In re Owens

IN RE: SONYA LARAYE OWENS

Civil Action No.: 19-2491 (RC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

April 20, 2020

Re Document Nos.: 1, 12, 13

MEMORANDUM OPINIONDISMISSING APPEAL

I. INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is Ms. Sonya LaRaye Owens's appeal from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia. Ms. Owens seeks review of multiple related orders: an order that lifted an automatic stay Chapter 11, an order dismissing her petition, an order barring her from certain future filings, and related procedural orders. Because the Court finds that the Bankruptcy Court did not clearly err in its finding of facts or abuse its discretion, and because several of the appealed orders are moot, the Court affirms in all aspects and dismisses the appeal.

II. BACKGROUND

The factual background of this bankruptcy appeal involves several related proceedings centered around the foreclosure and sale of Ms. Owens's home ("the property") and subsequent eviction proceedings before D.C. courts. On February 21, 2017, Ms. Owen's home was foreclosed upon and sold to Reliance Partners LLC ("Reliance"), the Appellee here. Mem. Decision and Order Den. Mot. to Reconsider Dismissal at 2 ("Reconsideration"), Bankruptcy Case No. 19-489, ECF No. 53.¹ This sale was ratified by the D.C. Superior Court on March 25, 2018, and Reliance took title to the property on March 26, 2018. Id. Reliance then filed a Complaint for Possession in D.C. Superior Court, pursuant to which it received a judgment for possession in its favor on May 15, 2019. Id. Ms. Owens filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy before Judge Teel in the D.C. Bankruptcy Court on July 19, 2019, the day of her scheduled eviction, which prompted the entry of an automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362. Id. That same day, Ms. Owens also filed to remove the possession case to federal court, although the case was quickly remanded back to Superior Court.² Appellee Br. at 4-5, ECF No. 11. As a result of all this, Ms. Owens's eviction was temporarily stayed, but a status conference on the eviction was scheduled in Superior Court for August 2. Id. Ex. 4, ECF No. 11-1.

In response, Reliance filed a motion before the Bankruptcy Court to lift the automatic stay to allow the eviction to proceed, to shorten the time Ms. Owens had to respond to its motion, and to bar Ms. Owens from future filings. See Emerg. Mot. for Decl. Order Stating Reliance's J. is Not Subject to the Auto. Bankr. Stay, Mot. to Shorten the Time to Resp. to this Mot., and Mot.to Enjoin Owens From Future Filings ("Emergency Motion"), Bankruptcy Case No. 19-489, ECF No. 21. Judge Teel granted Reliance's motion to shorten the time for response on July 29. See Order Granting Mot. to Shorten Time ("Shorten Order"), Bankruptcy Case No. 19-489, ECF No. 27. He also set a hearing date for August 1 to determine whether to grant Reliance's two other requests contained within the Emergency Motion: the request for relief from the automatic stay, and the request for an injunction to prevent further filings. Id. at 2-3. After the August 1 hearing, the Bankruptcy Court granted Reliance's emergency motion granting relief from the stay. See Order Granting Relief from the Automatic Stay to Permit Eviction Action to Proceed ("Stay Relief"), Bankruptcy Case No. 19-489, ECF No. 31. The court also denied Ms. Owens's motion for a continuance, which she had filed that same morning. See Order Re Mot. for Continuance of Hr'g, Bankruptcy Case No. 19-489, ECF No. 32. After the Status Conference on August 2, the Superior Court granted Reliance's request to proceed with the eviction. Appellee Br. 5.

Ms. Owens's bankruptcy petition was dismissed on August 6, for failure to timely file a proper mailing matrix³ and failure to pay the filing fee or obtain leave to pay the fee in installments. See Order Dismissing Case ("Dismissal") at 1-2, Bankruptcy Case No. 19-489, ECF No. 44. (Judge Teel had dismissed Ms. Owens's petition initially on August 1, 2019 for failure to file a proper mailing matrix, but vacated that dismissal on the grounds that it was issued prematurely and mistakenly, as the August 2, 2019 deadline to show cause regarding thefailure to file the mailing matrix had not yet been passed. See Order Vacating Order Dismissing Case at 1, Bankruptcy Case No. 19-489, ECF No. 43.)

