Maines v Wilmington Savings Funds Society
Filing
45
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Glen E. Conrad on 10/31/16. (hnw)
CLERK'S OFFICE U.S. DIST. COUR1
AT ROANOKE, VA
FILEQ
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
CHARLOTTESVILLE DIVISION
MARSHA LAMBERT MAINES,
Appellant,
V.
WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND
SOCIETY, FSB, D/B/A CHRISTIANA
TRUST AS TRUSTEE OF THE
CREDIT OPPORTUNITIES TRUST,
Appellee.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
JUU
BY:
Civil Action No. 3:15CV00056
MEMORANDUM OPINION
By: Hon. Glen E. Conrad
Chief United States District Judge
Marsha Lambert Maines, proceeding pro se, filed this appeal from a decision of the
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Virginia, in which the bankruptcy
court overruled Maines' objection to a claim filed by Wilmington Savings Fund Society, D/B/A
Christina Trust as Trustee of the Residual Credit Opportunities Trust ("Wilmington"); denied
Maines' motion to strip Wilmington's lien; and granted Wilmington's motion for relief from the
automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. ยงยง 362(d)(l) and 362(d)(4). The bankruptcy court's decision
was affirmed by this court on July 1, 2016. Maines has now filed a "motion for issuance of
mandamus petition" and a "motion for declaratory/summary judgment."
In the first motion, Maines seeks a writ of mandamus directed to the Supreme Court of
Virginia and state officials. "Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear
right to the relief sought." Frazier v. French, 63 F. App'x 659, 660 (4th Cir. 2003) (citing In re
First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1998)). It is well settled that "[t]his
court does not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against state officials, or to review state
court orders." Frazier, 63 F. App'x at 660 (citing Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg
RK
County, 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969)); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman,
460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983)).
Thus, the relief sought by Maines is not available by way of
mandamus. Accordingly, her motion seeking such relief must be denied.
In the second motion, styled as a "motion for declaratory/summary judgment," the
plaintiff appears to seek reconsideration of the court's opinion and order affirming the
bankruptcy court's decision.
Consequently, the court construes the filing as a motion for
rehearing under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8022 (formerly Rule 8015), which
"provides the sole mechanism for filing a motion for rehearing from a final order of the district
court sitting in [its] capacity" as a bankruptcy appellate court. Bli v. USA Farm Serv. Agency,
465 F.3d 654, 658 (6th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also
Aycock v. Eaton, 943 F.2d 536, 538 (5th Cir. 1991) (same).
Under Rule 8022, a motion for rehearing must be filed within fourteen days after entry of
judgment. Fed. R. Bank. P. 8022. The rule further provides that the "motion must state with
particularity each point of law or fact that the movant believes the district court . . . has
overlooked or misapprehended." Id. Petitions for rehearing function to ensure that the court
properly considered all relevant information in reaching its decision; they should not be used to
"simply reargue the plaintiff's case or assert new grounds." Baumhaft v. McGuffin, No. 4:06CV-3617-RBH, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78480, at *2 (D.S.C. Oct. 22, 2007) (citing Sierra Club
v. Hodel, 848 F.2d 1068, 1100-01 (lOth Cir. 1988)).
Applying these principles, the court concludes that Maines is not entitled to rehearing.
The instant motion was not filed within the fourteen-day period specified in Rule 8022, and it
does not "state with particularity each point of law or fact" that Maines believes the court
2
/
"overlooked or misapprehended." Fed. R. Bank. P. 8022. To the extent Maines seeks to reargue
her case or present new arguments, relief is not authorized under Rule 8022.
For the reasons stated, the court must deny Maines' motion for writ of mandamus and her
motion for rehearing. The Clerk is directed to send certified copies of this memorandum opinion
and the accompanying order to the appellant and all counsel of record.
DATED: This
.S I tvfday of October, 2016.
3
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?