Curtis v. Abell et al
Filing
6
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 7/28/2014. (c/m 7/28/2014 aos, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Southern Division
*
TERREN
CURTIS
*
Appellant,
Case No.: GJH-14-566
*
v.
NORBERT
P. ABELL, et al.
*
Appellees.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
MEMORANDUM
Appellant
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
OPINION
Terren Curtis, the Debtor in the underlying bankruptcy case ("Debtor"),
appeals the January 14, 2014 order of the bankruptcy court, denying Debtor's Motion to Make
Additional Findings of Fact and to Alter and Amend the Judgment. Oral argument is not needed.
See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8012; Loc. Rule 105.6. For the reasons stated below, the bankruptcy
court's denial of Debtor's motion will be AFFIRMED.
I.
BACKGROUND
On November 29, 2012, Debtor filed a Chapter 7 Voluntary Petition for bankruptcy in the
United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland. ECF No.1.
Debtor filed two motions to avoid judicial liens pursuant to II U.S.C.
U.S.C.
9 522(£)(1),
On March 5, 2013,
9 522(£)(2).
Id. Under II
a judicial lien can be avoided to the extent it impairs a debtor's exemption. A
lien impairs an exemption when the sum of the lien at issue, all other liens, and the debtor's
exemptions exceeds the value of the property in the absence of any lien. II U.S.C.
9 522(£)(2).
The two judicial liens sought to be avoided were attached to three of Debtor's properties:
Lots 2 & 3, Block 23, Longview Beach ("Lots 2 & 3") and Parcel 31, E/S Maddox Road,
Chaptica, MD 20621 (the "Maddox Road property"). Id. Appellees Norbert and Deborah Abell
held one of the liens and Cedar Point Federal Credit Union held the other lien.! The Abells
responded to the motion on April 1,2013, arguing that Debtor understated the values of the real
property. Id. Debtor filed a reply on April 10,2013.
In re Curtis, 12-31195 (Bankr. D.Md)
(Docket No. 36).
The court scheduled a hearing to address Debtor's motions to avoid the liens for April
2013, but the parties needed additional time to prepare and it was rescheduled. (Bankr. H. Trans.
May 16, 2013). On May 14, 2013, Debtor submitted the documents he wished to present to the
court at the hearing. In re Curtis, 12-31195 (Bankr. D.Md) (Docket No. 39). Those documents
included an administrative probate order for the estate of Norman Joseph Curtis, a real estate
inventory for the estate of Norman Joseph Curtis, a list of interested persons for the estate of
Norman Joseph Curtis, a quit-claim deed from James Roscoe Curtis, and appraisal reports for all
three properties at issue. Id.
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court held a hearing on May 16, 2013. As to the Maddox Road
property, Debtor took the stand and the court directed him to explain and provide support for the
value of the property, his ownership of the property, and anything further to support why the
judgment
liens should be avoided.
(Bankr. H. Trans. May 14, 2013). Debtor discussed his
ownership of the property, the amount of the judicial liens, and his total exemptions. He did not
present evidence of post-judgment
exemptions.
interest on the judicial
liens, unpaid taxes, or unused
Once both parties presented their evidence, the court explained its ruling on the
! Debtor has not appealed the decision of the bankruptcy court with regard to his motion to avoid
Cedar Point Federal Credit Union's judicial lien.
2
record. The court found that Cedar Point Federal Credit Union's judicial lien, which was superior
to the Abells' lien, was partially avoided with regard to Lots 2 & 3 but was not avoided with
regard to the Maddox Road property. As for the Abells'
lien, the court ordered that "the
judgment is avoided in its entirety as to Lot 2 and Lot 3" and "the judgment lien on the Maddox
Road property is avoided to the extent of $1,330.84, thereby reducing [the] judgment lien to
$6,836.46." ECF NO.1.
On November 13, 2013, Debtor filed a Motion to Make Additional Findings of Fact And
to Alter and Amend The Judgment. Jd. Debtor's motion was limited to the Abells' lien on the
Maddox Road property. He asked that the bankruptcy court include Cedar Point Federal Credit
Union's
post-judgment
interest to reduce further the Abells'
lien and supplied his own
calculation of the post-judgment interest. Debtor also claimed that there were unpaid taxes on the
Maddox Road property and requested that the court include the unpaid taxes to reduce the
Abells' lien even further. He attached a notarized letter from the St. Mary's County treasurer to
show the amount of unpaid taxes on the property. Finally, Debtor sought an unclaimed
exemption of $1 ,003.06 to decrease the Abells' judicial lien on the Maddox Road property.
On January 14,2014, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court denied this motion, indicating that "the
issues were not raised at the hearing when all evidence was presented." Jd. Debtor timely filed an
appeal to this Court and filed his brief on March 19,2013.
