Great Seneca Fin. Corp v. Dorsey, Case No. 2003 SCB 14886

• Decision Date: 01 November 2017
• Docket Number: Case No. 2003 SCB 14886
• Parties: GREAT SENECA FINANCIAL CORP, et al., Plaintiff, v. STEPHANIE Y. DORSEY, Defendant.
• Court: D.C. Superior Court

GREAT SENECA FINANCIAL CORP, et al., Plaintiff, v. STEPHANIE Y. DORSEY, Defendant.

Case No. 2003 SCB 14886

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Civil Division

November 1, 2017

Judge Bartnoff

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW

Defendant Stephanie Dorsey, through counsel, has filed a motion for judicial review of two decisions of Magistrate Judge Frederick J. Sullivan in this case: the granting of Palisades Acquisition XVI, LLC's ("Palisades") motion to revive judgment, and the denial of the defendant's motion for reconsideration of that ruling. Palisades has filed an opposition to the motion for review, and Ms. Dorsey has filed a reply.

I.

The underlying facts of this case do not appear to be in dispute. The original plaintiff, Great Seneca Financial Corporation ("Great Seneca") filed this collection action against the defendant on October 30, 2003. On August 12, 2004, Ms. Dorsey consented to the entry of a judgment against her in the amount of $1,783.76. The docket reflects that a writ of attachment (for other than wages) was issued to the Senate Federal Credit Union in February 2006 and served in March 2006, and that a transcript for docketing was requested and issued in April 2006. The docket reflects no other activity in the case until July 8, 2014, when new counsel entered an appearance on behalf of the proposed substitute plaintiff and filed a document titled "Assignment of Judgment" ("Assignment"), which stated that the judgment had been assigned from Great Seneca to Palisades. That filing also requested that the caption of this case be amended to reflect Palisades as the plaintiff. The Assignment included a certificate of service, which stated that the Assignment had been served by mail on Ms. Dorsey.

No motion to substitute the plaintiff was filed, nor was any document filed that reflected the actual assignment of the judgment in this case from Great Seneca to Palisades. Although the Assignment filed with the Clerk recited that the judgment had been assigned to Palisades and that the Assignment of Judgment was enclosed, the attachments to that filing did not include an assignment or any document that made specific reference to the judgment entered in this case. Instead, attached to the Assignment were two documents: a Durable Power of Attorney from Great Seneca to Palisades Acquisition XV, LLC ("Palisades XV"), dated March 1, 2007, which authorized Palisades XV to be substituted for Great Seneca as the plaintiff in any "proceeding to collect on any Account" acquired by Palisades XV from Great Seneca under a Purchase and Sale Agreement dated February 4, 2007; and a Bill of Sale from Palisades XV to Palisades, dated March 5, 2007, which transferred all title and interest in the "Receivable Assets" described in a Sales Agreement of the same date from Palisades XV to Palisades. The Purchase and Sale Agreement between Great Seneca and Palisades XV and the Sales Agreement between Palisades XV and Palisades were not included in that filing, nor were any of the "Accounts" purchased by Palisades XV from Great Seneca or the "Receivable Assets" sold by Palisades XV to Palisades identified.

Notwithstanding that no actual assignment ever was filed and that no motion was filed to substitute the party plaintiff, pursuant to Rule 25(c) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure (applicable to the Small Claims Branch under Rule 2 of the Small Claims Rules), the Clerk's Office--without a hearing or any action by a judicial officer--complied with Palisades'request and changed the plaintiff in the caption of this case from Great Seneca to Palisades, based on the Assignment filed on July 8, 2014.¹ Palisades requested and obtained triple-sealed copies of the judgment at that time and again on April 17, 2015, and it requested and was issued a transcript of docketing on May 25, 2016. Those documents all identified Palisades as the plaintiff.

It does not appear that Palisades otherwise made any attempt to collect on the judgment, but on July 27, 2016—shortly before the judgment was set to expire-- Palisades filed a motion to revive the judgment. A hearing on the motion was set for August 17, 2016. Ms. Dorsey appeared at that time and was represented by the Legal Aid Society of the District of Columbia, which had been retained that day and made a limited appearance on her behalf. Her counsel requested a continuance in order to file a written opposition to the motion to revive the judgment. In support of that request, counsel also advised the Court that the Assignment filed in 2014 did not establish that Palisades had any interest in the judgment it was seeking to revive. Magistrate Judge Sullivan initially indicated that he was inclined to grant the continuance, but after further consideration, he denied the defendant's request for a continuance and for the opportunity to file a written opposition to the motion to revive judgment, and he granted the motion to revive the judgment. In granting the motion, the Magistrate Judge stated that Ms. Dorsey would not suffer any harm from revival of the judgment and that she therefore lacked standing to oppose the motion. The trial court also suggested that even if Palisades is a stranger to this action, the defendant had to wait until Palisades attempted to enforce the judgment before she could challenge Palisades' authority to issue a writ of attachment under the revived judgment.

Ms. Dorsey then filed a timely motion for reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge's ruling, under Rule 59(c). She made several arguments in support of that motion: that Palisades had failed to comply with Rule 25, which governs substitution of parties; that Palisades had provided no documentation that the judgment in this case had been assigned from Great Seneca to Palisades XV and from Palisades XV to Palisades; and that the Magistrate Judge was incorrect in finding that she had no standing to oppose to motion to revive judgment. Palisades filed no written response to the motion for reconsideration. A hearing on the motion was held on September 28, 2016 before Magistrate Judge Sullivan, who denied the motion. Again, the Magistrate Judge ruled that because the original consent judgment had been entered in 2004, Ms. Dorsey would suffer no injury solely from a revival of the judgment. He also stated that Ms. Dorsey could not assert her claims that Palisades had no interest in the judgment until Palisades attempted to enforce the judgment, at which time she could seek to quash any writ of attachment.

Ms. Dorsey, through counsel, then filed a timely motion for judicial review of both the Order granting Palisades' motion to revive judgment and the Order denying her motion for reconsideration. Palisades has filed an opposition to the motion for judicial review, and Ms. Dorsey has filed a reply.

II.

Rule 73(c)(1) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure governs motions for judicial review and states, in relevant part:

The motion for review shall designate the order, judgment, or part thereof, for which review is sought, shall specify the grounds for objection to the [magistrate judge's] order, judgment, or part thereof, and shall include a written summary of any evidence presented before the [magistrate judge] relating to the grounds for objection.

(emphasis added). The Court of Appeals long has held that "[a] losing party in a small claims action is not entitled to appeal as a matter of right . . . . This court usually grants appeals in such cases, however, where appellant states grounds showing apparent error or a question of law, which has not been but should be decided. Karath v. Generalis, 277 A.2d 650, 651 (D.C. 1971) (emphasis added).

III.

In her motion for judicial review, Ms. Dorsey argues that the rulings of Magistrate Judge Sullivan should be reviewed and reversed based on errors of law. Although Palisades opposes the motion for judicial review, its opposition also raises solely legal issues.

As a preliminary matter, the Court finds no legal basis for the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that the defendant lacked standing to oppose the motion for revival of judgment. Ms. Dorsey is the defendant in this case, and as the defendant, she has the right to oppose motions filed by the plaintiff.² That right extends to a defendant judgment debtor opposing a motion to revive...