Vynogradov v. Buzyukova
| Decision Date | 04 November 2021 |
| Docket Number | 21-CIV-60433-RAR |
| Parties | OLEKSIY VYNOGRADOV, Appellant, v. YULIA STANISLAVOVNA BUZYUKOVA, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida |
ORDER DISMISSING BANKRUPTCY APPEAL
Appellant Oleksiy Vynogradov, appeals the United States Bankruptcy Court's Order (I) Sustaining Objection to Claim; (II) Denying Motion to Dismiss; and (III) Sanctioning Oleksiy Vynogradov for Violating the Automatic Stay, [ECF No. 1] (“Order”) at 3-4, as well as the Bankruptcy Court's Final Judgment, [ECF No. 1] (“Final Judgment”) at 6-7.[1]
Specifically Appellant alleges that the Bankruptcy Court committed reversible error regarding factual findings and legal conclusions in its Order and Final Judgment-and by ruling that Appellant's claim is forever barred under 11 U.S.C § 523(a)(3). In response, Appellee, Yulia Stanislavovna Buzyukova, asserts that the Bankruptcy Court did not err in its factual findings or legal conclusions and maintains that Appellant brings this appeal improperly, making “sensational attacks” on the Bankruptcy Court.
Having considered the record in its entirety, Appellant's Initial Brief [ECF No. 18] (“Initial Brief”), Appellee's Response Brief [ECF No. 19] (“Response”), and Appellant's Reply Brief [ECF No. 21] (“Reply”), it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Bankruptcy Court's Order and Final Judgment are AFFIRMED, and this appeal is DISMISSED.
This case centers around a final judgment dating back to February 13, 2014. [ECF No. 8] (“Final Hearing Tr.”) at 6. Appellant had a business relationship with Appellee and her husband. Id. at 6. The business relationship deteriorated, and litigation ensued. Id.; see also Initial Br. at 11-12. Ultimately, Appellant was awarded a final summary judgment for $123, 329.28 against Appellee and her husband. Final Hearing Tr. at 6. That judgment went unpaid and is now at issue in Appellee's voluntary Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition, filed on June 26, 2019 in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida. Initial Br. at 11; Final Hearing Tr. at 7.
Appellee filed her original Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition on June 26, 2019. Initial Br. at 14. On July 8, 2019, Appellee filed her First Amended Chapter 13 plan. Id. The claims bar date in this case was September 5, 2019. Final Hearing Tr. at 9. On September 11, 2019, Appellee filed a Second Amended Chapter 13 Plan. Initial Br. at 6. On October 3, 2019, the Court entered an Order Confirming Appellee's Second Amended Chapter 13 Plan. Id. In December of 2019, Appellee's husband pled guilty to money laundering in the District of New Jersey. Department of Justice, Florida Man Admits Laundering More than $9 Million in Account Takeover Scheme, JUSTICE.GOV, https://www.justice.gov/usao-nj/pr/florida-man-admits-laundering-more-9-million-account-takeover-scheme (last visited October 25, 2021).
Appellee listed the $123, 329.28 claim as a debt on her original bankruptcy petition and schedules. Final Hearing Tr. at 7. Attached to the claim were three creditors: Appellant; Iryna Kobets; and the IK School of Gymnastics, LLC. Id. She listed 15901 Biscayne Boulevard, North Miami Beach, Florida, 33160 as the address for the IK School of Gymnastics, LLC and 18201 Collins Avenue, Apartment 5005, North Miami Beach, Florida 33160 as Appellant and Kobet's address. Id. at 7-8. To the best of Appellee's knowledge, Appellant and Kobets were living together and shared a son. Id. at 9. Thus, she listed the same address for both of them. Id. In addition, Appellee included Appellant, Kobets, and the IK School of Gymnastics as creditors on the list required under 11 U.S.C. § 521 and Bankruptcy Rule 1007(a)(1). Id. Appellee relied on Sunbiz, a State of Florida Division of Corporations' website, to locate the creditors' addresses. Id. at 9.
On October 1, 2019, Appellant filed a proof of claim in Appellee's Bankruptcy Case for $161, 618.19. Id. at 9. On that claim, Appellant listed his address as 18201 Collins Avenue, Apartment 5005, Sunny Isles Beach, Florida 33160. Id. at 10. As judicially noticed by the Court, Appellant's address is the same on both Appellee's bankruptcy filings and on Appellant's proof of claim. Id. Upon Appellant's filing of the claim, Appellee's attorney objected to the claim as untimely. Id. at 11. Appellant filed a pro se response, alleging that he did not receive timely and proper notice of Appellee's bankruptcy and requesting that Appellee's Chapter 13 bankruptcy be dismissed. Id. Appellant had actual notice of the claim on or around September 3, 2019, at least two days before the claims bar date.[2] Id. at 12.
