in re Jacqueline C. Melcher

Filing 37

ORDER AFFIRMING DECISION OF BANKRUPTCY COURT (and denying 35 ) by Judge William Alsup. (whalc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/30/2017) The deputy clerk hereby certifies that on October 2, 2017, a copy of this order was served by sending it via first-class mail to the address of each non-CM/ECF user listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Modified on 10/2/2017 (afmS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
IN RE JACQUELINE MELCHER

No. C 16-05851 WHA
No. C 16-05852 WHA
No. C 16-05853 WHA

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

ORDER AFFIRMING DECISION
OF BANKRUPTCY COURT

14
15

/

16
INTRODUCTION

17
18

This is a consolidated appeal from three orders of the bankruptcy court in connection

19

with its determination that debtor’s homestead exemption had been satisfied. The bankruptcy

20

court’s orders are AFFIRMED.

21

STATEMENT

22

Debtor and appellant Jacqueline Melcher, proceeding pro se, filed the three above-

23

captioned appeals to challenge three orders by the bankruptcy court relating to her homestead

24

exemption. At debtor’s request and with the Trustee’s consent, a prior order consolidated all

25

three appeals with 16-5851 as the lead case. Citations to the docket are to 16-5851 (Dkt. No. 9).

26

These appeals represent only a small fraction of debtor’s lengthy bankruptcy saga,

27

which has been described at length in other orders and need not be repeated here. In brief,

28

debtor filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in June 2001. Her case was converted to Chapter 7 in
September 2008. Throughout the bankruptcy proceedings, debtor’s repeated opposition to the

1

Trustee’s actions caused the Trustee to incur substantial and unnecessary legal fees relating to

2

his administration of the estate. In 2014, Judge Ronald Whyte withdrew the reference to the

3

bankruptcy court and granted the Trustee’s motion for sanctions “to compensate the victims of

4

Ms. Melcher’s litigation abuses,” finding that her conduct had been “clearly unreasonable and

5

vexatious” and that her “repeated filings and unrelenting interference with the Trustee have

6

been both reckless and frivolous.” In re Melcher, No. C-13-04930, 2014 WL 4954776 (N.D.

7

Cal. Oct. 1, 2014) (Judge Ronald Whyte).1

8

In 2016, the Trustee moved the bankruptcy court for an order determining that debtor’s

residence in Carmel Valley, California, even though that residence was at all times property of

11
For the Northern District of California

allowed $75,000 homestead exemption had been paid because she had rented out space in her

10

United States District Court

9

the estate and she was not authorized to use it for any purpose other than dwelling. The Trustee

12

argued that the rent proceeds retained by debtor constituted advance payments on her

13

homestead exemption. After a hearing on September 14, 2016, at which debtor appeared on her

14

own behalf, the bankruptcy court granted the Trustee’s motion and deemed debtor’s homestead

15

exemption satisfied. Debtor then appealed from the bankruptcy court’s orders (1) dated

16

September 7, 2016, denying her request for leave to file an opposition brief to the Trustee’s

17

motion; (2) dated September 15, 2016, granting the Trustee’s motion; and (3) dated September

18

22, 2016, denying debtor’s request for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the

19

September 15 order.

20

ANALYSIS

21

The Trustee points out in his response brief that debtor’s claims are now moot because

22

all of the estate assets have been distributed to non-parties and the Court can afford no effectual

23

relief (Dkt. No. 27 at 2, 5–7). Debtor does not respond to this issue in her reply brief.

24

Moreover, debtor has not carried her burden to provide an adequate record on appeal.

25

See In re Drysdale, 248 B.R. 386, 388 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2000). Although these appeals

26

challenge the bankruptcy court’s orders concerning debtor’s homestead exemption, the record

27
1

28

Judge Whyte deferred ruling on the amount of sanctions pending completion of the bankruptcy case
and the bankruptcy court’s determination of the amount of attorney’s fees to award. That action — along with
several of debtor’s bankruptcy appeals — was subsequently reassigned to the undersigned judge.

