E. Equip. Corp. v. Factory Point Nat'l Bank
| Decision Date | 01 August 2000 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 00-7608 |
| Citation | 236 F.3d 117 |
| Parties | (2nd Cir. 2001) EASTERN EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES CORPORATION, Scott Huminski, as owner of the litigious rights of, Plaintiff, SCOTT HUMINSKI, DANA HUMINSKI, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. FACTORY POINT NATIONAL BANK, BENNINGTON, (TOWN OF), Defendants-Appellees |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
SCOTT HUMINSKI, pro se , Plaintiffs-Appellants.
PETER W. HALL, Reiber, Kenlan, Schwiebert, Hall & Facey, P.C., Rutland, VT (Robert E. Woolmington, Witten, Woolmington, Bongartz, Campbell & Boepple, P.C., Bennington, VT, of counsel), for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: McLAUGHLIN AND POOLER, Circuit Judges, AND DRONEY, District Judge.*
BACKGROUND
Scott and Dana Huminski (the "Huminskis") are the sole stockholders and directors of the Eastern Equipment and Services Corporation ("Eastern"). In April 1996, the Huminskis individually (but not Eastern) filed for personal bankruptcy under Chapter 7 in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Vermont.
In May and October of 1996, Factory Point National Bank ("Factory Point") and the Town of Bennington, Vermont ("Town") brought separate actions in Vermont state court seeking to foreclose on two parcels of real property owned by Eastern. See Town of Bennington v. Eastern Equip. & Servs. Corp., 126-4-96 Bncv (Vt. Super. Ct. filed May 28, 1996); Factory Point Nat'l Bank v. Eastern Equip. & Servs. Corp., 248-8-96 Bncv (Vt. Super. Ct. filed Oct. 24, 1996). Scott Huminski was also named as a defendant in the Town's foreclosure action because he had been a personal guarantor on two notes securing the properties in question.
In October 1996, the two foreclosure actions were consolidated, and Scott Huminski was dismissed as a party defendant in light of his and his wife's filing for personal bankruptcy. The state court then granted a default judgment against Eastern. Before the court could issue a decree of foreclosure, however, Eastern declared bankruptcy under Chapter 11, automatically staying the foreclosure proceedings.
In January and February 1999, the Huminskis moved in the state court to vacate the orders of foreclosure against Eastern, contending that the automatic stay that was entered when Scott Huminski filed for personal bankruptcy (the "personal automatic stay") should have stayed the foreclosure actions against his corporation, Eastern. In December 1999 those motions were denied. The state court determined that the Huminskis were not parties to the foreclosure actions on the basis of their leasehold or tenancy interest in the parcels, but rather on the basis of Scott Huminski's status as a guarantor of the two notes. Therefore, the state court concluded that the foreclosure actions were not precluded by the Huminskis' personal bankruptcies.
In August 2000, in the Bankruptcy Court, the Huminskis again challenged the state court foreclosure actions by Factory Point and the Town as violating the personal automatic stay, but were unsuccessful. See In re Huminski, 99-11697-cab (Bankr. D. Vt. Aug. 14, 2000). The foreclosure actions against Eastern's property are still pending in Vermont state court.
Undeterred, the Huminskis, and Scott Huminski, "as the owner of the litigation rights of Eastern," next filed a complaint against Factory Point and the Town in the United States District Court for the District of Vermont (Murtha, C.J.). They essentially sought to relitigate the claims already rejected by the state and Bankruptcy Courts. The Huminskis asserted that during the pendency of their personal bankruptcy actions in 1996, Factory Point and the Town willfully violated the personal automatic stay by pursuing foreclosure actions against Eastern's property in Vermont state court. The Huminskis sought to contest the purported violations of the personal automatic stay by bringing to the district court a mulligatawny stew of claims based on state tort law, including: (1) intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress; (2) illegal foreclosure; (3) bad faith; (4) abuse of process; (5) negligence; (6) breach of fiduciary duties; (7) fraud; (8) malicious prosecution; (9) harassment; (10) interference with prospective economic advantage; and (11) tortious interference. The Huminskis requested damages, an order declaring the defendants' actions void and in violation of the personal automatic stay, and an injunction precluding the defendants from "engaging in any acts attempting to prosecute, perfect or enforce the aforementioned void acts."
