Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almb-1_05-ap-01106/USCOURTS-almb-1_05-ap-01106-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
CORNERSTONE HOMES, LLC
Plaintiff
SOUTH ALABAMA PROPERTIES, LLC
Plaintiff
Christopher Allen Miller
Defendant

Document Text:

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

In re Case No. 05-10417 

 Chapter 7 

CHRISTOPHER A. MILLER and 

TERRI G. MILLER, 

 Debtors. 

CORNERSTONE HOMES, LLC Adv. Pro. No. 05-1106 

and SOUTH ALABAMA 

PROPERTIES, LLC, 

 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

CHRISTOPHER A. MILLER, 

 Defendant. 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

This Adversary Proceeding came before the Court for trial on September 20, 

2006, at 10:00 a.m., in Dothan, Alabama. (Doc. 12). Plaintiffs Cornerstone Homes, LLC 

and South Alabama Properties, LLC (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) were present by counsel 

Collier H. Espy, Jr., and J. Kaz Espy. Debtor Christopher Allen Miller (hereinafter 

“defendant”) did not appear. Plaintiffs made a proffer of their evidence, and the Court 

ruled in their favor. (Doc. 19). The Defendant has now filed a motion to set aside the 

judgment. (Doc. 23). For the reasons set forth below, the Defendant’s motion is 

DENIED. 

I. FACTS

On February 25, 2005, the Defendant filed a voluntary bankruptcy petition under 

Chapter 7 of the Code. (Case No. 05-10417, Doc. 1). On September 19, 2005, the 

Case 05-01106 Doc 26 Filed 11/15/06 Entered 11/15/06 14:19:10 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 3
2

Plaintiffs filed this Adversary Proceeding against the Defendant. (Doc. 1). The 

complaint seeks to except amounts totaling $335,336.64 from the Defendant’s discharge 

pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2). The Defendant was served with a copy of the 

summons and complaint. (Doc. 5). 

 On January 9, 2006, at 11:36 a.m., a telephonic scheduling conference was held 

with the Honorable Dwight H. Williams, Jr., then presiding judge in the adversary 

proceeding. (Doc. 10). Collier H. Espy, Jr., attorney for the Plaintiffs, and the Defendant 

were present at the hearing by telephone. During the hearing, Judge Williams set the trial 

date in the case for September 20, 2006, at 10:00 a.m., in Dothan, Alabama. The 

Defendant participated in the hearing and confirmed that he was available for the day of 

the trial. 

 On September 20, 2006, a trial was held in Dothan, Alabama. The Plaintiffs were 

present by counsel, Collier Espy, Jr. and J. Kaz Espy. The Defendant did not appear. 

The Plaintiffs proffered their evidence, and the Court ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs. On 

October 10, 2006, the Court ordered that $335,336.64 was excepted from the Defendant’s 

discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2). (Doc. 20). On November 9, 2006, the 

Defendant filed this Motion to Set Aside Judgment. (Doc. 23). Plaintiffs filed an 

opposition to the motion. (Doc. 24). 

II. DISCUSSION

The Defendant filed a motion to set aside the judgment entered against him in this 

Adversary Proceeding. Because this motion was filed more than ten days after the entry 

of judgment, his motion must be considered under Rule 60(b). FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b), as 

made applicable to Adversary Proceedings through FED. R. BANKR. P. 9024, provides: 

Case 05-01106 Doc 26 Filed 11/15/06 Entered 11/15/06 14:19:10 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 3
3

On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party 

or a party's legal representative from a final judgment, order, or 

proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, 

or excusable neglect. . . . The motion shall be made within a reasonable 

time, and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) not more than one year after the 

judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken. . . . 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 

The Defendant alleges that the judgment should be set aside because: (1) he did 

not receive notice of the September 20 trial date; and (2) he does not have any assets. 

The Court will not address the second argument, as it is irrelevant. The Defendant’s first 

argument is without merit, because he had verbal notice of the trial date. The Court’s 

record reflects that he was present at the telephonic hearing when the trial date was 

announced. Furthermore, the Defendant acknowledged that he was available for a trial 

on that date. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that the Defendant had notice of 

the trial date. The Court will enter a separate order denying the Defendant’s Motion to 

Set Aside Judgment. 

Done this the 14th day of November 2006. 

 /s/ William R. Sawyer 

 United States Bankruptcy Judge 

c: Collier H. Espy, Jr., Attorney for Plaintiff 

 Christopher Allen Miller, Debtor 

Case 05-01106 Doc 26 Filed 11/15/06 Entered 11/15/06 14:19:10 Desc Main

 Document Page 3 of 3