Golf Course Decision Leads to Attempt to Reopen Bankruptcy

the nebraska supreme court judgment, as well as the trial court's skyline woods homeowners assoc. * court was the same as they litigated in the state court action � i.e., whether the sale mid-city's motion to reopen the debtor's bankruptcy case. this appeal ensued. a bankruptcy court's decision whetherto reopen a bankruptcy case is reviewed against liberty and david and robin broekemeier in the district court for douglas as it applied to state taxes and abstaining in favor of state court). case is demonstrated."7 united states bankruptcy appellate panel issue in terms of whether the nebraska supreme court had the jurisdiction to record, even if that ground was not considered by the trial court. power equip. co. in its application, the ________________ 12 on which to base a decision not to reopen a closed bankruptcy case.9 supreme court or any orders arising there from (sic) . . . [and] [d]eclaring that the see in re carberry, 186 b.r. 401, 402 (bankr. e.d. va. 1995). "modify" the sale order, there has been no modification of that order. the nebraska already been decided by the nebraska supreme court, which the bankruptcy court reopening the bankruptcy case to re-litigate the issues decided in those judgments 2004). judgment, satisfies all of these elements. jurisdiction to interpret the sale order because it involves property of the estate and whatever the impact of privity principles on preclusion rules, gulf offshore co. v. mobil oil corp., 453 u.s. 473, 477, 101 s.ct. 2870, fifth, the appellants � directly or through privity � had a full and fair third, the state court litigation involved the same parties because mid-city is 5 section 1334(b) confers original but not exclusive jurisdiction on all civil proceedings commencement of the case, and of property of the estate.12 10 22 nebraska state court's orders that purport to modify or otherwise alter this court's on june 9, 2006, liberty filed a pleading entitled, "motion for enforcement of committed to the broad discretion of the bankruptcy court.6 the doctrine of res judicata precludes review of the nebraska supreme court forecloses that interest, which it has announced it intends to do, it would be a direct covenants purportedly requiring the operation of a golf course on the property � had * 6 the contrary has been made. bankruptcy case, the bankruptcy court declined to give the appellants a "second bite bankruptcy case. we find no error in the bankruptcy court's findings or conclusions. and within its discretion to deny the appellants' motion to reopen the debtor's therefore, the judgments entered by the nebraska trial court and the nebraska * specifically held that the bankruptcy court order confirming the sale did not eliminate first, the litigation between the broekemeiers and the homeowners resulted in adjudicate if the case was reopened � i.e., whether the sale order eliminated the supreme court are entitled to preclusive effect under the doctrine of res judicata. l.ed.2d 509 (1983) but that jurisdiction is not exclusive, even with regard to the interpretation a golf course run with the land and are enforceable against liberty. the state court unfavorable state-court decision to a lower federal court. the 13 has original and exclusive jurisdiction of "all cases under title 11;" _____ of orders approving sales of estate property.14 standard.4 _____ abuse of discretion standard is nearly indistinguishable from the clearly erroneous the honorable timothy j. mahoney, united states bankruptcy judge for election to sell the property. a final judgment on the merits. the trial court entered a summary judgment against relationship to the same right of property."21 bankruptcy case should be granted "only where a compelling reason for reopening the court's interpretation does not, in and of itself, transform the interpretation into a 14 law, they could be considered in privity with a party to the judgment. action would also have been within the exclusive jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court 2 cases. it provides: "a case may be reopened in the court in which such case was because that were offered and received in the first action, but matters which might have been 18 24, 2008, mid-city recorded with the recorder of deeds a notice of default and substantially all of its assets, including a portion of a golf course, to appellants david * appeal from the united states _____ 1334(e) confers exclusive jurisdiction over all the property of the debtor as of the a court abuses its discretion "when its ruling is founded under � 1334(e). however, the appellants are mistaken in their argument that the february 9, 2005 order are void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction." s.ct. 1517, where a party in effect seeks to take an appeal of an the restrictive covenants. on august 9, 2007, the state court issued an order clarifying oil co., inc., for the above-stated proposition that the availability of relief in an bankruptcy case based on a determination that the dispute the appellants sought to (citations omitted). 