Campbell v. Brown (In re Brown)
| Decision Date | 05 October 2022 |
| Docket Number | 21-10581-JCO-7,ADV. PROC. 21-01022-JCO |
| Parties | In re: ANDRE C. BROWN AND SHEOKIE T. BROWN, Debtors. v. ANDRE C. BROWN AND SHEOKIE T. BROWN, Defendants. CLAY E. CAMPBELL, JR., Plaintiff, |
| Court | U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Southern District of Alabama |
This matter came before the Court for trial on the Adversary Complaint filed by the Plaintiff, Clay E. Campbell (doc.1) and the Answers and Cross Complaint filed by the Debtor/Defendants, Andre and Sheokie Brown[1]. (Docs 18, 19 21.) Appearances were noted by pro se Plaintiff Clay Campbell ("Campbell"), the Debtors, Andre and Sheokie Brown (the "Browns") and Attorney William J. Casey as counsel for the Browns. Having considered the record, pleadings, exhibits, testimony, and arguments, the Court finds for the Browns on Campbell's Adversary Complaint and in favor of Campbell on the Browns' Counter-Complaint for the following reasons:
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In August 2017 an "Incident" occurred wherein the Browns removed items of personal property and a vehicle from real property located at 2936 Billy Williams Drive, Eight Mile, Alabama, ("Billy Williams Drive Property") in which Campbell claimed an interest. Campbell subsequently filed a police report (doc. 9) which led to Mrs. Brown's arrest; however, the charges were later dropped. Campbell then filed a civil suit in the Mobile County District Court and was awarded $13,500.00 against the Browns on or about April 7, 2020. The Browns appealed but upon their failure to appear for trial, a default "Judgment" was entered January 7, 2021. (Id. at 3,4) Campbell recorded the Judgment in Mobile County Probate records on March 1, 2021. Campbell also issued a Writ of Fieri Facias ("Writ") on or about February 24, 2021 seeking a Sheriffs Levy and Sale of the Browns' interest in property located at 3225 Morgan Road, Mobile, Alabama 36605 ("Morgan Road Property").
The Browns filed their Petition under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code ("Chapter 7 Case") on March 26, 2021. (S.D Bankr. 21-10581). As a result of the pre-petition Writ despite notification from the Browns' attorney of the bankruptcy (doc. 23 at 4), a sheriffs sale was held on April 14, 2021. The Browns filed a cross claim against the Mobile County Sheriff, Sam Cochran and Christopher Callaghan related to the sale but those claims have since been dismissed. (Docs. 21,22,27).
Campbell filed a proof of claim in the Chapter 7 Case denoting his claim as secured. (ECF Claim 1-1.) Campbell then initiated this Adversary Proceeding pro se seeking to have his pre-petition judgment declared non-dischargeable, his claim treated as secured, and a determination that the Browns made false statements about their estate. The Browns counter-claimed asserting violation of the automatic stay related to the sheriffs sale and malicious prosecution arising from the criminal matter.
On August 9, 2021, the Chapter 7 Trustee filed a Report of No Distribution stating in part, (S.D. Bankr. 21-10581, Doc. 49).
It is undisputed that the Browns entered upon and removed personal property and a vehicle from the Billy Williams Drive Property. However, their testimony at trial established that they believed they had the right to possession when they received a tax deed from the State of Alabama.[2]Mrs. Brown stated that she made an offer to purchase the Billy Williams Drive Property which was listed for sale on the Alabama Department of Revenue's website. On or about June 16, 2017, upon receiving acceptance of her offer, she left a 30 day notice ("Notice") at the door of the Billy Williams Drive Property informing the occupant of her interest.[3] She also stated that upon receiving the tax deed for the Billy Williams Drive Property, she understood she owned it.
Mrs Brown's testimony indicated that she understood the Billy Williams Drive Property was vacated and the personal property was abandoned. She testified that Campbell's sister, JeJuan Campbell, contacted her after receiving the Notice and advised that she had moved out. Additionally, Mrs. Brown's testimony established than when she went to clean up the Billy Williams Drive Property, she did not believe it was habitable based on her observations that: (1) the door was ajar; (2) it had flooded; (3) there was no running water; (4) the ceiling was propped up; (5) the rafters in the kitchen were exposed; and (6) mold was present.
