Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06184/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06184-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Leonard Edd
Appellant
Linda L. Samuel
Appellee

Document Text:

LINDA L. 

v. 

LEONARD 

F 1 .L .!~ 1J 

Unitod St.at~ Coili·tof Ap;:::b 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Ter.t>i c···:--..::~ 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT APR 2 4 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

SAMUEL, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

) 

) 

) 

EDD, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellant. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Clerk . 

No. 91-6184 

(D.C. No. 90-CV-1813-T) 

(W.D. Okla . ) 

Before SEYMOUR, ANDERSON, Circuit Judges, and SAM,** District 

Judge . 

**Honorable David Sam, District Judge, United States District 

Court for the District of Utah, sitting by designation. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Defendant Leonard Edd appeals from an order of the district 

court affirming a bankruptcy court order which entered default 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36 . 3. 

Appellate Case: 91-6184 Document: 010110243067 Date Filed: 04/24/1992 Page: 1
judgment against Edd. We affirm. 

Plaintiff Linda L. Samuel commenced this adversary proceeding 

in Edd's Chapter 7 bankruptcy case to determine the 

dischargeability of a state court award of $19,129.00 plus 

$5,500.00 for attorney's fees entered in divorce proceedings 

between Samuel and Edd. Samuel claimed the state court award was 

in the nature of alimony and was not dischargeable. 

In response, Edd filed a motion to dismiss the complaint 

which the bankruptcy court denied. Edd next filed a motion for 

summary judgment which he failed to serve on Samuel. (At no time 

did Edd file an answer to the complaint.) Edd did not appear at 

the scheduled hearing on his motion. Samuel made an oral motion 

for default at that time. The bankruptcy court granted the motion 

and entered judgment in favor of Samuel for $19,129.00 plus 

$5,500.00 attorney's fees. 

On the chance that Edd's motions could be construed as an 

appearance under Bankr. R. 7055(b)(2), Samuel gave the requisite 

three-day notice of the hearing on her motion. Edd again did not 

appear, and the bankruptcy court entered default judgment. Edd 

did not file a motion to reconsider in bankruptcy court but 

instead appealed to the district court. 

While the appeal was pending, Samuel filed a post-judgment 

garnishment summons to Edd's employer in bankruptcy court. Edd 

filed a claim for exemption. The bankruptcy court denied the 

exemption, and Edd requested a stay of execution without posting 

bond. The bankruptcy court denied the stay holding that Edd had 

failed to meet the standards for a discretionary stay. 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-6184 Document: 010110243067 Date Filed: 04/24/1992 Page: 2
The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's order. 

The court also denied Edd's motion for an order staying the 

garnishment proceedings with the proviso that if Edd were to post 

a supersedeas bond in the proper amount, the motion would be 

considered for approval. 

On appeal to this court, Edd argues the district court erred 

when it determined that (1) the bankruptcy court properly held 

Samuel was entitled to default judgment, (2) Edd received proper 

notice prior to the entry of default, (3) the bankruptcy court had 

jurisdiction to enter a money judgment, and (4) Edd was not 

entitled to a stay of execution of the bankruptcy court's judgment 

pending appeal. Edd also appears to argue that Samuel could not 

execute in bankruptcy court on a judgment entered in state court. 

We review the bankruptcy court's entry of default judgment or 

under an abuse of discretion standard. See Grandbouche v. Clancy, 

825 F.2d 1463, 1468 (10th Cir. 1987) . 

The bankruptcy court entered default judgment here because 

Edd had (1) failed to file an answer despite being granted an 

extension of time in which to do so, (2) not appeared as ordered 

by the Court, and (3) generally failed to defend this action. See 

Bankruptcy Court Order of September 27, 1990. Our review of the 

record reveals no abuse of the district court ' s discretion. 

Edd argues he did not receive 

entry of default. Pursuant to 

proper notice prior to the 

Fed . R. Civ. P . 55(b)(2) which 

controls here, see Bankr. R. 7055 , the party against whom judgment 

by default is sought must "be served with written notice of the 

appli cation for judgment at least 3 days prior to the hearing. " 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-6184 Document: 010110243067 Date Filed: 04/24/1992 Page: 3
Edd does not deny that he received three days' notice of the 

September 27th hearing. Instead, he argues that that hearing was 

"totally superfluous" because the court had entered default on 

September 21. This argument is frivolous and without merit. 

Edd argues the bankruptcy court had no jurisdiction to enter 

a money judgment because the only issue before the court was the 

nondischargeability of the money judgment entered in state court. 

This argument is also without merit. The bankruptcy court merely 

entered the amount of the judgment as previously determined by the 

state court and requested by Samuel in this adversary proceeding. 

Finally, Edd argues he was entitled to a stay of execution of 

the bankruptcy court's order pending appeal. Edd did not comply 

with the bankruptcy rules and did not post a bond or other 

security. See Bankr. R. 8005. This argument is without merit. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

4 

Appellate Case: 91-6184 Document: 010110243067 Date Filed: 04/24/1992 Page: 4