On August 9, 2020, Ms. Owens filed a notice of appeal, appealing "All Orders, Judgments, or Decrees on July 29 and August 1, 2019." See Notice of Appeal at 3, ECF No. 1. However, proceedings continued. On August 19, the Bankruptcy Court denied a motion to reconsider, wherein Ms. Owens had sought to reinstate the automatic stay. Reconsideration at 1. On August 26, 2019, Ms. Owens filed an amended notice of appeal, indicating she was more broadly challenging "All orders, judgments, and decrees from July 19, 2019 thru present, including 7-26-19, 8-1-19, 8-6-19, and hereafter." Amended Notice of Appeal, ECF No. 3. On August 29, after an oral hearing, the Bankruptcy Court granted Reliance's Motion to Enjoin Future Filings, thus preventing Owens from making any future bankruptcy filings under which an automatic stay would arise and frustrate Reliance's attempts to take possession of the property. See Order ("Prospective Relief") at 3, Bankruptcy Case No. 19-489, ECF No. 61. In its briefing before this Court, Reliance represents that Ms. Owens was evicted from the property on August 30, 2019. Appellee Br. at 5.

Ms. Owens, in her brief, asks this Court to "vacate all the decisions of the Bankruptcy court." Appellant Br. at 1, ECF No. 8. As a result, and consistent with the amended notice of appeal, this Court understands Ms. Owens to be appealing the following orders of the Bankruptcy Court: (1) the July 29 order shortening the time Ms. Owens had to respond to Reliance's emergency motion; (2) the August 1 order granting Reliance's motion and thus relief from the automatic stay; (3) the August 1 order denying Ms. Owens's motion to continue the hearing; (4) the August 6 order dismissing Ms. Owens's petition (which superseded the vacated decision that dismissed Ms. Owens's petition); (5) the August 19 order denying reconsiderationof dismissal; and (6) the August 29 order temporarily enjoining Ms. Owens from future bankruptcy filings and granting prospective relief from any automatic stay.

III. LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A. Jurisdictional Issues

District courts have jurisdiction to hear appeals of the judgments, final orders, and decrees of bankruptcy courts. 28 U.S.C. § 158(a). This section further provides that such 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 and in the time provided by Rule 8002 of the Bankruptcy Rules." Id. § 158(c)(2).

The Court has jurisdiction to consider each of the appealed orders. Two of the orders appealed by Ms. Owens are clearly final: the order dismissing her petition and the order lifting the automatic stay. See Ritzen Grp., Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC, 140 S. Ct. 582, 586-87 (2020) (holding that adjudication of an order to grant relief from the automatic stay is a final, appealable order, while also noting generally that "[o]rders in bankruptcy cases qualify as 'final' when they definitively dispose of discrete disputes within the overarching bankruptcy case") (citing Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank, 575 U.S. 496, 501 (2015)). The remaining orders—best characterized as interlocutory—are reviewable here because they merge into the order dismissing the petition. See In re Urban Broad. Corp., 304 B.R. 263, 270 n.15 (E.D. Va. 2004) ("We note further that the dismissal of the bankruptcy petition is a final judgment, and all interlocutory orders merge into that judgment; that is, [appellant] in appealing the dismissal may appeal any interlocutory orders that underlie it as well.") (quoting In re Dunes Hotel Assoc., 1998 WL 416742, at *3 (4th Cir. July 22, 1998)).

B. Mootness

Mootness, both under constitutional and equitable grounds, must be considered on appeal from Bankruptcy Courts. See In re Carvalho, 598 B.R. 356, 360 (D.D.C. 2019) ("[I]f an event occurs while a case is pending on appeal that makes it impossible for the court to grant any effectual relief whatever to a prevailing party, the appeal must be dismissed, for federal courts have no authority to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it.") (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Church of Scientology of Calif. v. United States, 506 U.S. 9, 12 (1992)). In such a circumstance mootness occurs in a constitutional sense, id., but equitable mootness may also occur when the granting of conceivably effective relief would be inequitable, see In re Hardy, 589 B.R. 217, 221 (D.D.C. 2018) (holding that the appeal of a property sale to a good faith purchaser in a bankruptcy proceeding was moot because such a sale was not stayed pending appeal); see also In re AOV Indus., Inc., 792 F.2d 1140, 1147-48 (D.C. Cir. 1986).

C. Standard of Review

A district court reviews the Bankruptcy Court's findings of fact for clear error, while conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Hope 7 Monroe St. Ltd. P'ship v. RIASO L.L.C., 473 B.R. 1, 6 (D.D.C. 2012), aff'd sub nom. In re Hope 7 Monroe St. Ltd. P'ship, 743 F.3d 867 (D.C. Cir. 2014). Appellant holds the burden of proof and to prevail "must show that the court's holding was clearly erroneous as to the assessment of the facts or erroneous in its interpretation of the law and not simply that another conclusion could have been reached." Alberts v. HCA, Inc., 496 B.R. 1, 9 (D.D.C. 2013) (quoting In re Johnson, 236 B.R. 510, 518 (D.D.C. 1999)). Finally, equitable and discretionary decisions of the Bankruptcy Court are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. See In re Capitol Hill Grp., 313 B.R. 344, 349 (D.D.C. 2004)(citing In re Behlke, 358 F.3d 429, 433 (6th Cir. ...