Sawyer v. Worcester

Filing 23

MEMORANDUM OPINION Re: Bankruptcy Appeal. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 8/4/2009. Per LMB Chambers copy sent to appellant pro se.(stas)

IN

THE

UNITED

STATES

DISTRICT

COURT

FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Alexandria Division
AVA MAUREEN SAWYER,

Appellant,
v.

l:09cv298
WORCESTER,

(LMB/IDD)

DEAN S.

Appellee.

AVA MAUREEN

SAWYER,

Appellant,
v.

1:O9CV431
WORCESTER, et al..

(LMB/IDD)

DEAN S.

Appellees.

)
MEMORANDUM OPINION

These

two bankruptcy appeals two lawyers,

arise out

of nearly

14

years of

litigation between appellee Dean S.

appellant Ava Maureen Sawyer and from their joint

Worcester,

stemming

representation of

Preston E.

Conner,

Sr.

Sawyer,

pro

se,

has

filed two bankruptcy appeals.
No. l:09cv298 (E.D. Va.

In the

first,

Sawyer v.

Worcester.
from

filed March 18,

2009),

she appeals

the bankruptcy court's order sustaining Worcester's plea of res

judicata and collateral estoppel and overruling her objection to
the validity of Worcester's
Worcester, et al.. No.

claim.

The

second,
Va.

Sawyer v.
21, 2009),

l:09cv431

(E.D.

filed April

involves the bankruptcy court's order denying several of her

motions related to the claims of

the appellees.1

Oral

argument

is not needed because the
adequately presented would not
I.

facts and legal contentions are
submitted and argument

in the materials

aid the decisional process.

Background

The underlying bankruptcy proceeding arises out of a dispute
over attorneys' fees that began in the early 1990s. At that

time,

Sawyer and Worcester performed legal services for a client,
Conner, Sr. After successfully representing Conner,

Preston E.

the parties disagreed over the attorneys'

fees due,

and Conner

filed a Petition in Equity against Sawyer and Worcester in the Circuit Court of Frederick County,
of funds Sawyer was holding

apparently seeking the return
After conducting a full

in escrow.

hearing on the petition,

Judge Designate Rudolph Bumgardner,

III

issued a Final Decree on August 26,
the

1994,2 which declared that

fee due to Sawyer and Worcester from Conner was $134,000.00

and that Sawyer should disburse the fee and provide the remaining

$117,085.94 that she was holding in escrow to Conner.

The Decree

1 Because the two appeals arise out of one bankruptcy proceeding, In re Ava Maureen Sawyer. No. l:07bkl3021 (Bankr.
E.D. Va. filed Oct. 17, 2007), they will be decided in one Memorandum Opinion. This Memorandum Opinion and the accompanying Order will be filed in both civil actions.

2 Because one of the attorneys in the suit regularly practiced before the Circuit Court of Frederick County, the Judges of the Circuit requested that a Judge be designated to preside over the matter. The hearing included opening statements and a presentation of evidence by Sawyer, Worcester, and Conner.

also fees

stated that

the

Court had heard evidence

concerning how the

should be divided between Sawyer and Worcester over Sawyer's

objection.

The Court decided that Sawyer and Worcester were each arriving at that figure by subtracting the
$134,000.00
Because

due $62,000.00,
$10,000.00

they were
the

already paid from the
resulting amount

they were
Sawyer

due and dividing

equally.

had already received those

funds

from Conner,
his

the Court ordered
the fees.

Sawyer to pay Worcester $62,000.00,

share of

Sawyer filed a notice of appeal of

the Final Decree,
and her appeal

but failed
was

to file a timely petition for review,

dismissed by the Virginia Supreme Court. Sawyer failed to disburse the funds to Worcester, who then

filed Debtor Interrogatories

to enforce his

judgment against her That court
the

in the Circuit Court of Frederick County.
Rule to Show Cause and a Capias to enforce

issued a
Sawyer,

judgment.

who was

represented by counsel,

filed a Motion to Quash and

Vacate,

in which she challenged the August 26,

1994 judgment,

arguing that the court

lacked jurisdiction to enter the judgment

and that she was not afforded the fundamental fairness required
by due process. After holding a hearing on the motion, Judge

Sinclair issued a decree denying Sawyer's Motion to Quash and
Vacate. Sawyer appealed the decision. The Supreme Court of

Virginia refused the petition for appeal,

finding

"no reversible

error in the judgment complained of."

