In Re Skyline Woods Country Club LLC
| Decision Date | 17 June 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 09-6073.,09-6073. |
| Citation | 431 B.R. 830 |
| Parties | In re SKYLINE WOODS COUNTRY CLUB, LLC, Debtor.Mid-City Bank, a Nebraska Banking Corporation; Liberty Building Corp., Nebraska Corporation; David Broekemeier; and Robin Broekemeier, Movants-Appellants,v.Skyline Woods Homeowners Assoc. and Skyline Woods Revitalization, LLC, Objectors-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, Eighth Circuit |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Robert Frederick, argued, Anna M. Bednar, on the brief, Omaha, NE, for appellant.
Michael Thomas Eversden, argued, Robert J. Bothe, on the brief, Omaha, NE, for appellee.
Before KRESSEL, Chief Judge, FEDERMAN and VENTERS, Bankruptcy Judges.
This is an appeal of the bankruptcy court's order denying the Appellants' motion to reopen the Debtor's bankruptcy case. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the decision of the bankruptcy court.1
A bankruptcy court's decision whether to reopen a bankruptcy case is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.2 A court abuses its discretion “when its ruling is founded on an error of law or a misapplication of law to the facts.” 3 In its application, the abuse of discretion standard is nearly indistinguishable from the clearly erroneous standard.4
The Debtor, Skyline Woods Country Club, LLC, filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition on December 15, 2004. On or about February 4, 2005, the Debtor sold substantially all of its assets, including a portion of a golf course, to Appellants David and Robin Broekemeier, who took title to the property in the name of Liberty Building Corp. (“Liberty”). Appellant Mid-City Bank (“Mid-City”) financed the Broekemeiers' purchase of the Debtor's assets. On February 9, 2005, the bankruptcy court entered an order (“Sale Order”) approving the sale “free and clear of claims, liens, and encumbrances.” The Debtor's bankruptcy case was closed on January 31, 2006.
The Broekemeiers decided to not reopen the golf course. On April 25, 2006, approximately one month after learning of this decision, Skyline Woods Homeowners Association and individual homeowners (collectively, the “Homeowners”) filed suit against Liberty and David and Robin Broekemeier in the District Court for Douglas County, Nebraska, asking the court to enforce certain restrictive covenants requiring that the property be used only as a golf course. Paisley, LLC, now known as Skyline Woods Revitalization, LLC, filed a separate suit for the same purpose.
On June 9, 2006, Liberty filed a pleading entitled, “Motion for Enforcement of the Bankruptcy Court's February 9, 2005 Order, Including Request for Injunctive Relief,” in the Debtor's closed bankruptcy case. The motion alleged that the state-court lawsuits violated the February 9, 2005 Sale Order and sought an injunction to prevent those lawsuits from proceeding. The bankruptcy court notified Liberty on June 12, 2006, that its motion would not be heard unless it moved the court to reopen the case and paid the necessary filing fee. The court struck Liberty's motion from the record. Neither Liberty nor the Broekemeiers took any further action in the bankruptcy case at that time.
On March 28, 2007, the state court granted the Homeowners' motion for summary judgment, finding that the restrictive covenants requiring the operation of a golf course run with the land and are enforceable against Liberty. The state court specifically held that the bankruptcy court order confirming the sale did not eliminate the restrictive covenants. On August 9, 2007, the state court issued an order clarifying the order on summary judgment and specifying with more particularity the requirements to maintain the golf course property in the manner required by the covenants. Liberty appealed the trial court's order to the Nebraska Supreme Court. On December 5, 2008, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order and held that the restrictive covenants are in effect and enforceable.
Shortly thereafter, Liberty defaulted on its loan to Mid-City, and on December 24, 2008, Mid-City recorded with the recorder of deeds a Notice of Default and Election to Sell the property.
On September 25, 2009, the Broekemeiers and Liberty, joined by Mid-City, filed a motion to reopen the Debtor's bankruptcy case for the explicit purpose of initiating an adversary proceeding to “enforce” the bankruptcy court's February 9, 2005 Sale Order. The complaint attached to the motion sought inter alia, an injunction enjoining the homeowners from “enforcing the decisions of the Nebraska Supreme Court or any Orders arising there from (sic) ... [and] [d]eclaring that the Nebraska State Court's Orders that purport to modify or otherwise alter this Court's February 9, 2005 Order are void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”
After notice and a hearing, the bankruptcy court denied the Broekemeiers' and Mid-City's motion to reopen the Debtor's bankruptcy case. This appeal ensued.
