 because he failed to designate the
items to include in the record on appeal. Although the Court must “give liberal construction to
the pleadings of pro se litigants”, it still requires “them to conform to procedural rules.” Albra, at
Morris’ “failure to take any step other than timely filing a notice of appeal does not affect
the validity of the appeal, but is ground only for such action as the district court . . . deems
appropriate, which may include dismissal of the appeal.” Fed. R.Bankr. P. 8001(a). In that
regard, the Court finds it appropriate to allow Morris a second opportunity to comply with Rule
8006. See In re Lee, 2012 WL 4512931, *6 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 30, 2012) (finding that striking a
statement of issues was “too strong a remedy” after considering “bad faith, negligence, or
indifference”); In re Battle, 2005 WL 6491014, 2 (Bankr. N.D. Ga., 2005) (allowing appellant
additional time to designate the record after finding that “failure to comply with Rule 8006 [was]
not jurisdictional” and that appellant’s failure to comply “was not due to bad faith and will not
serve to greatly prejudice appellee”)
When this Court reviews a decision by the Bankruptcy Court it “may not make
independent factual findings, but rather, must affirm the Bankruptcy Court’s findings of fact
unless they are clearly erroneous. In re Sublett, 895 F.2d 1381, 1383-1384 (11th Cir. 1990);
Alabama Dept. of Human Resources v. Lewis, 279 B.R. 308, 313-314 (S.D. Ala. 2002) (citing In
re Club Associates, 956 F.2d 1065, 1069 (11th Cir. 1992)); see also In re International Pharm.
& Discount II, Inc., 443 F.3d 767, 770 (11th Cir. 2005); In re Spiwak, 285 B.R. 744, 747 (S.D.
Fla. 2002) (providing that “[a] district court reviewing a bankruptcy appeal is not authorized to
make independent factual findings; that is the function of the bankruptcy court”); FED. R.
BANKR. PROC. 8013 (the bankruptcy court’s findings of fact “shall not be set aside unless clearly
erroneous”). This Court must conduct a de novo review of the Bankruptcy Court's conclusions
of law. In re Simmons, 200 F.3d 738, 741 (11th Cir.2000); Securities Groups v. Barnett (In re
Monetary Group), 2 F.3d 1098, 1103 (11th Cir.1993) (providing that legal determinations are
reviewed de novo). “Equitable determinations by the Bankruptcy Court are subject to review
under an abuse of discretion standard.” In re Kingsley, 518 F.3d 874, 877 (11th Cir. 2008)
(quoting In re General Dev. Corp., 84 F.3d 1364, 1367 (11th Cir.1996)).
The issue on appeal is whether the Bankruptcy Court erred in granting Federal’s motion
for relief from the automatic stay. In the order granting the motion, the Bankruptcy Court states
that the decision was made after “review of the pleadings and hearing arguments of counsel.” In
re David Glenn Morris, Bankr. Action No. 14-01944 (Bankr. S.D. Ala. June 16, 2014) (doc. 47,
entered July 25, 2014). However, this Court does not have the “pleadings”, or any supporting
documents, that the Bankruptcy Court reviewed. This Court does not have a transcript of the
hearing at which the Bankruptcy Court heard the “arguments of counsel”. Nor does it have any
other items from the record that Morris may consider relevant. In short, this Court has no record
on appeal to review and thus cannot make a determination as to whether the Bankruptcy Court
erred in granting the motion.
Therefore, Morris is ORDERED to file with the Bankruptcy Court and serve on Federal,
on or before October 15, 2014, his designation of the items to be included in the record on
appeal. Accordingly, Federal shall file with the Bankruptcy Court and serve on Morris, on or
before October 29, 2014, a designation of any additional items to be included in the record on
appeal. See Fed. R. Bkr. Rule 8006.
Morris is reminded that –
The record on appeal shall include the items so designated by the parties, the
notice of appeal, the judgment, order, or decree appealed from, and any opinion,
findings of fact, and conclusions of law of the court. Any party filing a
designation of the items to be included in the record shall provide to the clerk a
copy of the items designated or, if the party fails to provide the copy, the clerk
shall prepare the copy at the party's expense. If the record designated by any party
includes a transcript of any proceeding or a part thereof, the party shall,
immediately after filing the designation, deliver to the reporter and file with the
clerk a written request for the transcript and make satisfactory arrangements for
payment of its cost. All parties shall take any other action necessary to enable the
clerk to assemble and transmit the record.
Fed. R. Bkr. Proc. 8006.1
Morris is again warned that failure to comply with the applicable procedural rules
in the future may result in dismissal of his appeal and he is cautioned to carefully read all
documents received from the courts.
Additionally, the parties are instructed to advise the Court, on or before October 29,
2014, as to the status of the action to eject the Morrises from the real property.2 See In re Ware,
562 Fed. Appx. 850 (11th Cir. 2014) (affirming the district court’s decision to dismiss the
debtor’s “appeal as moot because he had already been ejected from the Property pursuant to a
state court judgment and had not obtained a stay pending appeal) (emphasis deleted).3
The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this order to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court.
DONE and ORDERED this 30th of September 2014.
s / Kristi K DuBose
KRISTI K. DuBOSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The docket indicates that Morris was sent a Transcript Request form along with
instructions regarding Rules 8006 and 8007. In re David Glenn Morris, Bankr. Action No. 141944 (Bankr. S.D. Ala. June 16, 2014) (doc. 52, entered August 1, 2014).
In his status report, Morris states that he filed a motion to stay all proceedings and a
notice of intent to appeal direct to the Alabama Supreme Court on September 22, 2014. (Doc. 5)
The Wares were evicted on October 25, 2012, after the notice of appeal had been filed
on October 22, 2012.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?