The United States Supreme

Court denied Sawyer's

subsequent petition for a writ

of

certiorari.
has

Although the

1994

judgment

is

a final

judgment,

it

not been satisfied.

After filing two previous bankruptcy cases

in this district,

which were subsequently dismissed,

Sawyer voluntarily filed for
2007. Worcester and the
Sawyer,

Chapter 13 bankruptcy on October 17,
Estate of Preston Conner, Sr., have

filed claims against These

based on the unsatisfied 1994
out II. of Sawyer's objections to

judgment.
those

two appeals arise

claims.

Discussion
A. Standard of Review

When reviewing the decision of a bankruptcy court,

a

district court must accept
they are clearly erroneous. however, are

the court's
Fed. R.

findings of
P.

fact unless
Legal 934

Bankr.

8013.

conclusions,
F.2d 568, 570

reviewed de novo.

In re Green.

{4th Cir.

1991).

B.

Appeal
Opinion

of

the June 16,

2008 Order and Memorandum

In Sawyer v.

Worcester,

l:09cv298,

Sawyer appeals

the

bankruptcy court's Order and Memorandum Opinion of June

16,

2008

which sustained Worcester's plea of res judicata and overruled

Sawyer's objection to the validity of Worcester's claim.
reviewing the briefs

After

of each side and patiently taking evidence

on the matter,

the bankruptcy court issued a comprehensive and
16, 2008, which

well-reasoned Memorandum Opinion dated June

overruled Sawyer's

objections

and affirmed Worcester's plea of

res judicata and collateral estoppel.

Specifically,

the
25,

bankruptcy court held that Judge Sinclair's

order of April

2000,
Sawyer before

which denied Sawyer's Motion to Quash and Vacate,
from relitigating her objections the bankruptcy court. to Worcester's

prevented
claim

After carefully reviewing the

submissions of

Sawyer and Worcester and the record before the
which included trial transcripts, this Court

bankruptcy court,

finds there
court's

is no basis upon which to disturb the bankruptcy
of fact. correct legal

findings

The bankruptcy court also applied the

principles

to these

facts.

"The bar of res judicata precludes or any part thereof,

relitigation of

the same cause of action,

which could have been litigated between the same parties and
their privies." Under Virginia before res Smith v. law, Ware, 421 S.E.2d 444, 445 (Va. 1992).

the following four elements must be present wl) the identity of the remedies

judicata applies:

sought;

2)

the

identity of the cause of action; and 4)

3)

the identity

of the parties;
persons 421 F.

the identity of the qualities of the
claim is made." Va. 2006) Wiliner v. 421 Frey.

for or against whom the Supp. 2d 913, 921 (E.D.

(quoting Smith.

S.E.2d at 445).

The bankruptcy court properly found that all
satisfied because: 1) Sawyer attacked the

four elements were

validity of Worcester's judgment before Judge Sinclair and in her
Chapter 13 bankruptcy; 2) in both proceedings, Sawyer claimed

that the circuit court

lacked personal

and subject matter

jurisdiction and that her due process rights were violated;
Sawyer and Worcester were parties in the state court and the

3)

bankruptcy proceedings;

and 4)

the

"quality of the persons" was In addition, the April 25,
after

also the same in both proceedings.

2000 order of Judge Sinclair has become a final judgment,

Sawyer's petition for appeal was denied by the Virginia Supreme
Court, and the United States Supreme Court denied her petition

for certiorari.

Accordingly,

the April 25,

2000 order bars
or that

Sawyer from relitigating those claims actually made,

might have been made,
Accordingly,
affirmed.

in the case before Judge Sinclair.

the decision of the bankruptcy court will be

C.

Appeal of
Opinion

the October

6,

2008

Order and Memorandum

In Sawyer v.

Worcester,

et

al..

l:09cv431,

Sawyer appeals an

Order and Memorandum Opinion of October 6,

2008

denying four

motions: Pepper v.

