Frnace v. HomeBridge Fin. Servs.

• Decision Date: 24 June 2022
• Docket Number: C. A. 2:21-cv-01306-BHH-MHC
• Parties: Christopher James France, Appellant, v. HomeBridge Financial Services, Inc., Appellee.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina

Christopher James France, Appellant,
v.
HomeBridge Financial Services, Inc., Appellee.

C. A. No. 2:21-cv-01306-BHH-MHC

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division

June 24, 2022

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Molly H. Cherry United States Magistrate Judge.

This matter is before the Court on a pro se appeal from an order entered by United States Bankruptcy Judge David R. Duncan in Appellant's Chapter 7 bankruptcy case, In re, Christopher James France, Debtor, C/A No. 20-03044-dd (D.S.C.), in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of South Carolina.

Pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1)(A), and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e), D.S.C., all pretrial matters in cases involving pro se litigants are referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for consideration. For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends that the Court affirm.

BACKGROUND

Appellant voluntarily commenced a chapter 7 bankruptcy liquidation case in July 2020. (Apx. H001.)^[1] Plaintiff listed a certain parcel of real property on his schedules and identified Appellee HomeBridge Financial Services, Inc. (“Homebridge”), as the mortgagee. (Apx. H010.)

1

On March 19, 2021, Homebridge filed a motion seeking relief from the automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1), to allow Homebridge and any of its successors or assigns to “proceed under applicable non-bankruptcy law . . . to foreclose upon and obtain possession of the Property” (Apx. H021-022.) Homebridge asserted in the motion that Appellant “has willfully failed to make the regular mortgage payments [on his loan with Homebridge] since August 1, 2020 payment and beyond,” and, therefore, Homebridge has “not been provided adequate protection for its interest in the Property and is suffering irreparable harm and injury.” (Apx. H021.)

Appellant opposed the motion for relief from stay (Apx. H044), and the bankruptcy court held a hearing on the motion on April 22, 2021. (Apx. H062.) At the hearing, Appellant objected to the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court, and the bankruptcy court overruled the objection. (Apx. H062-H067.) The bankruptcy court advised Appellant at the hearing that “[n]o court of the United States has recognized the legal theory that you espouse.” (Apx. H067.) The bankruptcy court went on to advise at the hearing that it “does have jurisdiction over” Appellant because he “voluntarily filed a bankruptcy case” in the bankruptcy court. (Apx. H069.)

The following day, on April 23, 2021, the bankruptcy court issued an order granting the motion for relief. (Apx. H058.) In the order, the bankruptcy court outlined Appellant's opposition to the relief sought by Homebridge:

Mr. France's main argument in opposition to HomeBridge's motion is that the Court does not have jurisdiction over Christopher James France, the living man Mr. France asserts that the Court has jurisdiction only over “CHRISTOPHER JAMES FRANCE”, a “fictitious incorporated trust entity.” He asserts that HomeBridge's motion also “mis-identif[ies] the living man with the incorporated debtor.” Mr. France has repeatedly made these same or similar arguments throughout his chapter 7 case

(Apx. H058-059. (alteration in original)) The bankruptcy court concluded that “Mr. France has asserted no legitimate objection to HomeBridge's motion.” (Apx. H059.)

2

The bankruptcy court granted Homebridge's motion, finding that “Homebridge is a secured creditor of Mr. France by virtue of a note and mortgage executed and delivered by Mr. France on or about July 13, 2018”; “Mr. France has failed to make payments to HomeBridge”; “HomeBridge's motion states that payments are due for August 1, 2020 and beyond”; “Mr. France is in a chapter 7 case so is not reorganizing his financial affairs or proposing payments to HomeBridge under a chapter 13 plan”; and “Mr. France continues to repeat arguments and theories with no valid legal basis in his bankruptcy case and in response to HomeBridge's request for relief from stay.” (Apx. H059-60.)

Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal of the bankruptcy court's April 23, 2021, Order. (Apx. H091.)

JURISDICTION

Under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a), United States district courts have jurisdiction to hear appeals from final judgments, orders, and decrees of bankruptcy courts. “Orders in bankruptcy cases qualify as ‘final' when they definitively dispose of discrete disputes within the overarching bankruptcy case.” Ritzen Grp. Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC, 140 S.Ct. 582, 586 (2020) (citing Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank, 575 U.S. 496, 501 (2015)); see In re Daufuskie Island Props., Inc., 441 B.R. 49, 55 (Bankr. D.S.C. 2010) (“Final orders are those that resolve the litigation, decide the merits, settle liability, establish damages, or determine the rights of the parties.”) (citing In re Looney, 823 F.2d 788, 790 (4th Cir. 1987)). The district court also has jurisdiction to hear appeals from interlocutory orders and decrees of the bankruptcy court, provided the district court grants the appellant leave to appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(3).

This Court has jurisdiction over this appeal, as it involves the adjudication of a motion for relief from the automatic stay. See Ritzen Grp., 140 S.Ct. at 586 (“We hold that the adjudication

3

of a motion for relief from the automatic stay . . . yields a final,...