Jensen v. Stephens, et al.

Filing 6

ORDER denying 1 Motion for TRO (Written Opinion). Signed by Senior Judge David S. Doty on 9/15/2011. (TMW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Civil No. 11-2661(DSD/AJB)
In re G. Yvonne Stephens,
Debtor.
_________________________________
In re Larry Kenneth Alexander,
Debtor.
_________________________________
Mary Jo A. Jensen-Carter, Trustee
of the Bankruptcy Estate of Larry
K. Alexander,
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

John A. Hedback, as Trustee of
the Bankruptcy Estate of G. Yvonne
Stephens, Larry K. Alexander, G.
Yvonne Stephens, and John Doe
and Jane Doe,
Defendants.

This matter is before the court upon the emergency motion
for stay of the August 31, 2011, order of the bankruptcy court in
bankruptcy cases 98-33694 and 98-34858 and adversary case 043468.1

Based on a review of the file, record and proceedings

herein, the motion is denied.

1

The court determines that oral argument is not needed for
this motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b).

BACKGROUND
This litigation over the ownership of real property located at
875 Laurel Avenue in St. Paul, Minnesota (875 Laurel) has now
entered its fourteenth year, and the court need not repeat its
history.2

In short, the courts have repeatedly determined that the

bankruptcy estates own 875 Laurel.

On August 31, 2011, the

bankruptcy court granted possession of 875 Laurel to plaintiff Mary
Jo A. Jensen-Carter and defendant John A. Hedbeck (the trustees),
and ordered defendants Larry Kenneth Alexander (Alexander) and G.
Yvonne Stephens, and any other persons, to vacate 875 Laurel.
2

See, e.g., Alexander v. Hedback, 395 F. App’x 314 (8th Cir.
2010); Stephens v. Hedback, 321 F. App’x 536 (8th Cir. 2009); In re
Stephens, 172 F. App’x 685 (8th Cir. 2006); In re Alexander, 80 F.
App’x 540 (8th Cir. 2003); In re Stephens, 53 F. App’x 392 (8th
Cir. 2002); In re Alexander, 44 F. App’x 32 (8th Cir. 2002); In re
Alexander, 236 F.3d 431 (8th Cir. 2001); In re Alexander, 242 F.3d
373 (8th Cir. 2000); In re Stephens, 425 B.R. 529 (B.A.P. 8th Cir.
2010); In re Alexander, 289 B.R. 711 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2003); In re
Alexander, 288 B.R. 127 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2003); In re Stephens, 276
B.R. 610 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2002); In re Alexander, 270 B.R. 281
(B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2001); In re Alexander, 239 B.R. 911 (B.A.P. 8th
Cir. 1999); In re Alexander, 236 B.R. 679 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 1999);
Alexander v. Hedback, No. 10-227, 2010 WL 653887 (D. Minn. Feb. 23,
2010) (Doty, J.); Stephens v. Jensen-Carter, Nos. 06-693 & 06-2327,
2007 WL 2885813 (D. Minn. Sept. 27, 2007) (Schiltz, J.); Stephens
v. Jensen-Carter, Nos. 01-633 & 05-33, 2005 WL 852446 (D. Minn.
Apr. 11, 2005) (Magnuson, J.); Stephens v. Jensen-Carter, No. 043425 (D. Minn. filed July 27, 2004) (Ericksen, J.); Jensen-Carter
v. Alexander, No. 01-1087 (D. Minn. filed June 15, 2001) (Kyle,
J.); Jensen Carter v. Stephens, No. 04-3468 (Bankr. D. Minn. filed
Dec. 16, 2004); In re Stephens, No. 98-34858 (Bankr. D. Minn. filed
Aug. 17, 1998); In re Alexander, No. 98-33694 (Bankr. D. Minn.
filed June 18, 1998); Jensen-Carter v. Stephens, No. A04-1218
(Minn. Ct. App. July 21, 2004); Jensen-Carter v. Alexander, No. C102-1845, 2003 WL 21448791 (Minn. Ct. App. June 24, 2003), review
denied sub nom. Stephens v. Jensen-Carter, No. C1-02-1845 (Minn.
Aug. 19, 2003); Stephens v. Jensen-Carter, No. C1-02-11013, (Minn.
Dist. Ct. filed Nov. 15, 2002); Jensen-Carter v. Stephens, No. C801-4968 (Minn. Dist. Ct. filed June 1, 2001).