On April 21, 2020, Appellant, proceeding pro se in state court, filed an Order to Show Cause regarding Contempt and an affidavit of Appellant for an Order to Show Cause why Igor and Yulia Buzyukova should not be held in criminal contempt of court for failing to pay the judgment due to the IK School of Gymnastics, Kobets, and Appellant. Id. at 16-17. Appellant served only Appellee's attorneys and as a result, Appellee did not become aware of the filing until the summer of 2020. Id. Upon receiving the news, Appellee researched care for her children in the event she was arrested and jailed until the debt was repaid. Id. at 18. On August 26, 2020, Appellee's counsel demanded $25, 000 in damages from Appellant for violating the automatic stay in the bankruptcy case. Id. On that same day, Appellant's counsel withdrew Appellant's motion for criminal contempt in state court. Id. Five days later, on September 21, 2020, Appellee filed a Motion for Contempt in the Bankruptcy Court for violating the automatic stay. Id.
On November 19, 2021, the Bankruptcy Court held an evidentiary hearing, [ECF No. 17 1] at 3963-4196 (“Evidentiary Hearing Tr.”), on three contested matters in this case: Appellee's Objection to Claim of IK School of Gymnastics and Oleksiy Vynogradov; Appellant's Amended Request for Dismissal of Appellee's Bankruptcy Petition; and Appellee's Motion to Hold Appellant in Contempt of Court for Violation of the Automatic Stay. Final Hearing Tr. at 5. The Bankruptcy Court presented it's ruling in a February 10, 2021 hearing. Final Hearing Tr. In its final Order, the Bankruptcy Court sustained Appellee's Objection to Appellant's Claim, denied Appellant's Amended Request for Dismissal of Bankruptcy Petition, and granted Appellee's Motion for Contempt. Order at 4-5.
“The district court must accept the bankruptcy court's factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous, but reviews a bankruptcy court's legal conclusions de novo.” In re Englander, 95 F.3d 1028, 1030 (11th Cir. 1996) (citation and internal quotations omitted). “A finding is clearly erroneous when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court upon examining the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Kane v. Stewart Tilghman Fox & Bianchi, P.A., 485 B.R. 460, 468 (S.D. Fla. 2013) (citing United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)) (internal quotations omitted).
“If the lower court's assessment of the evidence is plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety, the reviewing court may not reverse it even though convinced that had it been sitting as the trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently.” Id. (citing Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573-574 (1985)). “Under de novo review, this Court independently examines the law and draws its own conclusions after applying the law to the facts of the case, without regard to decisions made by the Bankruptcy Court.” In re Brown, No. 08-1517-Orl-18, 2008 WL 5050081, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 19, 2008) (citing In re Piper Aircraft Corp., 244 F.3d 1289, 1295 (11th Cir. 2001)). A district court may affirm a bankruptcy court order on “any ground supported by the record.” In re Gosman, 382 B.R. 826, 839 n.3 (S.D. Fla. 2007) (citing Bircoll v. Miami-Dade County, 480 F.3d 1072, 1088 n.21 (11th Cir. 2007)) (internal citation omitted).
Appellant claims the Bankruptcy Court committed reversible error in both its Order and Final Judgment. Initial Br. at 10. In response, Appellee contends that the Bankruptcy Court did not commit clear error in either its Order or Final Judgment. Resp. at 8. The Court agrees with Appellee and will address the issues raised on appeal in turn. As a result, the Bankruptcy Court's Order is AFFIRMED and this appeal is DISMISSED as set forth herein.
Appellant argues that the Bankruptcy Court committed “clear error” when finding that: (1) Appellant was “trained in the law”; (2) Appellee's material errors and omissions in her bankruptcy filings were the result of sloppiness; (3) Appellee was not a pro bono client; (4) Appellant was noticed at the proper address; and (5) the Bankruptcy Court's determination of witnesses' credibility was faulty. A bankruptcy court commits “clear error” when the Court is left with a firm conviction that the evidence shows a mistake was committed. See Kane, 485 B.R. at 468. On all five issues, a careful review of the record belies any finding that the Bankruptcy Court committed clear error.
First Appellant contends that the Bankruptcy Court committed clear error when finding that Appellant had legal training. Initial Br. 14-15. On September 24, 2020, the Bankruptcy Court held a hearing to determine whether a translator, Mr. Parshin, engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by aiding Appellant in the filing of certain motions and during state court proceedings held on June 11, 2020. [ECF No. 6] (“Parshin Hearing”). ...
To continue reading
Request your trial