2

1

on appeal contains hundreds of documents and thousands of pages with no discernible relevance

2

to that issue. Compounding the problem, debtor’s briefs contain extensive allegations with no

3

specific citations to the record. Despite this, on the same day that the Trustee filed his response

4

brief, debtor filed a motion to yet again supplement the record (Dkt. No. 28). A prior order

5

denied that motion (Dkt. No. 29).2

6

Even if, despite the mootness issue and debtor’s failure to support her appeal with an

7

adequate record, this order were to reach her arguments on their merits, she has shown no basis

8

for reversing the decisions of the bankruptcy court. For example, she never addresses the

9

bankruptcy court’s findings in its September 7 and September 22 orders that her proposed
opposition brief and motion for reconsideration lacked merit, addressed “irrelevant matters”

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

with “no basis in law or fact,” were “duplicative of prior filings on which the court ha[d]

12

previously ruled,” and were “motivated by an effort to harass or delay the Trustee’s closing of

13

[her] estate.” Instead, most of debtor’s ten-page opening brief and twelve-page reply brief is

14

dedicated to advancing her narrative of what happened throughout her prolonged bankruptcy

15

and complaining of various ways in which she believes the Trustee, and other players in the

16

bankruptcy proceedings, wronged her or retaliated against her (see Dkt. Nos. 26-1, 33).3

17

The closest debtor comes to advancing her appeals is in an argument that her homestead

18

exemption should have been $175,000 instead of $75,000. But there is no indication in the

19

record on appeal that anyone ever debated the correct amount of the homestead exemption

20

before the bankruptcy court, or that any such debate had any bearing on the three orders

21

challenged on these appeals. Moreover, debtor does not dispute that her own bankruptcy

22

Schedule C had claimed a $75,000 homestead exemption, or that she had retained rent from a

23
2

24
25
26
27

After briefing completed, debtor filed another motion for “clarification” of the prior order denying
her request to supplement the record, asking the Court to confirm if the record included unspecified briefs,
excerpts of record, and transcripts from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, as well as certain property appraisals
(Dkt. No. 35 at 4). The motion states, “The Homestead Exemption is not an isolated issue,” but does not
explain how any of the documents referenced by debtor bear on that issue. This order declines to search debtor’s
record designations to confirm the presence (or absence) of documents irrelevant to these appeals, particularly
since she cannot supplement the record any further anyway. Her motion for “clarification” is DENIED.
3

28

After briefing completed and without the Court’s permission, debtor filed a “correction” to her reply
brief (Dkt. No. 36). The unauthorized correction, as it appears on the Court’s electronic docket, is poorly
scanned and largely unreadable. This order considers only debtor’s original reply brief.

3

1

tenant in her Carmel Valley residence. Instead, she suggests she bears no responsibility for that

2

claimed exemption because “[s]omeone early in 2001 filed [her] claim of the exemption on

3

Schedule C,” but she “had no idea what a Homestead meant” even though “it was recorded in

4

[her] chapter 11 filing schedules” (Dkt. No. 26-1 at 7; see also Dkt. No. 33 at 6). Debtor’s

5

disagreement with her own bankruptcy schedules years after the fact does not constitute

6

reversible error by the bankruptcy court.

7

Even assuming for the sake of argument that there is some truth to debtor’s extensive

8

complaints of general maltreatment or poor decisionmaking in her bankruptcy proceedings,

9

these bankruptcy appeals are not an appropriate forum for those grievances. Indeed, debtor’s
arguments, to the extent comprehensible, seem to seek relief plainly unavailable from this

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Court, which can neither unwind her bankruptcy proceedings nor review decisions not properly

12

challenged on appeal (see, e.g., Dkt. No. 26-1 at 10 (concluding that “[t]here was no need to sell

13

any of the Appellant’s properties”); Dkt. No. 33 at 12 (concluding that “[t]hey took it all”)). In

14

short, debtor has shown no reversible error in any of the three specific orders of the bankruptcy

15

court from which she appealed, nor can this order find any such error based on debtor’s briefing

16

and designated record on appeal.

17
18

CONCLUSION
The bankruptcy court’s orders are AFFIRMED. Judgment will follow.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22

Dated: September 30, 2017.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
4