Movant Andrew Will Alexander appeals, arguing that Alexander gave
him a 50% joint tenancy in the property in 1998, and that his
interest prevents execution of the eviction order and disposition
of the property by the trustees.

DISCUSSION
“A party seeking a stay pending appeal must demonstrate that
it is likely to succeed on the merits, that it will suffer
irreparable injury unless the stay is granted, that no substantive
harm will come to other interested parties, and that the stay will
do no harm to the public interest.”
(B.A.P. 8th Cir. 1998).

In re Ross, 223 B.R. 702, 703

As an initial matter, there is a question

about whether movant has standing to bring this appeal.

He is not

named in any of the numerous cases, however he claims that the
presence of a “John Doe” defendant allows him to be considered a
party.

The court need not resolve this question to dispose the

present motion, because even if movant has standing, he does not
show that a stay is warranted.
The possessory interests in 875 Laurel are settled, and the
issue of the 1998 purported conveyance has been addressed several
times.

In 2004, the state court noted that, contrary to the

present motion, Stephens swore that Alexander “is the owner of
property acquired prior to marriage located at 875 Laurel Avenue.”
Order at 4, Jensen-Carter v. Stephens, No. C8-01-4968 (Minn. Dist.
Ct. Jan. 27, 2004) (Monahan, J.).

The state court questioned the

veracity and good faith of Alexander and Stephens and noted that
“[a]n impartial observer could conclude ... that they were involved
in some sort of scheme with respect to [875 Laurel].”

Id. at 8;

see also Jensen-Carter v. Alexander, 2003 WL 21448791, at *1 (Minn.
Ct. App. June 24, 2003) (noting claim of homestead exemption by
Alexander and denial of ownership interest by Stephens).
Moreover, in 2006 the bankruptcy court determined that even if
the 1998 conveyance were not fraudulent, “the child’s [movant’s]
interest would not be as a spouse of course, and therefore his
joint

tenancy

possessory

interest

is

not

protected

from

the

severance of the joint tenancy accomplished by the bankruptcy of
the other joint tenant, Stephens.” Order at 9, In re Stephens, No.
93-34858, In re Alexander, No. 98-33694, Jensen-Carter v. Hedback,
No. 04-3468 (Bankr. D. Minn. Jan. 5. 2006).

The bankruptcy court

further determined that “[t]he child’s interest, if the deed is not
avoided, is as a tenant in common, and no protected possessory
interest would be implicated by sale of the property.”
(emphasis added).

Id.

As a result, movant could have, at most, “an

interest in the net proceeds of the sale of the property.”

Id.

This court upheld the bankruptcy court, and the Eighth Circuit
affirmed.

See Stephens v. Jensen-Carter, Nos. 06-693 & 06-2327,

2007 WL 2885813, at *7 (D. Minn. Sept. 27, 2007), aff’d sub nom.
Stephens v. Hedback, 321 F. App’x 536 (8th Cir. 2009).

In short,

movant shows no likelihood of success on the merits and cannot show
irreparable harm.

In contrast, the bankruptcy estates continue to

suffer harm due to the inability to sell 875 Laurel.

Therefore,

the court declines to exercise its discretion to stay the order of
the bankruptcy court.

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion [Doc. No. 1]
is denied.

Dated:

September 15, 2011
s/David S. Doty
David S. Doty, Judge
United States District Court