In re Camp
| Decision Date | 07 June 2004 |
| Docket Number | Bankruptcy No. 01-06844-TBB-7.,Adversary No. 03-00254. |
| Citation | 310 B.R. 634 |
| Parties | In re Hugh Don CAMP, Debtor. Max C. Pope, Trustee, Plaintiff, v. Tony Gordon, Tim Gordon, and Julian Gordon, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Northern District of Alabama |
James G. Henderson, Pritchard, McCall & Jones, LLC, Birmingham, AL, for Debtor.
William Dennis Schilling, Jerry W. Schoel, Birmingham, AL, for Trustee.
R. Scott Williams, Haskell, Slaughter, Young & Johnston, Birmingham, AL, for defendants.
The trustee of the bankruptcy estate of Hugh Don Camp contests judgment liens claimed by Mr. Tony Gordon, Mr. Tim Gordon, and Mr. Julian Gordon (hereinafter collectively "the Gordons") against real properties located in various Alabama counties. Motions for summary judgment have been filed on behalf of the trustee and each of the Gordons. Although entitlement to an award of summary judgment is the final determination required of this Court, resolution of other disputed matters is the penultima to such a ruling. One category of such contested legal issues is the existence and perfection, or not, of liens against real properties which is, in part, premised on a second grouping involving whether certain foreign, federal judgments have been domesticated in Alabama.
These lien and domestication disputes have been presented to this Court by way of the referral provision of 28 U.S.C. § 157 (2004) and the jurisdictional grant of 28 U.S.C. § 1334 (2004) along with the declaratory judgment sections of 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 — 2202 (2004). The essence of the controversy is whether the Gordons followed (i) one of the paths for the domestication of a non-Alabama, United States court's judgments against Mr. Camp and (ii) any of multiple ways to create and perfect liens against Alabama real properties arising from a domesticated, foreign judgment. As is set forth more fully in this opinion and certification, this Court holds that the requisites for Alabama's domestication of the foreign, federal court's judgments have been met and that all but one of the ways for creating and perfecting liens founded on an Alabama domesticated foreign, federal court's judgment have not been met. With respect to one of the lien creation/perfection methods available under Alabama's Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, Ala.Code §§ 6-9-230 to -238 (1993 & Supp.2003) (hereinafter "the AUEFJA"), that which is set forth in what is a non-uniform portion of the AUEFJA, Ala.Code § 6-9-237,1 it has multiple readings for what is required to be recorded to create and perfect a lien against Alabama properties based on a domesticated judgment. Because which construction is correct has not been memorialized in a reported decision of an Alabama court, this Court certifies the interpretation of what Ala.Code § 6-9-237 (1993) necessitates to the Supreme Court of Alabama.
In early 2001, each of the Gordons obtained verdicts against Hugh Don Camp in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. A judgment was entered in favor of (i) Tony Gordon in the amount of $225,000.00 plus interest at ten-percent (10%) per annum, (ii) Tim Gordon for $225,000.00 plus interest at ten-percent (10%) per annum, and (iii) Julian Gordon in the amount of $150,000.00 plus interest at ten-percent (10%) per annum. Later in 2001, another judgment was entered in favor of (i) Tony Gordon for attorney's fees and costs of $3,763.53, (ii) Tim Gordon for attorney's fees and costs of $3,763.53, and (iii) Julian Gordon for attorney's fees and costs of $3,763.53. The two judgments entered for the Gordons against Hugh Don Camp aggregate $611,290.59 plus post-judgment interest (hereinafter collectively the "Mississippi Federal Judgments").
As part of their efforts to satisfy the Mississippi Federal Judgments, the Gordons took steps to create and perfect liens against real properties owned by Hugh Don Camp in five Alabama counties: Etowah, St. Clair, Blount, Tuscaloosa, and Baldwin. Resolution of the existence and perfection of such liens in Tuscaloosa and Baldwin counties has been mooted by the fact that at the relevant time period Mr. Camp owned no real properties in either county. This leaves only those issues determinative of whether the Gordons perfected liens against Mr. Camp's properties in Etowah, St. Clair, and Blount counties.
Attempting to enforce the Mississippi Federal Judgments, the Gordons sent the Mississippi Federal Judgments for filing to the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Etowah County. The Mississippi Federal Judgments were received, filed, and docketed as non-jury civil actions categorized as involving a "foreign judgment" by the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Etowah County on April 10, 2001, bearing case numbers CV-2001-457-WHR and CV-2001-456-DWS (hereinafter the "Etowah Domestication Suits"). The cover letter from the Gordons' attorney contains this language:
Enclosed for filing in the Circuit Court of Etowah County are originals and two copies of two foreign judgments against Mr. Hugh Don Camp ... Please return to me one copy of the Judgment, stamped "filed" in the envelope provided. Two checks in the amount of $149.00 are included for costs of filing each of these judgments.
