Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01084/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01084-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 422
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Appeals Rule 28 USC 158
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-1084

___________

Alvin L. Baldwin, *

*

Appellant, * 

* Appeal from the Bankruptcy 

v. * Appellate Panel for the Eighth 

* Circuit.

Credit Based Asset Servicing and *

Securitization, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: October 18, 2007

 Filed: February 25, 2008

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, GRUENDER and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

BENTON, Circuit Judge.

Alvin Leroy Baldwin, debtor, appeals the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s denial

of his motion to rescind the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of his Chapter 13 case.

Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1), this court reverses and remands.

Since 1996, Baldwin has filed eight Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases, all of which

were dismissed before confirmation of a plan. After four of the filings, in May 2002,

Baldwin and the predecessor of Credit Based Asset Servicing and Securitization

(CBASS) entered into a home loan. After the dismissal of his sixth Chapter 13 case,

CBASS scheduled a foreclosure sale for March 24, 2005. That day Baldwin filed a

Appellate Case: 07-1084 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/25/2008 Entry ID: 3405808
-2-

Chapter 13 petition, which was dismissed two months later. CBASS scheduled

another foreclosure sale for July 14, which was canceled when the parties reached a

workout agreement. Baldwin defaulted. CBASS scheduled a third foreclosure sale

for March 2, 2006. Baldwin filed his eighth Chapter 13 case on February 23. CBASS

postponed the foreclosure sale to March 9. On March 3, CBASS moved to expedite

and to dismiss, or in the alternative, for relief from the automatic stay. The attorney’s

“Certificate of Service” to the motion states that “a copy of this document was either

electronically mailed or forwarded first-class regular mail March 3, 2006 to . . . Alvin

Leroy Baldwin.” 

The bankruptcy court set a hearing on CBASS’s motion at 9:00 a.m. on March

9. When the case was called, CBASS orally informed the court that personal service

was obtained on March 7 (no affidavit or other evidence regarding service appears in

the record). CBASS told the court that “mailed copies would have also gone out of

my office on March the 3rd.” Because Baldwin was not present, the bankruptcy court

moved the case to the end of the morning docket. When the case was called at 10:38

a.m., Baldwin was not present. No evidence was presented. After hearing from

CBASS, the bankruptcy court adopted the first eleven allegations of CBASS’s motion

as its findings of fact, including that the case was filed solely to hinder, delay, and

frustrate creditors, and thus not in good faith. The court, “after notice and hearing,”

dismissed the case, barred Baldwin from refiling for 180 days, and denied (as moot)

the motion for relief from the stay. CBASS conducted the foreclosure sale at about

11:00 a.m., selling the property to a third party.

At 12:34 p.m., Baldwin pro se filed a motion objecting to the expedited hearing

and requesting rescission of the sale. He alleged, “I have not been served in person

since I have not been home in months. I have been out of town on business.” Further,

he said that he “just received this notice today March 10, 2006, at 10:45 a.m. by

United States mail at my residence.” No affidavits were attached to the motion, which

was not verified. Baldwin did attach a copy of the envelope, which is correctly

Appellate Case: 07-1084 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/25/2008 Entry ID: 3405808
-3-

addressed but has no discernible postage date. On March 15, the bankruptcy court

denied Baldwin’s motion as moot because the “motion was not filed until after the

hearing was held” (by a form entry on the face of the motion).

On March 23, 2006, Baldwin filed another pro se motion requesting

reinstatement of the Chapter 13 case and rescission of the sale, due to inadequate

notice. In this motion, Baldwin alleged that the mailed notice arrived at his residence

at 10:30 a.m. on March 9. Again, no affidavits were attached to the motion, which

was not verified. On March 28, the bankruptcy court denied that motion because it

was “filed more than ten days from date of dismissal” (by a form entry on the face of

the motion). See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9023; Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).

Baldwin appealed to the BAP, which agreed that the March 9 filing was

untimely and therefore did not consider it. However, in contrast to the bankruptcy

court, the BAP characterized Baldwin’s March 23 filing as a motion under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4). See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9024. Rule 60(b)(4)

motions are not subject to a ten-day limitation like that applied by the bankruptcy

court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). The BAP limited its consideration to whether the

bankruptcy court should have vacated the dismissal order due to a lack of due process.

The BAP held that the mailed notice was reasonable and appropriate under the

circumstances of the case and thus satisfied due process. In reaching this conclusion,

the BAP presumed that CBASS mailed notice on March 3 and attempted to personally

serve Baldwin. Baldwin appeals.

This court, applying the same standard as the BAP, reviews “the bankruptcy

court’s findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo.” In re

Papio Keno Club, Inc., 262 F.3d 725, 728-29 (8th Cir. 2001). “If we conclude that

the bankruptcy court’s findings are silent or ambiguous as to an outcome

determinative fact question, we may not make our own findings but must remand the

Appellate Case: 07-1084 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/25/2008 Entry ID: 3405808
-4-

case to the bankruptcy court for the necessary factual determination.” Sholdan v.

Dietz, 108 F.3d 886, 888 (8th Cir. 1997). 

