Moore v. Ga. United Credit Union

• Decision Date: 29 March 2021
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO.: 4:20-cv-172
• Parties: TRENDA F. MOORE, Appellant, v. GEORGIA UNITED CREDIT UNION, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia

TRENDA F. MOORE, Appellant, v. GEORGIA UNITED CREDIT UNION, Appellee.

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 4:20-cv-172

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISION

March 29, 2021

ORDER

AppellantTrenda F. Moore("Debtor") appeals the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Georgia's decision to sustain Appellee Georgia United Credit Union's ("Creditor") Objection to Confirmation and to grant Creditor's Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay.(Doc. 1-1.)The main issue before the Court is whether the Bankruptcy Court erred by granting Creditor relief from the automatic stay on Debtor's 1.027-acre tract of land.Debtor filed a brief enumerating the alleged errors committed by the Bankruptcy Court in reaching its decision.(Doc. 7.)Creditor then filed its brief, (doc. 8), and Debtor filed a Reply, (doc. 9).For the reasons set forth below, the CourtAFFIRMSthe Bankruptcy Court's decision.(Doc. 2-1, pp. 188-90; doc. 5.)

BACKGROUND

I.Factual Background

In 2000, Debtor's mother, pursuant to a Certificate of Order of Year's Support, became the sole owner of 13.25 acres of real property located at 440 Mill Creek Church Road in Ellabell, Bryan County, Georgia 31308.(Doc. 2-2, pp. 50-52; doc. 5, p. 9.)In May 2005, Debtor's mother divided the 13.25-acre property into two parcels: one 1.027-acre parcel (the "1-Acre Parcel") and one 12.22-acre parcel (the "12-Acre Parcel").(Doc. 2-2, pp. 53-55; doc. 5, p. 9.)Shortly thereafter, Debtor and her mother obtained a loan from Creditor for $25,000, which was secured by the entire 13.25-acre property (i.e., both the 1-Acre Parcel and the 12-Acre Parcel).(Doc. 2-2, pp. 4-13; doc. 5, pp. 9-10.)The parties later modified the loan on two occasions, raising the loan amount to $65,000 and extending the maturity date to April 16, 2023.(Doc. 2-2, pp. 15-19; doc. 5, p. 10.)In 2010, Debtor's mother transferred ownership of the 1-Acre Parcel to Debtor by executing a deed of gift, but the mother retained sole ownership of the 12-Acre Parcel.(Doc. 2-2, pp. 20-21; doc. 5, p. 10.)The 1-Acre Parcel then became known as 420 Mill Creek Church Road, Ellabell, Bryan County, Georgia, 31308.(Doc. 2-2, p. 55; doc. 5, p. 10.)A brick home sits on the 12-Acre Parcel, and a mobile home sits on the 1-Acre Parcel.(Doc. 5, p. 10.)

In 2019, Debtor's mother died, and her will was admitted to probate.(Doc. 2-2, pp. 26-49; doc. 5, pp. 10-11.)The will, in pertinent part, provided:

I give, and bequeath all my rights, title, and interest which I have in my residence located at 440 Mill Creek Church Road, Ellabell, Georgia to my children, James J. Moore, Icen L. Moore, Sr., Debra M. Simmons, Elijah E. Moore, Bertha F. Davis, Anjeanette Mutcherson, Ella M. Moore, and Trenda F. Scott equally to share and share alike.

(Doc. 2-2, p. 44.)Thus, as the Bankruptcy Court noted, Debtor, at most, holds a one-eighth interest in the 12-Acre Parcel.(Doc. 2-1, p. 189 n.1.)Debtor last made a payment to Creditor in August 2019.(Doc. 2-3, p. 21; doc. 5, p. 11.)

II.Procedural History

Debtor filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy on February 28, 2020.(Doc. 2-1, pp. 9-15; doc. 5, p. 4.)In her bankruptcy petition, Debtor listed, among other things, the 12-Acre Parcel (including the brick home), the 1-Acre Parcel, and the mobile home sitting on the 1-Acre Parcelas properties in which she holds an interest.(Doc. 2-1, pp. 24-25; doc. 5, pp. 4-5.)In the "other information"section next to where Debtor listed the 12-Acre Parcel, Debtor indicated that title to the 12-Acre Parcel had not been transferred to her.(Doc. 2-1, p. 25; doc. 5, p. 5.)Debtor valued the mobile home at $18,610.30, the 1-Acre parcel at $10,700, and the 12-Acre Parcel, including the brick home, at $88,800.(Doc. 2-1, pp. 24-25; doc. 5, p. 5.)Debtor stated that she had an interest in the 12-Acre Parcel with "another" and she valued her ownership interest in the 12-Acre Parcel at $10,656.(Doc. 2-1, p. 25.)The only evidence presented to the Bankruptcy Court regarding the value of the properties were the properties' tax parcel maps, which show an "assessed value" for each.(Doc. 2-2, pp. 54-55; doc. 5, p. 11.)The 12-Acre Parcel's tax map, like Debtor, valued the property at $88,800, (doc. 2-2, p. 54), and the 1-Acre Parcel's map valued the property at $39,370, a value which presumably includes the mobile home's value, (id. at p. 55).No appraisal was performed on the properties as separate parcels or as one combined parcel.(Doc. 5, p. 11.)