In April 2000, Factory Point and the Town each moved for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). The Huminskis opposed the motions and requested sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, arguing that the motions were yet another violation of the personal automatic stay.
The district court granted Factory Point's and the Town's motions for judgment on the pleadings, holding that: (1) the federal Bankruptcy Code preempted the Huminskis' state law claims; and (2) the state law claims should have been brought in the Bankruptcy Court, rather than as a separate action in the district court. Accordingly, the district court concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review the Huminskis' claims. It also denied the Huminskis' motion for sanctions.
In August 2000, this Court denied a motion by the Huminskis to stay the state court foreclosure proceedings. See Huminski v. Factory Point, No. 00-7608 (2d Cir. Sep. 1, 2000).
The Huminskis now appeal the district court's decision to: (1) grant judgment for Factory Point and the Town on the pleadings due to lack of jurisdiction; and (2) deny the Huminskis' request for sanctions. Specifically, they argue that: (1) the district court had jurisdiction to consider the claims because, (a) the complaint did not allege state law claims, (b) the complaint asserted violations of the personal automatic stay under federal law, (c) the claims were directed towards Factory Point's and the Town's conduct after the Huminskis were discharged from bankruptcy; and (2) the district court abused its discretion in denying the Huminskis' motion for sanctions.
Factory Point and the Town respond that: (1) the Huminskis' state tort claims are preempted by federal bankruptcy law; (2) all claims for purported violations of the personal automatic stay that occurred before January 12, 1997 are barred by the statute of limitations; (3) all other acts about which the Huminskis complain do not violate the personal automatic stay; (4) the district court properly denied the Huminskis' motion for sanctions; (5) Huminski has no standing to assert claims on behalf of Eastern; (6) the district court could have abstained from deciding the Huminskis' claims because the claims were pending before the Vermont state court in the mortgage foreclosure action; and (7) the district court could have dismissed both the Huminskis' complaint and their motion for sanctions because the litigation was vexatious and designed to delay the foreclosure proceedings in Vermont state court.
This court reviews a district court's grant of a motion for judgment on the pleadings de novo. See Hardy v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 164 F.3d 789, 792 (2d Cir. 1999). A district court's denial of a motion for sanctions is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 405 (1990).
The district court properly held that: (1) federal law preempts the Huminskis'...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Metcalf v. Fitzgerald
...and protections to govern the orderly conduct of debtors' affairs and creditors' rights." Eastern Equipment & Services Corp . v. Factory Point National Bank , 236 F.3d 117, 120 (2d Cir. 2001) ; see 11 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. (2012). As for sanctions for abuse of the bankruptcy process, the Ban......
-
Palmer v. City of New York
...that "such a claim must be brought in the bankruptcy court, rather than in the district court." E. Equip. & Servs. Corp. v. Factory Point Nat. Bank, Bennington , 236 F.3d 117, 121 (2d Cir. 2001) (emphasis in original); see United States v. Colasuonno , 697 F.3d 164, 172 n.4 (2d Cir. 2012). ......
-
In re Purdue Pharma, L.P.
...federal system ... to govern the orderly conduct of debtors’ affairs and creditors’ rights." E. Equip. & Servs. Corp. v. Factory Point Nat. Bank, Bennington , 236 F.3d 117, 120 (2d Cir. 2001) (emphasis added). "Comprehensive" means "complete, including all elements." Reading elements that d......
-
Broadrick v. LVNV Funding LLC (In re Broadrick)
...and protections to govern the orderly conduct of debtors' affairs and creditors' rights.” Eastern Equipment & Services Corp. v. Factory Point Nat. Bank of Bennington, 236 F.3d 117, 121 (2d Cir.2001). It is an inclusive system designed not just to protect the debtor who has the benefit of th......
-
Bankruptcy Law Survey 2005 District of Connecticut
...Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, CONN. GEN. STAT. §42-110a. 93 Eastern Equipment & Services, Corp. v. Factory Point National Bank, 236 F.3d 117, 120-21 (2d Cir. 2001). 94 Cultrera v. People's Bank, 2005 W.L. at 1433730 *3. H. Section 363 - Use, Sale, or Lease of Property Considering ......