16 id. dispute is its implicit authority and jurisdiction to interpret or enforce its own prior 11 prevent those lawsuits from proceeding. the bankruptcy court notified liberty on skyline woods country club, llc, * bankruptcy court has exclusive jurisdiction to interpret the sale order. at this on december 5, 2008, the nebraska supreme court affirmed the trial court's order would have been futile. thus, the bankruptcy court properly exercised its discretion liberty for the purpose of applying the doctrine of res judicata to the state court the doctrine of res judicata prohibits the re-litigation of claims where: 1) a in refusing to reopen the debtor's bankruptcy case. ii. background broekemeier; and robin broekemeier, * court's decision on december 5, 2008. both of those decisions are final and not in short, � 1334(e) does not limit jurisdiction to interpret the sale order iv. conclusion for the reasons stated above, the bankruptcy court's order denying the 7 approximatelyonemonthafterlearningofthisdecision,skylinewoodshomeowners should be."8 motion to reopen the debtor's bankruptcy case. for the reasons stated below, we at the court's request, the parties briefed the issue of whether the rooker- interest with another that he represents the same legal right."22 mid-city bank, a nebraska banking * appealable. courts had jurisdiction to interpret the sale order, and the bankruptcy court was court entered an order ("sale order") approving the sale "free and clear of claims, 3 initiating an adversary proceeding to "enforce" the bankruptcy court's february 9, the preclusive effect of res judicata includes not only claims and defenses matters not committed to the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts are 2 court lawsuits violated the february 9, 2005 sale order and sought an injunction to 17 therefore correct in its conclusion that alternate relief was available to the appellants to address the issue of laches for the same reason. evidence of collusion might dictate the district of nebraska. bankruptcy case at that time. them), and 4) both suits are based upon the same claims or causes of action.18 case.16 v. * mid-city's participation in the lawsuit contemplated in the appellants' motion 604, 609 (8th cir. 1997). movants - appellants, * bankruptcy court for the district of section 350(b) of the bankruptcy code governs the reopening of bankruptcy modification of the sale order. v. case credit corp. (in re power equip. co.), 309 b.r. 552, 559 (b.a.p. 8th cir. first nat'l bank of olathe, kansas v. pontow (in re pontow), 111 f.3d section � 1334(c) governs abstention; it is not a grant of jurisdiction. fourth, the central issue the appellants sought to litigate in the bankruptcy ________________ gourley v. usery (in re usery), 242 b.r. 450, 457 (b.a.p. 8th cir. 1999). "arising under title 11, or arising in or related to cases under title 11;" and section objectors - appellees. * requirements to maintain the golf course property in the manner required by the judgment, which is exactly the relief the appellants sought. no longer property of the estate. moreover, despite the appellants' framing of the covenants running with the land. the fact that the appellants disagree with the supreme court simply interpreted the scope of the sale order as it applies to implied mid-city's interest in 2005 sale order. the complaint attached to the motion sought, inter alia, an order eliminated the implied restrictive covenants requiring the operation of a golf county, nebraska, asking the court to enforce certain restrictive covenants requiring association and individual homeowners (collectively, the "homeowners") filed suit covenants. affirm the decision of the bankruptcy court.1 woods revitalization, llc, filed a separate suit for the same purpose. the a privy is "a person so identified in 28 u.s.c. 157. submitted: may 28, 2010 no. 09-6073 * nebraska the bankruptcy court denied the appellants' motion to reopen the debtor's 21 11 u.s.c. � 350(b) (west 2010). * 10 this is an appeal of the bankruptcy court's order denying the appellants' party against whom res judicata is asserted must also have had a full and fair this lawsuit derives from its security interest in liberty's property. if mid-city a. the nebraska supreme court had concurrent jurisdiction to interpret the final and on the merits, 3) both suits involve the same parties (or those in privity with opportunity to litigate those issues before the state courts. at least, no allegation to in re: * 2006. the appellants argue that under � 1334(e) the bankruptcy court has exclusive iii. discussion on september 25, 2009, the broekemeiers and liberty, joined by mid-city, are correct that the bankruptcy court had the exclusive jurisdiction to enter the sale earlier state-court judgment simply because, for purposes of preclusion i. standard of review effect.19 venters, bankruptcy judge. in re eveleth mines, l.l.c., 318 b.r. 682, 687 (b.a.p. 8th cir. 2004) filed a motion to reopen the debtor's bankruptcy case for the explicit purpose of 1334. section 1334(a) provides that the district court (and by delegation, the and the motion to reopen the more compelling the reason for reopening the estate id. at 542. the original litigants. property are enforceable and run with the land, and that the bankruptcy sale order did the bankruptcy court's decision can also be affirmed on the basis that opportunity to litigate the matter in the proceeding that is to be given preclusive after notice and a hearing, the bankruptcy court denied the broekemeiers' and federal courts' jurisdiction over bankruptcy cases is governed by 28 u.s.c. � 23 corp. ("liberty"). appellant mid-city bank ("mid-city") financed the power equip. & marine, inc., 292 f.2d 61, 66 (1st cir. 2002) (finding that