1)

Motion to Approve Pursuant to the Authority of 2) Motion to Reconsider, Alter and Amend the

Litton;

July 31,

2008 Order of the Court Overruling Debtor's Objections

to the Claim of the Estate of Preston Conner and Allowing the
Estate of Preston Conner a Secured Claim in the Sum of

$25,719.31;

3)

Motion to Reconsider,

Alter and Amend the July 30,

2008 Order of the Court Overruling Debtor's Objections to the Claim of Dean S. Worcester and Allowing Worcester a Secured

Claim;

and 4)

Motion to Stay Distributions by the Chapter
Pepper v. Litton Motion Has Been

13

Trustee Until Debtor's

Resolved.3 In her Motion Pursuant to the Authority of Pepper v. Litton.

Sawyer asked the bankruptcy court not

to enforce Worcester's

judgment against her,
so. In Pepper v.

arguing that it would be inequitable to do
the Supreme Court held that the
judicata from examining

Litton,

bankruptcy court was not barred by res

the state

court judgment when the

"validity of

the underlying See
to

claim was not in issue"
308 U.S. 295, 302-03

in the prior

state court proceeding.
is not applicable

(1939).

This holding

Worcester's

claim against Sawyer because,

as recited above,

the

April

25,

2000 order of Judge Sinclair determined that the 1994 and the bankruptcy court properly determined
the judgment the decision

judgment was valid,

that it was barred from reviewing the validity of under the principle of res judicata.
of the bankruptcy court Next,

Accordingly,

to deny this motion will the decision of

be affirmed. to

Sawyer appeals

the bankruptcy court

deny her Motion to Reconsider,

Alter and Amend the July 31,

2008

Order of the Court Overruling Debtor's Objections to the Claim of

was appealing the decision "Denying Mot. to Stay Distributions by Trustee." Because the Motion to Approve Stay Distributions by

3 In her description of her appeal,

Sawyer stated that she

the Chapter 13 Trustee Until Appeals of this Court's Approvals of Creditors Claims Have Been Resolved was granted, this Court assumes that Sawyer is appealing the denial of her Motion to Stay Distributions by Trustee Until Debtor's Pepper v. Litton Motion
Has Been Resolved.

the Estate of Preston Conner and Allowing the Estate of Preston Conner a Secured Claim in the Sum of $25,719.31.
1994

In this motion,
of pre-judgment

Sawyer argued that the award on August 26,

interest was void ab initio and that the claim should be denied
pursuant to Pepper v. Litton. Sawyer also specifically objected

to the calculation of
Conner, Sr.

the amount due to the Estate of Preston
2008, the

In a Memorandum Opinion dated October 6,

bankruptcy court carefully considered the debtor's objections to

its calculation of the claim and explained how it determined the
amount of Conner's secured claim. This Court finds no reversible

error in the bankruptcy court's decision to deny this motion in

its entirety,

and the decision will be affirmed for the reasons

stated by the bankruptcy court.

Sawyer also filed a Motion to Reconsider,
the July 30, 2008

Alter and Amend

Order of the Court Overruling Debtor's

Objections to the Claim of Dean S.
Worcester a Secured Claim. For the

Worcester and Allowing
reasons explained in the

discussion of Sawyer v.

Worcester,

l:09cv298,

above and those

given by the bankruptcy court,
will also be affirmed.

the decision to deny this motion

Finally,

Sawyer appeals the bankruptcy court's decision to

deny her Motion to Stay Distributions by the Chapter 13 Trustee Until Debtor's Pepper v. Litton Motion Has Been Resolved.
to the Authority of Pepper v.

Because Sawyer's Motion Pursuant

Litton was denied by the same October 6,

2008 Order,

this motion

was appropriately denied.
Ill. Conclusion

For all these reasons,
will be affirmed.

the decisions of the bankruptcy court

An appropriate Order will issue.

If the appellant chooses to appeal or pursue any further

litigation related to the claims in these civil actions,

she

should be mindful of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which mandates that when a party files a pleading, she

certifies to the best of her knowledge and belief that "it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass . . .

or needlessly increase the cost of litigation."

She must also

certify that "the claims,

defenses,

and other legal contentions
for

are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument

extending,

modifying,

or reversing existing law or for Fed. R. Civ. P. ll(b){2). If a party
Fed. R. Civ.

establishing new law."
violates Rule 11,
P. ll(c).

the Court may impose sanctions.

Entered this *j

day of August, 2009.

Alexandria,

Virginia

United States District Judge

Briake^T