Griswold, Greg v. Zedden, Brenda

Filing 23

ORDER denying (16 in 3:14-cv-00718-jdp) Motion for Reconsideration, denying as moot (20 in 3:14-cv-00718-jdp) Motion to Stay. Appellant's motion for reconsideration in case no. 15-cv-250-jdp, Dkt. 16, is DENIED. The clerk of court is directed to docket appellant's motion and this ruling in the 15-250 case. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 2/5/2016. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

GREG GRISWOLD,
Appellant,
v.

OPINION & ORDER

BRENDA ZEDDUN, TRUSTEE,

14-cv-718-jdp

Appellee.
Appellant Greg Griswold appealed the judgment of the Bankruptcy Court for the
Western District of Wisconsin voiding a transfer to Griswold of a 40-acre farm owned by
Laura Wierzbicki. The bankruptcy court had concluded that Wierzbicki did not receive
“reasonably equivalent value” from Griswold in exchange for giving him ownership of the
farm. I affirmed the bankruptcy court’s judgment in a September 15, 2015, order. Griswold
has now filed a document titled “Motion Seeking Reconsideration” of the September 15
order. Dkt. 16. I construe this motion as one for rehearing under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy
Procedure 8022. Because Griswold fails to persuade me that my ruling was incorrect, I will
deny this motion.
A motion for rehearing is “the bankruptcy counterpart to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).”
Matter of Grabhill Corp., 983 F.2d 773, 775 (7th Cir. 1993). A Rule 8022 motion “must state
with particularity each point of law or fact that the movant believes the district court . . . has
overlooked or misapprehended and must argue in support of the motion.” Rule 8022(a)(2).
Griswold’s motion exceeds by twice the length limit of Rule 8022(b)—“[u]nless the district
court . . . orders otherwise, a motion for rehearing must not exceed 15 pages”)—and he
contends that most aspects of the September 15 order are incorrect.

In particular, he argues:


The farm was encumbered by a lis pendens he filed in 2009.



He and Wierzbicki each held $75,000 homestead exemptions in the farm that,
when combined, completely offset the value of the farm, leaving it worth
nothing at the time of transfer.



He obtained an interest in the farm after the state court decision concluding
that he held no interest.



Wierzbicki received reasonably equivalent value for the farm in the form of
harmony among her, Griswold, and their children.

Griswold does not present any persuasive argument that I incorrectly decided these
issues in the September 15 order. He just rehashes the unsuccessful arguments he made in his
previous briefing. Because Griswold fails to show that I overlooked or misapprehended any
facts or governing law, I will deny his motion for rehearing.
Griswold also filed a motion to stay the judgment pending resolution of the
bankruptcy appeal. Dkt. 20. Griswold stated that the bankruptcy trustee intended to
immediately proceed with a sale of the farm, but he did not substantiate this assertion with
any evidence, and the trustee responded that no sale was imminent. Dkt. 21. Because I am
denying Griswold’s motion for rehearing, I will deny his motion to stay the judgment. Should
Griswold renew his request for a stay in conjunction with further appeals, he will have to
support his request with evidence and argument explaining why a stay should be granted.
The September 15 order also addressed a separate appeal (case no. 15-cv-250-jdp)
from an order in the bankruptcy case denying Griswold’s motion for Bankruptcy Judge
Martin’s recusal. Dkt. 14, at 17. I construed the ’250 case as including a request for leave to
take an interlocutory appeal, and I denied that request. Although Griswold did not include
the caption for the ’250 case on his motion for rehearing, he includes a request for

2

reconsideration of my ruling in that case as well. But, just as with the ’780 case, Griswold
does not persuade me that I erred in concluding that he came “nowhere close” to showing
that his interlocutory appeal involved a controlling question of law over which there is a
substantial ground for difference of opinion, and that an immediate appeal from the order
might materially advance the termination of the litigation. Id. at 17-18. I will deny his
request for reconsideration in the ’250 case, and direct the clerk of court to docket his
motion and this ruling in the ’250 case.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Appellant Greg Griswold’s motion for rehearing, Dkt. 16, is DENIED.
2. Appellant’s motion to stay the judgment pending resolution of the bankruptcy
appeal, Dkt. 20, is DENIED as moot.
3. Appellant’s motion for reconsideration in case no. 15-cv-250-jdp, Dkt. 16, is
DENIED. The clerk of court is directed to docket appellant’s motion and this
ruling in the ’250 case.
Entered February 5, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

3