state in re marlar, 267 f.3d 749 (8th cir. 2001) record. neither liberty nor the broekemeiers took any further action in the not eliminate restrictive covenants. the nebraska supreme court affirmed the trial decision to grant or deny a request under � 350(b) to reopen a bankruptcy case is juncture, the sale order is final, and the property sold to the broekemeiers/liberty is that the property be used only as a golf course. paisley, llc, now known as skyline liens, and encumbrances." the debtor's bankruptcy case was closed on january 31, 8 order, and if the appellants had timely sought to appeal or modify the sale order, that 19 closed to administer assets, to accord relief to the debtor, or for other cause."5 lance v. dennis, 546 u.s. 459, 466, 126 s.ct. 1198, 1202, 163 l.ed.2d 1059 (2006). on march 28, 2007, the state court granted the homeowners' motion for 2785, 69 l.ed.2d 784 (1981). and robin broekemeier, who took title to the property in the name of liberty building b. res judicata warranted a denial of the appellants' motion to reopen the applies to the broekemeiers and liberty. however, in contrast to the doctrine of id. 15 june 12, 2006, that its motion would not be heard unless it moved the court to reopen decided.20 relief," in the debtor's closed bankruptcy case. the motion alleged that the state- a different conclusion, but we have no evidence of collusion here. 1 course on part of liberty's land. the order on summary judgment and specifying with more particularity the to reopen thus precludes the application of the rooker-feldman doctrine. we decline bankruptcy court to abstain in favor of state court). see also, in re middlesex 20 subject to the concurrent jurisdiction of state courts.15 and "[t]he longer the time between the closing of the estate 7 5 * 3 second, as discussed above, the nebraska state courts had jurisdiction to in re borer, 73 b.r. at 31. the bankruptcy court's february 9, 2005 order, including request for injunctive therefore, the nebraska state a motion to reopen a res judicata, the rooker-feldman doctrine does not apply to those in privity with bankruptcy court)11 debtor. * see in re borer, 73 b.r. 29, 31 (bankr. n.d. ohio 1987) "[a] case should court of competent jurisdiction rendered thepriorjudgment,2)thepriorjudgmentwas filed: june 17, 2010 for the eighth circuit shortly thereafter, liberty defaulted on its loan to mid-city, and on december not be reopened to relieve a party of its own neglect or mistake."10 petition on december 15, 2004. on or about february 4, 2005, the debtor sold orders,13 we may affirm the bankruptcy court's order on any basis supported by the court had concurrent jurisdiction to interpret "free and clear" language in sale order see nevada v. united states, 463 u.s. 110, 129-30, 103 s.ct. 2906, 77 and clear" language in sale order as it applied to state taxes and directing appellants' motion to reopen the case is affirmed. in re apex oil co., inc., 406 f.3d 538, 542 (8th cir. 2005). 9 judgments at issue in this case.23 covenants. liberty appealed the trial court's order to the nebraska supreme court. the in re pennino, 299 b.r. 536, 538 (b.a.p. 8th cir. 2003). 4 rooker-feldman doctrine does not bar actions by nonparties to the feldman doctrine should be applied in this case. quite clearly, that doctrine alternative forum is a permissible factor on which to base a decision not to reopen a a nebraska corporation; david * id. at 690-92 (holding that state court had jurisdiction to interpret "free the broekemeiers decided to not reopen the golf course. on april 25, 2006, 8 broekemeiers' purchase of the debtor's assets. on february 9, 2005, the bankruptcy and skyline woods revitalization, llc,* before kressel, chief judge, federman and venters, bankruptcy judges. the case and paid the necessary filing fee. the court struck liberty's motion from the in privity with liberty. in the eighth circuit,"[p]rivity denotes mutual or successive sale order. 6 see rutherford v. kessel, 560 f.3d 874, 877 (8th cir. 2009). the bankruptcy court had the exclusive jurisdiction to enter the order. the appellants reopening the case would have been futile and a waste of judicial resources,17 the availability of relief in an alternative forum is a permissible factor applies only in "limited circumstances," exxon mobil, supra, at 291, 125 corporation; liberty building corp., * 4 their dispute. in re apex oil co., inc., 406 f.3d at 543 (quotations omitted). the broekemeiers on march 26, 2007, holding that the restrictive covenants on the * interpret whether the bankruptcy court's sale order eliminated the restrictive 9 the debtor, skyline woods country club, llc, filed a chapter 11 bankruptcy rooker-feldman is not simply preclusion by another name. the doctrine on an error of law or a misapplication of law to the facts."3 perhaps the strongest basis for the bankruptcy court's jurisdiction over this at the apple" in the bankruptcy court after they had chosen an alternative forum for summary judgment, finding that the restrictive covenants requiring the operation of and held that the restrictive covenants are in effect and enforceable. exclusively to the bankruptcy court. determined had concurrent jurisdiction to interpret the sale order. citing in re apex for an abuse of discretion.2 injunction enjoining the homeowners from "enforcing the decisions of the nebraska successor to liberty's interests in the property. thus, mid-city is in privity with