ECF NO.3. The Abells formally
declined to respond.2 ECF NO.5.
In this appeal, both parties are unrepresented. The Abells indicated that they have exhausted
their savings and will except this Court's decision. ECF NO.5.
2
3
II.
DISCUSSION
The Court hears this bankruptcy appeal under 28 U.S.C.
S
158(a). Parties of bankruptcy
cases can appeal orders that dispose of discrete disputes within the larger case. See Mort Ranta v.
Gorman, 721 F.3d 241, 246 (4th Cir. 2013). In this case, the judicial lien issue is appealable as it
was completely resolved by the bankruptcy court. Bankruptcy appeals "shall be taken in the
same manner as appeals in civil proceedings generally are taken to the courts of appeals from the
district courts." 28 U.S.C.
S
158(c)(2).
Rule 52 of the Fed. R. ofCiv. P. applies to Debtor's motion to amend the court's findings
and judgment. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7052.3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(b) provides, "(o]n a party's
motion ... the court may amend its findings-or
make additional findings-and
may amend the
judgment accordingly." However, the Fourth Circuit has recognized three grounds on which a
court may alter or amend an earlier judgment: (1) to accommodate an intervening change in
controlling law; (2) to account for new evidence not available at trial; or (3) to correct clear error
of law or prevent manifest injustice. See Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat'l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396,
403 (4th Cir.1998). Parties cannot use a Rule 52(b) motion to relitigate an issue or to present
evidence that could have been presented prior to the court's order. Gutierrez v. Ashcroft, 289
F.Supp.2d 555, 561 (D. N.J. 2003). Indeed, "(a] party who failed to prove his strongest case is
not entitled to a second opportunity to litigate a point, to present evidence that was available but
not previously offered, or to advance new theories by moving to amend a particular finding of
fact or a conclusion of law." 9C Wright & Miller, Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ.
S 2582
(3d ed.).
The Court notes that this motion was filed pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7052, which typically
applies only in adversary proceedings. A proceeding to avoid a lien under 11 U.S.C. S 522(f) is
not an adversary proceeding. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 4002(d). However, under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9014,
the adversary proceeding rules apply in contested matters not otherwise governed by the rules.
Thus, Rule 7052 does govern Debtor's motion.
3
4
A review of a lower court's decision to grant or deny a motion under Rule 52(b) is for
abuse of discretion. Golden Blout, Inc. v. Robert H Peterson Co., 438 F.2d 1354, 1368 (Fed. Cir.
2005); Cf Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp., 599 F.3d 403, 407 (4th Cir. 2010) (standard of
review for similar rule, Rule 59( e), which concerns a motion to alter or amend judgment). In this
case, the bankruptcy court held a hearing to determine the extent to which the judicial liens on
Debtor's properties would be avoided, if at all. The court was not responsible for marshalling all
the evidence and information for Debtor that could potentially reduce the judicial liens against
his properties. Instead, Debtor was to present his strongest case to avoid the judicial liens at the
scheduled hearing. In fact, the court rescheduled the hearing once to permit the parties to better
prepare for the hearing. (Bankr. H. Trans. May 16, 2013). At the hearing, Debtor did not present
evidence of post-judgment interest on the judicial liens, unpaid taxes on the properties, or unused
exemptions. The court ruled on his motion based on the evidence introduced at the hearing and
did partially reduce the Abells' lien on the Maddox Road property.
After receiving the court's order, under the guise of a "Motion to Make Additional
Findings of Fact and to Alter and Amend the Judgment," Debtor attempted to reduce further the
Abells'
lien with evidence Debtor had not previously
listed in his proposed exhibits nor
presented at the hearing. Without providing any indication that the evidence was not readily
available at the time of the hearing, Debtor waited until his motion to amend to assert that the
court should consider post-judgment interest, unpaid taxes, and an unclaimed exemption when
reducing
the Abells'
lien. This motion was rife with potential
factual disputes-Debtor
calculated the post-judgment interest himself, submitted an affidavit with regard to unpaid taxes,
and baldly stated his entitlement to an unused exemption. Because Fed. R. Civ. P. 52 does not
permit the presentation of evidence that could have been presented before the court's order, the
5
..
,
. -
bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying Debtor's attempt to relitigate the issue.
To find otherwise, and thereby permit continuous litigation of the same issue, would cause
fundamental unfairness and inefficiency.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the bankruptcy court's
order denying the Motion to Make
Additional Findings of Fact and to Alter and Amend the Judgment will be AFFIRMED by
separate order.
/G-:/I--
Dated: July 28,2014
George J. Hazel
United States District Judge
6
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?