Restoration Homes, LLC v. Taniguchi

Filing 9

ORDER CLARIFYING AND AFFIRMING BANKRUPTCY COURT ORDER. The Order, as clarified, is AFFIRMED. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 08/07/2015. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/7/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

RESTORATION HOMES, LLC,

Case No. 15-cv-00032-WHO

Appellee,
8

ORDER CLARIFYING AND
AFFIRMING BANKRUPTCY COURT
ORDER

v.
9
10

TANIGUCHI,
Appellant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

INTRODUCTION
The bankruptcy court allowed in part appellant Restoration Homes’s proof of claim in

15

appellee Charles Taniguchi’s bankruptcy proceeding (the “Order”). Dkt. No. 3-22. This appeal

16

questions the effect of the third numbered term of the Order: that it was “without prejudice to the

17

parties’ right to raise whatever claims and defenses they wish in the state court litigation.” Id.

18

Read literally, there is nothing controversial about that term; the bankruptcy court cannot control

19

what claims and defenses the parties wish to bring in the related state court. However, the parties

20

contend that this term prohibits the state court in a related action from considering whether res

21

judicata applies, and dispute whether such an order was proper. I do not read the Order as the

22

parties do. I now clarify that it is not within the power of the bankruptcy court to bind the state

23

court to any particular determination concerning the res judicata effect of its rulings (or lack

24

thereof). With that clarification, the Order is AFFIRMED.

25

BACKGROUND

26

Taniguchi and his wife purchased property in San Francisco in 2004. In 2009, Taniguchi

27

obtained a modification of his mortgage loan which lowered the principal balance, reduced

28

monthly mortgage payments, fixed the yearly interest rate, and deferred a portion of the balance.

1

Restoration Homes bought Taniguchi’s loan in June 2013. In October 2013, Restoration

2

Homes commenced foreclosure proceedings on Taniguchi’s property, claiming that Taniguchi

3

failed to make payments between July and October 2013. Taniguchi disputed the loan

4

delinquency and filed a lawsuit in state court to enjoin the foreclosure proceedings. In May 2014,

5

the state court granted Taniguchi’s petition to enjoin the foreclosure proceedings, subject to

6

Taniguchi posting a $40,000 bond. Unable to pay the bond, Taniguchi instead filed a bankruptcy

7

petition in bankruptcy court, which stayed the state court litigation.

8
9

Restoration Homes filed a mortgage proof of claim in Taniguchi’s bankruptcy proceeding,
claiming the following pre-petition fees and expenses:
Late charges:

$1,924.71

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Attorney’s fees (state court):

$37,704.48

12

Attorney’s fees (bankruptcy)

$2,500.00

Prior defaults:

$53,676.79

Accrued payment shortfall:

$47,565.36

Foreclosure fees and costs:

$4,910.32

13
14
15

Dkt. No. 3-7.

16

Taniguchi objected to Restoration Homes’s claim, arguing that it was based on the original

17

loan, not the 2009 loan modification, improperly preventing him from curing the default under the

18

terms of the loan modification. Taniguchi also argued that Restoration Homes could not include

19

its attorneys’ fees in the claim.

20

The Hon. Hannah L. Blumenstiel of the bankruptcy court sustained Taniguchi’s objection

21

in part and overruled it in part in an Order with four numbered paragraphs. In the first two, the

22

court held that Taniguchi could cure the default under the terms of the loan modification, rather

23

than the original loan, but overruled his objection to Restoration Homes’s claim to attorney’s fees.

24

In the fourth, the court deemed the claim amended to include amounts which Restoration Homes

25

stated applied if Taniguchi was allowed to cure the default under the terms of the loan

26

modification:

27

Late charges:

$1,924.71

28

Attorney’s fees (state court):

$37,704.48

2

Attorney’s fees (bankruptcy):

$29,315.111

Foreclosure fees and costs:

2

$2,500.00

Prepetition payments:

1

$4,910.32

3
Dkt. No. 3-22 at 2. None of those portions of the Order is challenged on appeal.
4
The third numbered paragraph states:
5
6
7

This order shall be without prejudice to the parties’ right to raise
whatever claims and defenses they wish in the state court litigation,
including Debtor's arguments regarding certain “pre-petition
payments due.

8

Dkt. No. 3-22 at 2. Judge Blumenstiel discussed the potential preclusive effect of her Order

9

during oral argument on the proof of claim:

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

I’m making my finding on a matter of bankruptcy law, meaning that
the cure concept provided by the Bankruptcy Code overrides the
contractual provisions. That’s not what the State Court is litigating.
The State Court is litigating the rights of the parties under the loan
agreement and the modified loan agreement. I am incorporating on
top of that an issue of bankruptcy law. That’s not before the State
Court, so I am disagreeing with your conclusion that my resolution
here is res judicata or collateral estoppel for the State Court in that
regard.
Dkt. No. 3-21 at 21.
Restoration Homes appeals only the bankruptcy court’s ruling that its allowance in the

18

proof of claim proceeding is without prejudice to the parties’ rights to raise any claims or defenses

19

in the state court litigation.

20

LEGAL STANDARD

21

District courts have jurisdiction to hear appeals from the final judgments, orders, and

22

decrees of bankruptcy courts. 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1). Findings of fact are reviewed for clear error.

23

Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8013; In re Acequia, Inc., 787 F.2d 1352, 1357 (9th Cir. 1986). Legal

24

conclusions and mixed questions of law and fact are reviewed de novo. In re Lee, 179 B.R. 149,

25

155 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1995).