As to the contents of the home, Mrs. Brown explained they were placed on the curb because they appeared to be trash and had water damage. She also stated that she thought the automobile was a junk vehicle and she had it towed because: (1) she did not believe it was operational; (2) it did not have a tag; and (3) there were loose mechanical parts in the back seat. She testified that she did not retain any of the items from the Property and was not aware of Campbell or any interest he may have. She further testified that upon receiving a cease and desist letter from Campbell's former attorney, she and Mr. Brown never went back to the Property and they provided the information for the towing company to Campbell's sister.
Mr. Brown's testimony was consistent with Mrs. Brown's. He testified that he understood Campbell's sister had vacated the property and no one was living there. His inspection of the Billy Williams Drive Property was the same including: the front door was left open, there was no running water, there was ceiling damage, and it was flooded. He too concluded that no one was living there. He also testified that the vehicle did not have a tag and it did not appear to be operational. Like Mrs. Brown, Mr. Brown also stated that he had no idea of Mr. Campbell's interest, had no reason to try to hurt him or his property, and they thought they were following the law because they had a deed. He further reiterated that when they received a cease and desist letter from Mr. Campbell's former attorney, they stopped all actions.
Campbell disputed the Browns' assertions that the Billy Williams Drive Property was not livable, contended that someone was living there, and stated that the vehicle could be driven. He testified that although he has not resided in the Billy Williams Drive Property since he moved away in 1999, his sister had lived there. Since he resides out of state, Campbell stated that he learned about the Browns' activities at the Billy Williams Drive Property when a neighbor called him and sent him a picture showing items on the curb. Campbell testified that he inherited an interest in the Billy Williams Drive Property and owned it with his sister. Campbell established that the Browns did not contact him personally or obtain a court order before entering the Property and removing the contents and the vehicle.
There was no dispute, that at the time of the Incident, the Browns had a tax deed to the Billy Williams Drive Property or that they left a Notice at the Property advising of their purchase.[4]Campbell did not call any witnesses to refute the Browns' assertions that: (1) they understood from Campbell's sister that she had moved out; (2) the condition of the Billy Williams Drive Property and the personal property was such that a reasonable person could conclude they were abandoned; or (3) that they provided the name of the towing company to Campbell's sister. There was also no dispute that the Browns ceased all activities at the Billy Williams Drive Property upon receipt of communication from Campbell.
In regard to the counter-claim allegations, Mrs. Brown testified that her arrest, as a result of Campbell's criminal complaint, was a traumatic experience. She stated that she has never been in trouble before, it caused her problems at work, she was booked into the jail and held with other people, and she had to post bond and hire an attorney. Further, Mrs. Brown testified that the Sheriffs Sale which was conducted post-petition, purporting to sell the Browns' interest in the Morgan Road Property was extremely stressful as she was worried her family would be placed out of the home.
In response, Campbell testified that when he received notice that the Browns filed bankruptcy on April 4, 2021, he did not take any further action to pursue the Sheriffs Sale. He stated he thought that was what he was supposed to do. He further indicated, and the record reflects, that when he found out the Sheriffs Sale was held, he tried to reverse it by sending letters to the state court as well as this court. (Doc. 16).
The Browns testified that they acquired their interest in the Morgan Road Property from a tax sale and it is their residence. However, they contend, and Campbell did not dispute, that there is an outstanding SB A lien of record in the name of the prior owner. (Doc. 12). Further the record reflects that Mrs. Brown forged a deed to the Morgan Road Property and presented it to the Revenue Commissioner to have it assessed in her name. Hence, from the pleadings and evidence presented, it appears to the Court that the Browns do not have clear marketable title to the Morgan Road Property. The Browns also stated in their pleadings (Docs 18,19) that although they purchased a tax deed for another property at 900 W. Main Street in Prichard, Alabama ("Main Street Property") in 2017, the prior owners purchased it back but just had not recorded the deed. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial