In re Crockett
| Docket Number | Civ. Action 19-2944 (EGS),Bankr. Case 19-101 |
| Decision Date | 20 July 2023 |
| Parties | IN RE ANDRENA DIANE CROCKETT DEBTOR/APPELLANT |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Andrena Diane Crockett (“Ms. Crockett”) appeals the Bankruptcy Court's Order Overruling Objection to Claim of Nationstar Mortgage LLC D/B/A Mr. Cooper (the “Order Overruling Objection to Claim”); Memorandum Decision and Order Granting Motion to Reconsider in Part, Sustaining Debtor's Objection to Nationstar's Proof of Claim in Part, and Otherwise Denying Debtor's Motion to Reconsider (the “First Memorandum Decision”); and Memorandum Decision and Order Granting Nationstar's Motion to Alter Order Regarding Debtor's Motion to Reconsider (the “Second Memorandum Decision”). See Notice of Bankruptcy Appeal Record (“A.R.”), ECF No. 2 at 155 (Order Overruling Objection to Claim), 166-73 (First Memorandum Decision); Suppl. Notice of Bankruptcy Appeal Record ( ), ECF No. 5 at 3-8.[1]Upon consideration of the briefing, the applicable law, and the entire record, this Court AFFIRMS the Bankruptcy Court's Order Overruling Objection to Claim AFFIRMS the Bankruptcy Court's First Memorandum Decision; and AFFIRMS the Bankruptcy Court's Second Memorandum Decision.
Ms. Crockett is the owner of property located at 1249 Carrollsburg Place, SW, Washington, D.C. 20024 (“Carrollsburg Place Property”). See A.R., ECF No. 2 at 50-51 (Deed of Trust). She is also the borrower on a May 11, 2007 loan in the original amount of $340,000.00 secured by a Deed of Trust on the Carrollsburg Place Property. See id. at 46-49 (Note). The Deed of Trust is currently assigned to Nationstar Mortgage LLC d/b/a Mr. Cooper (“Nationstar”). See id. at 73 (Certificate of Transfer/Assignment), 79 (Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust).
On February 1, 2010, Ms. Crockett entered into a Loan Modification Agreement secured by the same property with a principal balance of $412,891.81. See id. at 81-86 (Loan Modification Agreement). She defaulted on the debt in June 2010. See id. at 31 (Proof of Claim).
Nationstar thereafter initiated a judicial foreclosure against Ms. Crockett in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (“D.C. Superior Court”). Id. at 166 (First Memorandum Decision). Ms. Crockett challenged Nationstar's accounting, so the D.C. Superior Court held an evidentiary hearing on January 19, 2017. Id. In a proceeding on June 8, 2017, that court concluded that Ms. Crockett's claims were not viable. Id. On October 25, 2017, the D.C. Superior Court dismissed Ms. Crockett's counterclaims. Id. at 166-67. Ms. Crockett appealed this order to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (“D.C. Court of Appeals”). Id. at 167. That court affirmed the D.C. Superior Court's judgment on June 26, 2019. Id.
Meanwhile, on February 15, 2019, Ms. Crockett filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia (“Bankruptcy Court”). See id. at 1. On April 5, 2019, Nationstar submitted its Proof of Claim, which shows Ms. Crockett owed $549,337.77 in total and $184,932.67 to cure the default as of the petition date. See id. at 26-90 (Proof of Claim).
Ms. Crockett filed an Objection to Creditor, Nationstar Mortgage LLC, Proof of Claim (“Objection”), challenging Nationstar's accounting in the Proof of Claim and alleging that Nationstar failed to file all the required documents. See id. at 96-99 (Objection). The Bankruptcy Court held a hearing on the Objection on July 18, 2019. See id. at 156, 157 (). In an oral decision, the Bankruptcy Court determined that Ms. Crockett did not meet her burden to show that there was an error with Nationstar's Proof of Claim. See id. at 155-57. The Bankruptcy Court entered its order-the Order Overruling Objection to Claim- on July 22, 2019. See id. at 155 (Order Overruling Objection to Claim).
On August 5, 2019, Ms. Crockett filed a Motion to Reconsider [the Order] Overruling Debtor's Objections to Creditor's Proof-of-Claim (“Motion to Reconsider”). See id. at 158-64 (Motion to Reconsider). There, she argued that: (1) the Bankruptcy Court impermissibly relied on a decision that the D.C. Court of Appeals entered after the automatic stay was in place; and (2) the Bankruptcy Court did not address all the issues she raised in her Objection briefing. See id. at 158-63.