Section 350(b) of the Bankruptcy Code governs the reopening of bankruptcy cases. It provides: “A case may be reopened in the court in which such case was closed to administer assets, to accord relief to the debtor, or for other cause.” 5 The decision to grant or deny a request under § 350(b) to reopen a bankruptcy case is committed to the broad discretion of the bankruptcy court.6 A motion to reopen a bankruptcy case should be granted “only where a compelling reason for reopening the case is demonstrated.” 7 And “[t]he longer the time between the closing of the estate and the motion to reopen the more compelling the reason for reopening the estate should be.” 8 The availability of relief in an alternative forum is a permissible factor on which to base a decision not to reopen a closed bankruptcy case.9 “[A] case should not be reopened to relieve a party of its own neglect or mistake.” 10
The bankruptcy court denied the Appellants' motion to reopen the Debtor's bankruptcy case based on a determination that the dispute the Appellants sought to adjudicate if the case was reopened- i.e., whether the Sale Order eliminated the covenants purportedly requiring the operation of a golf course on the property-had already been decided by the Nebraska Supreme Court, which the bankruptcy court determined had concurrent jurisdiction to interpret the Sale Order. Citing In re Apex Oil Co., Inc., for the above-stated proposition that the availability of relief in an alternative forum is a permissible factor on which to base a decision not to reopen a bankruptcy case, the bankruptcy court declined to give the Appellants a “second bite at the apple” in the bankruptcy court after they had chosen an alternative forum for their dispute.
We find no error in the bankruptcy court's findings or conclusions.
Federal courts' jurisdiction over bankruptcy cases is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1334. Section 1334(a) provides that the district court (and by delegation, the bankruptcy court) 11 has original and exclusive jurisdiction of “all cases under title 11;” Section 1334(b) confers original but not exclusive jurisdiction on all civil proceedings “arising under title 11, or arising in or related to cases under title 11;” and Section 1334(e) confers exclusive jurisdiction over all the property of the debtor as of the commencement of the case, and of property of the estate. 12
The Appellants argue that under § 1334(e) the bankruptcy court has exclusive jurisdiction to interpret the Sale Order because it involves property of the estate and the bankruptcy court had the exclusive jurisdiction to enter the order. The Appellants are correct that the bankruptcy court had the exclusive jurisdiction to enter the Sale Order, and if the Appellants had timely sought to appeal or modify the Sale Order, that action would also have been within the exclusive jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court under § 1334(e). However, the Appellants are mistaken in their argument that the bankruptcy court has exclusive jurisdiction to interpret the Sale Order. At this juncture, the Sale Order is final, and the property sold to the Broekemeiers/Liberty is no longer property of the estate. Moreover, despite the Appellants' framing of the issue in terms of whether the Nebraska Supreme Court had the jurisdiction to “modify” the Sale Order, there has been no modification of that order. The Nebraska Supreme Court simply interpreted the scope of the Sale Order as it applies to implied covenants running with the land. The fact that the Appellants disagree with the court's interpretation does not, in and of itself, transform the interpretation into a modification of the Sale Order.
In short, § 1334(e) does not limit jurisdiction to interpret the Sale Order exclusively to the bankruptcy court.
Perhaps the strongest basis for the bankruptcy court's jurisdiction over this dispute is its implicit authority and jurisdiction to interpret or enforce its own prior orders,13 but that jurisdiction is not exclusive, even with regard to the interpretation of orders approving sales of estate property. 14
Matters not committed to the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts are subject to the concurrent jurisdiction of state courts. 15 Therefore, the Nebraska State courts had jurisdiction to interpret the Sale Order, and the bankruptcy court was therefore correct in its conclusion that alternate relief was available to the Appellants and within its discretion to deny the Appellants' motion to reopen the Debtor's bankruptcy case.
The bankruptcy court's decision can also be affirmed on the basis that reopening the case would have been futile and a waste of judicial resources, 17 because the doctrine of res judicata precludes review of the Nebraska Supreme Court judgment, which is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sears v. Sears (In re AFY, Inc.)
...with another that he represents the same legal right." Mid–City Bank v. Skyline Woods HOA, et al., (In re Skyline Woods Country Club, LLC ), 431 B.R. 830, 837 (8th Cir. BAP 2010), aff'd 636 F.3d 467 (8th Cir. 2011). Plaintiff rely on the alleged conducts in the AFY bankruptcy, the alleged l......
-
In re Skyline Woods Country Club
...suit was entitled to preclusive effect and therefore reopening the bankruptcy case would be futile. In re Skyline Woods Country Club, LLC, 431 B.R. 830, 836–38 (8th Cir. BAP 2010). The Bank and Liberty appeal. As the second reviewing court, we must independently apply the same abuse-of-disc......
-
In re Sea Oaks Country Club, LLC
...already been decided by the Nebraska Supreme Court. See id. at 469-70, citing Mid-City Bank v. Skyline Woods Homeowners Assoc. (In re Skyline Woods Country Club, LLC), 431 B.R. 830, 835 (B.A.P. 8th Cir, 2010). In Skyline Woods Homeowners Ass'n, the Nebraska Supreme Court determined the exis......
-
Jester v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. (In re Jester)
...290 B.R. 792, 798 (10th Cir. BAP 2003). 81. In re Carberry, 186 B.R. 401, 402 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 1995). 82. In re Skyline Woods Country Club, LLC, 431 B.R. 830, 835 (8th Cir. BAP 2010) (affirming the bankruptcy court's denial of a motion to reopen on the basis that reopening the case would ha......