Rule 60(b)(4) provides that a court may relieve a party from a final judgment

if it is void. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4). “A judgment is void if the rendering court

lacked jurisdiction or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process.” Kessler v.

Crichton, 221 F.3d 1342, 1342 (8th Cir. 2000) (unpublished; per curiam). See also

Chambers v. Armontrout, 16 F.3d 257, 260 (8th Cir. 1994). “[R]elief from a void

judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4) is not discretionary.” Hunter v. Underwood, 362

F.3d 468, 475 (8th Cir. 2004) (internal citations omitted). 

The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires that, before property

can be taken, notice and an opportunity for a hearing be provided. Mullane v. Cent.

Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 313 (1950). In general, notice must be

“reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the

pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.”

Id. at 314. The Due Process Clause does not require that an interested party actually

receive notice. Crum v. Vincent, 493 F.3d 988, 993 (8th Cir. 2007).

“Where the Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rules specify the notice required

prior to entry of an order, due process generally entitles a party to receive the notice

specified before an order binding the party will be afforded preclusive effect.” In re

Banks, 299 F.3d 296, 302 (4th Cir. 2002). See also In re Ruehle, 412 F.3d 679, 683-

84 (6th Cir. 2005); In re Hanson, 397 F.3d 482, 485-86 (7th Cir. 2005). Under

bankruptcy law, a court can dismiss a Chapter 13 case only after notice and a hearing,

which means “after such notice as is appropriate in the particular circumstances, and

such opportunity for a hearing as is appropriate in the particular circumstances.” 11

U.S.C. §§ 102(1)(A), 1307(c). This bankruptcy court’s local rule provides: “When

a motion is heard on an expedited or emergency basis . . . the motion and notice of

hearing must be served as expeditiously as possible (e.g. by personal service or

Appellate Case: 07-1084 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/25/2008 Entry ID: 3405808
-5-

electronic means) upon opposing counsel or upon the opposing party if not

represented by counsel, and any other necessary parties.” Bankr. E.D. Mo. R. 9060-

1(C), citing Bankr. E.D. Mo. R. 9013-2. 

In the present case, the bankruptcy court denied Baldwin’s March 23 motion

because it was filed more than ten days after dismissal. A Rule 60(b)(4) motion must

be made within a reasonable time, not necessarily within ten days. See Fed. R. Civ.

P. 60(c)(1). Clearly, the bankruptcy court did not view this motion as one under Rule

60(b)(4). True, Baldwin did not label his motion by referencing any particular rule

of civil procedure. See Sanders v. Clemco Indus., 862 F.2d 161, 164-65, 168-69 (8th

Cir. 1988) (discussing differences in characterizing unlabeled motion for

reconsideration as either under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b)). Pro se motions are,

however, to be construed liberally. See Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 915 (8th Cir.

2004); Miller v. Norris, 247 F.3d 736, 739 (8th Cir. 2001). 

In his March 23 motion, Baldwin alleges: 

Movant was required by L.B.R. 9013-2, to have served the Motion for

Expedited Hearing by personal service or electronic means upon the

opposing counsel or upon the opposing party if not represented by

counsel. Debtor was never served in person or electronically.

Baldwin conspicuously alleged on the first page of that motion that “he did not receive

proper notice of hearing.” See Spinar v. South Dakota Bd. of Regents, 796 F.2d

1060, 1062 (8th Cir. 1986) (characterization of unlabeled motion for reconsideration

depends to some extent on the substance of the motion). Constitutionally defective

notice would render the underlying judgment void. See Kessler, 221 F.3d at 1342; In

re Hairopoulos, 118 F.3d 1240, 1246 (8th Cir. 1997). The bankruptcy court should

have characterized the March 23 motion as a Rule 60(b)(4) motion and therefore erred

in denying it for untimeliness. 

Appellate Case: 07-1084 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/25/2008 Entry ID: 3405808
-6-

The issue then becomes whether the error was harmless, based on the facts of

the case. See In re Interco, Inc., 186 F.3d 1032, 1034 (8th Cir. 1999) (even if earlier

notice were required by bankruptcy rule, due process was not violated by the notice

that debtor in fact received); In re New Concept Housing, Inc., 951 F.2d 932, 937-39

(8th Cir. 1991) (applying harmless error analysis to violations of bankruptcy notice

requirements). Based on the record facts, even if the bankruptcy court had properly

characterized the motion as under Rule 60(b)(4), this court cannot determine whether

the bankruptcy court would have denied the motion (by finding that CBASS complied

with constitutional notice requirements). At the expedited hearing, the bankruptcy

court received no evidence and then adopted facts that do not mention notice. The

bankruptcy court dismissed Baldwin’s March 23 motion as untimely without any factfinding. As a result, the only agreed fact regarding notice is that CBASS’s counsel

mailed an envelope to Baldwin (which does not contain a discernible postage date).

All other information regarding notice is from allegations by CBASS’s counsel or

Baldwin. The fact that notice was mailed at some point is not sufficient for this court

to determine whether notice satisfied due process, and consequently whether the

bankruptcy court’s error was harmless. 

The denial of the March 23 motion is reversed, and the case remanded to the

bankruptcy court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-1084 Page: 6 Date Filed: 02/25/2008 Entry ID: 3405808