26
27
28

DISCUSSION
Restoration Homes argues that the bankruptcy court’s allowance of its proof of claim is
entitled to res judicata effect in the state court litigation as a determination of “the amounts due
3

1

under the loan.” Dkt. No. 8 at 2. It does not seek a determination that the allowance bars specific

2

claims; it recognizes that the state court will ultimately make that determination should the state

3

case proceed. But it evidently interprets the third term in the Order as precluding it from arguing

4

that the Order has res judicata effect, and so filed this appeal to challenge that interpretation. In

5

opposition, Taniguchi argues that the appeal is not ripe because (i) the state court litigation is

6

currently stayed and it is speculative that Taniguchi will resume it and (ii) Restoration Homes has

7

not identified particular claims or issues that it wants to preclude.
Both parties apparently interpret the third numbered term in the Order in the same way,

8
9

and using that interpretation they make valid points. The appeal is not ripe in the sense that there
are no claims before me that Restoration Homes argues are precluded by the allowance. But

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

bankruptcy orders, including an allowance of a proof of claim, must be appealed within 14 days. I

12

am sympathetic to Restoration Homes’s desire to avoid any argument that it waived its right to

13

assert that the allowance of its proof of claim has res judicata effect. See Federal Rule of

14

Bankruptcy Procedure 8002(a) (“a notice of appeal must be filed with the bankruptcy clerk within

15

14 days after entry of the judgment, order, or decree being appealed”). Restoration Homes’s time

16

to appeal would have expired had it waited for Taniguchi to resume the currently-stayed state

17

court litigation.1 See Matter of Ramsey, 612 F.2d 1220, 1222 (9th Cir. 1980) (“An untimely notice

18

deprives the district court of jurisdiction to review the bankruptcy court's order or judgment.”).

19

The doctrine of res judicata “bars a party from bringing a claim if a court of competent

20

jurisdiction has rendered a final judgment on the merits of the claim in a previous action involving

21

the same parties or their privies.” In re Int’l Nutronics, Inc., 28 F.3d 965, 969 (9th Cir. 1994).

22

Allowance of a claim by a bankruptcy court constitutes a final judgment and generally has res

23

judicata effect, assuming the elements for res judicata are met. See Siegel v. Fed. Home Loan

24

Mortgage Corp., 143 F.3d 525, 529 (9th Cir. 1998) (“the allowance or disallowance of a claim in

25
26
27
28

1

Moreover, as described below, because I do not determine what the bankruptcy order precludes,
but merely clarify that it furnishes a basis for a plea of res judicata, assuming the appropriate
elements are met, I do not offer an improper advisory opinion.
4

1

bankruptcy is binding and conclusive on all parties or their privies, and being in the nature of a

2

final judgment, furnishes a basis for a plea of res judicata”) (quotation omitted); Nathanson v.

3

Hecker, 99 Cal. App. 4th 1158, 1166 (2002) (allowance precluded relitigation of claim in state

4

court because “the existence and the amount of the claim have been fully litigated between the

5

parties and resolved” in bankruptcy court).
Taniguchi does not argue that a bankruptcy court can strip its orders of the res judicata

7

effect which they would otherwise have. It cannot.2 Cf. Sure-Snap Corp. v. State St. Bank &

8

Trust Co., 948 F.2d 869, 873 (2d Cir. 1991) (bankruptcy order had res judicata effect

9

notwithstanding bankruptcy judge’s comment that it did not). He appears concerned, however,

10

that the state court will feel itself bound to adopt the Order’s determination without analysis of

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

6

whether the requisites for res judicata have been met. He has no basis to worry.

12

While Restoration Homes says that it recognizes that what the allowance actually

13

precludes will be determined by the state court based on an analysis of whether the elements for

14

res judicata have been met, it argues to me that the allowance has res judicata effect as a

15

determination of “the amounts due under the loan.” Dkt. No. 8 at 2. “The amounts due under the

16

loan” do not relate to any claim before me. And I do not have authority to determine the

17

preclusive effect of the allowance on the state court litigation. I reject Restoration Homes’s

18

argument to the extent that it seeks a determination now that the allowance precludes certain

19

issues, including “the amounts due under the loan.”
The best reading of the third term Order is the literal one. The Order is “without prejudice

20
21

to the parties’ right to raise whatever claims and defenses they wish in the state court litigation,

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

I do not interpret the bankruptcy court’s statement as a ruling removing res judicata effect which
its order would otherwise have. Rather, based on its comments during oral argument, it appears
that the bankruptcy court was merely expressing its understanding that it was ruling on issues
different from those before the state court, and therefore the elements of res judicata could not be
satisfied. See Dkt. No. 3-21 at 2 (“The State Court is litigating the rights of the parties under the
loan agreement and the modified loan agreement. I am incorporating on top of that an issue of
bankruptcy law. That’s not before the State Court, so I am disagreeing with your conclusion that
my resolution here is res judicata or collateral estoppel for the State Court in that regard.”). The
bankruptcy court may very well be correct, but that is a question for whatever court addresses the
res judicata effect of the allowance.
5

1

including Taniguchi’s arguments regarding certain “pre-petition payments due.” It is up to the

2

state court to decide whether and to what extent res judicata applies to the claims and defenses

3

before it.

4
5

CONCLUSION
The Order, as clarified, is AFFIRMED. The third numbered paragraph in the Order may

6

not be interpreted to preclude the state court from reaching the issue of whether the doctrine of res

7

judicata is applicable to the issues before it.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 7, 2015
______________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6