A portion of the Gordons' domestication efforts was to employ parts of Alabama's version of the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act §§ 1 et seq. (revised 1964), 13 pt. I. U.L.A. 155-245 (2002) (hereinafter the Uniform Laws Annotated version is referred to as the "UEFJA"). These AUEFJA predicated actions were of two types, yet both involved the filing of documents with Alabama's courts: one with its circuit courts and the other with its probate courts. On the same day suits were docketed in Etowah County to domesticate the Mississippi Federal Judgments, the Gordons filed mere copies — that is copies which were neither authenticated, nor certified — of the Mississippi Federal Judgments in the Office of the Judge of Probate of Etowah County. These filings were done in an attempt to comply with Ala.Code § 6-9-237, which provides that a particular form of copy of the foreign judgment may be filed in an Alabama probate office instead of a certificate of judgment to create and perfect a lien against properties of a judgment debtor located in the county where the filing occurs. Ala.Code § 6-9-237 (1993).
The other part of their endeavors to enforce the Mississippi Federal Judgments by use of the AUEFJA was the April 10, 2001 filings with the Circuit Court of Etowah County of (i) an affidavit, sworn to by the Gordons' counsel setting forth (a) his representation of the Gordons, (b) the address of the Gordons, (c) the last known address of Hugh Don Camp, and (d) a statement that the attached Mississippi Federal Judgments are valid, enforceable, and unsatisfied; (ii) a copy of the Mississippi Federal Judgments; and (iii) exemplification certificates, attested to by a judicial officer, and issued by the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, setting forth, among other things, that the attached copies of the Mississippi Federal Judgments are true copies. These documents were filed to meet what Ala.Code §§ 6-9-232, -233 (1993 & Supp.2003) specify as necessary for domestication and the subsequent enforcement of such judgments. Notice of the filing of the Mississippi Federal Judgments was given as required under section 233 of the AUEFJA, Ala.Code § 6-9-233 (1993).
What happened later was entry of judgment orders by the Etowah County Circuit Court against Hugh Don Camp on May 23, 2001 in the amount of $11,290.59 plus accrued interest and costs — the aggregate of the legal fees awarded by the Mississippi federal court — and on June 14, 2001 for $600,000.00 plus interest and costs which is the aggregate of the compensatory damages. The evidence is that these judgment orders were prepared by and sent to the circuit court judge by the Gordons' counsel.
Although what was filed was to comport with Ala.Code §§ 6-9-232, -233 (1993 & Supp.2003)'s criterion for domestication and enforcement of a foreign judgment, it also, in the Gordons' view, served a second, although faulty purpose: a basis on which to obtain second judgment orders in each of the Etowah Domestication Suits premised on their view of the workings of the AUEFJA as requiring issuance of an Alabama court's order similar to what would issue if one followed the common law procedure for domestication of a foreign judgment. Other than the AUEFJA based filings commencing the Etowah Domestication Suits and similar proceedings in the four (4) other mentioned Alabama counties, no non-AUEFJA founded lawsuits were initiated by the Gordons. With respect to the Etowah Domestication Suits, the Gordons did not record in the Office of the Judge of Probate (hereinafter any reference to the Office of the Judge of Probate of a county is referred to as the "Probate Office") of Etowah County either (i) the May 23, 2001 and June 14, 2001 judgment orders entered by the Circuit Court of Etowah County or (ii) certificates of judgment issued by the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Etowah County (a) for the May 23 and June 14, 2001 judgment orders of the Circuit Court of Etowah County or (b) authorized under section 232 of the AUEFJA, Ala.Code § 6-9-232 (Supp.2003), for the Mississippi Federal Judgments domesticated under the AUEFJA.
As they had done in Etowah County, the Gordons sent substantially the same transmittal letter, two non-jury civil action filing fees, and certain other requisite documents to the Clerk of the Circuit Court of St. Clair County. The result was the filing and docketing of two non-jury civil...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Mead
...District of Ohio. Thus, Kemper did not need to comply with the notice provisions of the Foreign Judgments Act."); In re Camp, 310 B.R. 634 (Bankr.N.D.Ala.2004) (explaining that holders of foreign judgments in Alabama have several methods by which to domesticate a judgment and perfect a judg......
-
Pope v. Gordon
...had failed to use any of several options for enforcing the Mississippi judgments and securing proper liens in Alabama. In re Camp, 310 B.R. 634 (Bankr.N.D.Ala.2004). The Bankruptcy Court did note, however, that it was unclear whether the Gordons had properly secured a lien under Ala.Code 19......
-
In re Camp, Bankruptcy No. 01-06844-TBB-7.
...estate of Hugh Don Camp, Max C. Pope, (hereinafter "the Trustee") this Court issued a memorandum opinion, reported as In re Hugh Don Camp, 310 B.R. 634 (Bankr.N.D.Ala.2004), in which this Court resolved in the summary judgment context all but one contested issue. Those ruled upon are encomp......