After filing her bankruptcy petition, Debtor submitted her Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan.(Doc. 2-1, pp. 65-68; doc. 5, p. 5.)In relevant part, Debtor's bankruptcy plan classified Creditor as possessing a one-dollar claim secured by the 1-Acre Parcel with a 4.25% interest rate and a monthly payment of one dollar.(Doc. 2-1, p. 66; doc. 5, pp. 5-6.)The plan further contemplates Debtor surrendering the 12-Acre Parcel to Creditor in full satisfaction of the debt.(Doc. 2-1, p. 67; doc. 5, p. 6.)The plan then contains a non-standard provision, which provides that "[a]ny foreclosure notice concerning the [12-Acre Parcel] must specifically exclude [the 1-Acre Parcel].The 13.25 acres in legal description in security deed includes both properties - only the [12-Acre Parcel] is being surrendered."(Doc. 2-1, p. 68.)In short, Debtor's plan calls for a partialsurrender¹ of collateral by surrendering to Creditor the 12-Acre Parcel, of which she shares ownership with her mother's other heirs, while retaining the 1-Acre Parcel of which she is the sole owner.

Creditor filed a Motion for Relief from Automatic Stay, (doc. 2-1, pp. 80-83), a Motion for Relief from Co-Debtor Stay,²(id. at pp. 106-09), and an Objection to Confirmation, (id. at pp. 76-78).Creditor also filed a proof of claim for $67,121.27 secured by the entire 13.25-acre property.(Doc. 2-3.)

The Bankruptcy Court sustained Creditor's Objection to Confirmation and granted the motions for relief from the automatic stay and co-debtor stay, finding that Creditor "established cause for relief under [11 U.S.C. §] 362(d) and that its interests would be irreparably harmed by continuing the co-debtor's stay under [11 U.S.C. §] 1301(c)."(Doc. 5, pp. 25-26.)Debtor now appeals the Bankruptcy Court's decision to sustain Creditor's Objection to Confirmation and grant Creditor's Motion for Relief from Automatic Stay.(See doc. 1-1.)In her brief, Debtor argues that the Bankruptcy Court erred in granting relief from the automatic stay on the 1-Acre Parcel by: (1)"determining that [Debtor's] inherited interest in the [12-Acre Parcel] . . . was not property of the [bankruptcy] estate;"(2)"determining the partial surrender proposed in [Debtor's]Chapter 13 Plan does not satisfy the provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 1322and11 U.S.C. § 1325;" and (3)"granting relieffrom the automatic stay to [Creditor] . . . when the surrender of the [12-Acre Parcel], in which [Debtor] has a partial ownership interest, satisfies the claim of [Creditor] in full."(Doc. 7, pp. 10, 15, 22.)Debtor does not argue that the Bankruptcy Court erred in granting stay relief as to the 12-Acre Parcel.(See generallyid.)Creditor filed its brief, (doc. 8), and Debtor filed a Reply, (doc. 9).

STANDARD OF REVIEW

This court has jurisdiction over appeals of a final order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Georgia pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(a).An order granting relief from a stay is a final order within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 158(a).See, e.g., Old W. Annuity & Life Ins. Co. v. Apollo Grp., 605 F.3d 856, 862(11th Cir.2010)("A stay-relief order is a final order that is immediately appealable.").

The Court functions as an appellate court in reviewing the Bankruptcy Court's determinations.28 U.S.C. § 158(a);In re Williams, 216 F.3d 1295, 1296(11th Cir.2000).As such, the Court reviews the Bankruptcy Court's findings of fact under a "clearly erroneous" standard of review and its interpretation and application of the Bankruptcy Code under de novo review.In re Feingold, 730 F.3d 1268, 1272 n.2(11th Cir.2013).Furthermore, "[a] decision to lift the [automatic] stay is discretionary with the bankruptcy judge[] and may be reversed only upon a showing of abuse of discretion."In re Dixie Broad., Inc., 871 F.2d 1023, 1026(11th Cir.1989)."An abuse of discretion occurs when a court uses an incorrect legal standard, applies the law in an unreasonable or incorrect manner, misconstrues its proper role, follows improper procedures in making a determination, or makes clearly erroneous findings of fact."In re Bagwell, 741 F. App'x 755, 758(11th Cir.2018)(citingSciarretta v. Lincoln Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 778 F.3d 1205, 1212(11th Cir.2015)).

DISCUSSION

I.Jurisdiction

Before reaching the merits of Debtor's arguments, the Court must ensure it has jurisdiction to entertain her appeal of the Bankruptcy Court's order granting relief from the automatic stay.SeeIn re Meus, 718 F. App'x 937, 940(11th Cir.2018)("We'may not assume jurisdiction for the purpose of deciding the merits of the case.'")(quotingSinochem Int'l Co. v. Malaysia Int'l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 430-31(2007)).The specific concern to the Court in this case is mootness.SeeNat'l Advert. Co. v. City of Miami, 402 F.3d 1329, 1331-32(11th Cir.2005)("[B]ecause the question of mootness is jurisdictional in nature, it may be raised by the courtsua sponte, regardless of whether the district court considered it or if the parties briefed the issue.")."[A]n issue is moot when it no longer presents a live controversy with respect to which the court can give meaningful relief."In re Meus, 718 F. App'x at 941(quotingChristian Coal of Fla., Inc. v. United States, 662 F.3d 1182, 1189(11th Cir.2011))."When a debtor fails to obtain a stay pending appeal of an order granting a creditor relief from the automatic stay and allowing that creditor to foreclose on the debtor's...