BAILEY v. DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS

Filing 14

ORDER affirming the decision of the bankruptcy court re: 1 Bankruptcy Appeal, filed by LINDA M BAILEY. Ordered by Judge Clay D. Land on 10/22/2012. (jcs) ***

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATHENS DIVISION
LINDA M. BAILEY,

*

Appellant,

*

vs.

*
CASE NO. 3:12-CV-86 (CDL)

DEUTSCHE BANK
AMERICAS,
as
RALI2005QA12,

TRUST COMPANY *
Trustee
for
*

Appellee.

*
O R D E R

This bankruptcy appeal arises from the bankruptcy court’s
order granting Appellee Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as
Trustee for RALI2005QA12’s (“Deutsche Bank”) motion for relief
from stay.
court’s

Appellant Linda M. Bailey appeals the bankruptcy

order

lifting

the

automatic

stay

and

authorizing

Deutsche Bank to proceed with a dispossessory action as to its
property.

As discussed below, the Court affirms the bankruptcy

court’s order.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a), the Court has jurisdiction over
this appeal.

See Old West Annuity & Life Ins. Co. v. Apollo

Grp., 605 F.3d 856, 862 (11th Cir. 2010) (per curium) (“A stayrelief order is a final order that is immediately appealable.”).
In reviewing a bankruptcy court’s decision to lift an automatic
stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d), “[a] decision to lift the stay is

discretionary with the bankruptcy judge, and may be reversed
only upon a showing of abuse of discretion.”

Baryclays-Am./Bus.

Credit, Inc. v. Radio WBHP, Inc. (In re Dixie Broad., Inc.), 871
F.2d 1023, 1026 (11th Cir. 1989).

The Court must accept the

bankruptcy court’s findings of fact, which “shall not be set
aside unless clearly erroneous.”

Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8013; see

also Club Assocs. v. Consol. Capital Realty Investors (In re
Club Assocs.), 951 F.2d 1223, 1228 (11th Cir. 1992) (“Factual
findings by the bankruptcy court are reviewed under the limited
and deferential clearly erroneous standard.”).

The Court is not

authorized to make independent factual findings.

Equitable Life

Assurance Soc’y v. Sublett (In re Sublett), 895 F.2d 1381, 1384
(11th

Cir.

1990).

In

contrast,

the

Court

conclusions by the bankruptcy court de novo.

reviews

legal

Club Assocs., 951

F.2d at 1228.
This

appeal

presents

three

issues:

(1)

whether

the

bankruptcy court erred in determining that Deutsche Bank was the
real party in interest with standing to move for relief from the
automatic

stay;

(2)

whether

the

bankruptcy

court

erred

in

lifting the automatic stay based on the evidence presented at
the hearing; and (3) whether lifting the automatic stay violated
Bailey’s due process rights.
The Court has thoroughly reviewed the record and finds no
abuse of discretion by the bankruptcy court in granting Deutsche

2

Bank relief from the automatic stay.

The Court finds no clear

error in the bankruptcy court’s factual finding that Deutsche
Bank

purchased

Avenue,

the

property

Loganville,

commonly

Georgia

30052

known
(the

as

701

Mohansic

“Property”)

at

a

foreclosure sale on July 7, 2009 and became the owner of the
Property.

Also, the Court finds no reversible error based upon

de novo review of the bankruptcy court’s legal conclusion that
it had no authority to review the issue of Bailey’s interest in
the

Property.

rejection

of

commencement

To
a

rule

state

of

the

otherwise

court

would

judgment

bankruptcy

invite

rendered

proceedings,

review

prior

which

and

to

the

held

that

Deutsche Bank, not Bailey, was the owner of the Property.

See

Vasquez v. YII Shipping Co., 692 F.3d 1192, 1195 (11th Cir.
2012)

(“[T]he

courts

below

[Rooker-Feldman]
the

Supreme

Court

doctrine
must

holds

not

that

become

federal

a

court

of

appeals for state court decisions.”).
As the owner of the Property, Deutsch Bank was the real
party

in

interest

automatic stay.
for

the

evidence
Property.

and

had

standing

to

seek

relief

from

the

Furthermore, it was not an abuse of discretion

bankruptcy

court

establishing
Finally,

that

to

grant

Deutsche

Bailey’s

due

the

relief

Bank
process

violated by the bankruptcy court proceedings.

has

based

on

the

title

to

the

were

not

rights

Bailey was served

with the motion for relief from stay and notice of hearing,

3

attended the hearing, and argued and presented evidence before
the bankruptcy court.

See Grayden v. Rhodes, 345 F.3d 1225,

1232 (11th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he Due Process Clause requires notice
and the opportunity to be heard . . . at a meaningful time and
in

a

meaningful

omitted).

In

manner
sum,

.

the

.

.

.”)

bankruptcy

(internal
court

quotation

acted

marks

within

its

discretion in granting Deutsche Bank relief from the automatic
stay.
CONCLUSION
As

discussed

above,

the

Court

affirms

the

bankruptcy

court’s order granting Deutsche Bank’s motion for relief from
stay.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 22nd day of October, 2012.
S/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4