On September 20, 2019, the Bankruptcy Court issued its First Memorandum Decision, reversing its Order Overruling Objection to Claim in part and reducing Nationstar's claim by $1,289.18. See id. at 166-73 (First Memorandum Decision). Then, on October 7, 2019, Nationstar filed its Rule 9023 Motion seeking reconsideration of the Bankruptcy Court's First Memorandum Decision. Id. at 175-77 (Rule 9023 Motion). The Bankruptcy Court reversed its First Memorandum Decision in the Second Memorandum Decision on December 11, 2019. See Suppl. A.R., ECF No. 5 at 3-8 (Second Memorandum Decision).
Ms. Crockett filed a Notice of Appeal on September 26, 2019. See A.R., ECF No. 2 at 6. This appeal is ripe for review.
This Court has jurisdiction over appeals of decisions of the Bankruptcy Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1) (conferring jurisdiction on federal district courts “to hear appeals . . . from final judgments, orders, and decrees” of bankruptcy courts). On appeal from a bankruptcy court, a district court “may affirm, modify, or reverse a bankruptcy judge's judgment, order, or decree or remand with instructions for further proceedings.” Fed.R.Bankr.P. 8013.
A district court reviews a bankruptcy court's findings of fact only for indication that they are clearly erroneous. Id.; see also In re Johnson, 236 B.R. 510, 518 (D.D.C. 1999) . “A finding [of fact] is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” In re Johnson, 236 B.R. at 518 (quoting United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). A bankruptcy court's legal conclusions, however, are reviewed de novo. See In re WPG, Inc., 282 B.R. 66, 68 (D.D.C. 2002) (citing Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 405 (1990)). The party seeking to reverse the bankruptcy court's ruling bears the burden of proof and may not prevail by showing “simply that another conclusion could have been reached.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
“[P]ro se litigants are not held to the same standards in all respects as are lawyers.” Roosevelt Land, LP v. Childress, No. CIV.A. 05-1292(RWR), 2006 WL 1877014, at *2 (D.D.C. July 5, 2006) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)). The pleadings of pro se parties therefore “[are] to be liberally construed.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Even so, “[t]his benefit is not . . . a license to ignore the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Sturdza v. United Arab Emirates, 658 F.Supp.2d 135, 137 (D.D.C. 2009) (citing Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F.Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987)). Pro se litigants must comply with federal and local rules. See Jarrell, 656 F.Supp. at 239; Roosevelt Land, 2006 WL 1877014, at *2.
Ms. Crockett argues that the Bankruptcy Court “committed an error of law and an abuse of discretion” because it did not address every issue she raised in her Objection and Prehearing Brief. See Appellant's Br., ECF No. 8 at 17.[2]She states that the Bankruptcy Court considered only one of the sixteen claims she presented in her Prehearing Brief regarding Nationstar's inadequate accounting. Id. at 18. She also provides four examples of how Nationstar “ignored its obligations under the Federal Consumer Protection and Bankruptcy Code by maintaining an accounting system that was incapable of properly making payments in a Chapter 13 case.” Id. at 17; see also id. at 17-18 (reviewing accounting inadequacies).
Nationstar suggests that this Court may not consider this argument because “the Bankruptcy Court's reasoning for its ruling is . . . not part of this Court's record on appeal.” Appellee's Br., ECF No. 14 at 9. This is incorrect. As Nationstar acknowledges, see id.; the Bankruptcy Court rendered an oral decision at the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing held on July 18, 2019 and then documented its order in the Order Overruling Objection to Claim, see A.R., ECF No. 2 at 155. However, as Ms. Crockett states in her reply brief, see Appellant's Reply, ECF No. 16 at 7; that evidentiary hearing- along with the Bankruptcy Court's oral decision-is, in fact, part of the record on appeal, see A.R., ECF No. 2 at 156 (), 157 (audio recording of second part of July 18, 2019 hearing attached to PDF document). This Court therefore may consider the Bankruptcy Court's reasoning from its oral decision as it evaluates the Order Overruling Objection to Claim.
Nationstar also defends the substance of the Bankruptcy Court's Order Overruling Objection to Claim. Nationstar claims that the Bankruptcy Court made one of two possible conclusions (1) that Ms. Crockett “did not meet her burden to negate the prima facie validity of the filed claim”; or (2) that Nationstar “proved the validity of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence.” Appellee's Br., ECF No. 14 at 9. Nationstar does not cite any evidence from the record to support this...
To continue reading
Request your trial