Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03049/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03049-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bonnie J. Clemence
Appellant
Charles R. Clemence
Appellee
Karen K. Clemence
Appellant
Lontie J. Clemence
Appellant
R. Douglas Clemence
Appellee
Roy Arthur Clemence
Appellee

Document Text:

FI LED 

Unitd States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

FEB 2 2 1991 

URITBD S'l'ATES COURT OF APPEALS ROBERT L. HOECKER 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk 

IN RE: ) 

LONTIE J. CLEMENCE and KAREN K. ) 

CLEMENCE, Individually and in ) 

their severable capacities as ) 

stockholders of and trustees for) 

"THE BONNIE J. CLEMENCE TRUST, ) 

UTA 7/25/84"; BONNIE J. ) 

CLEMENCE, individually and in ) 

her capacity as stockholder of ) 

"The Bonnie J. Clemence Trust, ) 

UTA 7/25/84," ) 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v. 

ROY ARTHUR CLEMENCE, conservatee/debtor; CHARLES R. 

CLEMENCE and R. DOUGLAS 

CLEMENCE, co-conservators for 

Roy A. Clemence, 

Oefendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 90-3049 

(O.C. No. 86-4091-R) ( o. Kansas) 

ORDER AND JUDGIIBIIT* 

Before MCKAY, MOORE, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

*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 estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-3049 Document: 010110103840 Date Filed: 02/22/1991 Page: 1 
.. 

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 cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

This is an appeal from a judgment of the District Court of 

the District of Kansas sitting as an appellate court in 

bankruptcy. The sole issue is whether the bankruptcy court 

correctly dismissed an adversary proceeding brought to determine 

whether 5000 acres of real property was that of the plaintiffs or 

that of the estate. The district court upheld the bankruptcy 

judgment that the issue had been resolved in prior actions, and we 

affirm the district court. 

Plaintiff, Bonnie J. Clemence, is the mother of plaintiffs 

Lontie J. Clemence and Karen K. Clemence. Roy Clemence, whose 

bankruptcy estate is a party defendant in this action, was the 

husband of Bonnie and the father of Lontie and Karen. The dispute 

here is whether Lontie and Karen are the owners of the real 

property as a result of a deed from Bonnie to them. 

Bonnie executed a general warranty deed to Lontie and Karen 

dated May 19, 1982, purporting to convey the 5000 acres to them as 

a gift. The deed was not recorded until April 25, 1983. In the 

intervening period, a number of consequential events occurred. 

First, and perhaps most important in the chain of events, in 

June 1982, Roy filed an action in state court first seeking 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-3049 Document: 010110103840 Date Filed: 02/22/1991 Page: 2 
separate maintenance and later a divorce from Bonnie. From what 

we can glean of the prolix briefs and the record, there is no 

dispute that the state court had jurisdiction over the properties 

of Roy and Bonnie and had authority to allocate their interests in 

those properties in accordance with state law. 

Thereafter, on April 18, 1983, Lontie and Karen filed a 

chapter 11 proceeding in the District of Kansas. In that 

proceeding, the bankruptcy judge ultimately determined that Bonnie 

did not have donative intent to convey the property to Lontie and 

Karen when she executed the deed. He consequently held there was 

no "effective transfer before June 10, 1982," the date the state 

court acquired jurisdiction in the action between Roy and Bonnie. 1 

He concluded the property was owned by "the Bonnie Clemence Trust 

and not the debtors [Lontie and Karen] in this chapter ll 

proceeding." (Emphasis added.) The court then returned the 

property "to the jurisdiction of the state court to be divided in 

the divorce proceeding pursuant to the state court's authority." 

That judgment was appealed to the district court, which affirmed 

the bankruptcy court, and to this court which summarily affirmed 

the district court. 

After the entry of the judgment of the bankruptcy court, the 

state court entered a decree of divorce. 

state court awarded the 5000 acres to Roy, 

In that decree, the 

1The date is further significant because from that time Bonnie had 

been enjoined by the state court from conveying any interests in 

property. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-3049 Document: 010110103840 Date Filed: 02/22/1991 Page: 3 
J 

subject, however, to the final determination yet to be 

made by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the 

District of Kansas concerning the validity of a certain 

deed executed on the 19th day of May, 1982, by the 

parties as Trustees of the Bonnie J. Clemence Trust 

purporting to convey to Karen K. Clemence and Lontie J. 

Clemence certain tracts of land situated in Dickinson 

County and Ottawa County, Kansas . . . . Should the 

aforesaid deed be finally determined to be invalid it is 

the finding of this Court that the ownership of all 

lands described therein as well as the other lands 

described ... should be set over to the Plaintiff 

[Roy] as his sole and separate property, free and clear 

of all claims of the Defendant. Should said deed be 

finally determined to be valid then this finding shall 

have no bearing on the lands described therein. 

It is not clear in the record before us, but we presume at the 

time of the decree the state court was unaware of the judgment of 

the bankruptcy court holding the purported transfer to Lontie and 

Karen ineffective. We have no doubt, however, that the state 

court intended to defer to the bankruptcy court's determination of 

whether Bonnie's deed effectively conveyed the 5000 acres to Karen 

and Lontie. We are equally certain that the state court intended 

to award the 5000 acres to Roy if the bankruptcy court held that 

transfer ineffective. 

Succeeding the entry of the divorce decree by some eight 

months, Roy filed the bankruptcy proceeding from which this appeal 

emerged. In that proceeding, plaintiffs filed a prose complaint, 

individually and "as fairly representative of the body of 

'Stockholders' of the Bonnie J. Clemence Trust" seeking a 

declaratory judgment that the 5000 acres "do not constitute 

property of [Roy's bankruptcy] estate - unless and until the said 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-3049 Document: 010110103840 Date Filed: 02/22/1991 Page: 4 
deed be adjudicated to be invalid as to Bonnie." Again, while the 

prolixity of the complaint obscures the clarity of its purpose, it 

appears that plaintiffs contended that because the bankruptcy 

court did not pronounce the word "invalid" when it held the 

purported conveyance from Bonnie to Lontie and Karen 

"ineffective," the divorce decree operated to vest title in the 

5000 acres in Bonnie. 2 

Roy, as debtor, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for 

failure to state a claim. Roy asserted the issue of the validity 

of the deed had been resolved against Karen and Lontie, and that 

holding was binding. After hearing the motion the bankruptcy 

court concluded the issues "have already been determined by this 

Court and therefore are barred by res judicata and collateral 

estoppal." The motion to dismiss was granted. 

On appeal, the district court affirmed. The court held that 

contrary to plaintiffs' assertion, it did determine Bonnie's deed 

invalid. The court stated: 

While the court did not explicitly state that the deed 

was invalid, the court held the deed was ineffective (or 

invalid) to transfer interest in the land to Karen and 

Lontie Clemence because there was an absence of donative 

intent, delivery and acceptance--the essential elements 

of a gift. This holding satisfied the condition in the 

2Plaintiffs attempted to file an amended complaint asserting that 

the first bankruptcy holding was invalid because the bankruptcy 

court did not have "in personam jurisdiction" over Bonnie, but the 

bankruptcy court did not permit the filing of the amended 

complaint. Consequently, the argument apparently raised in this 

court concerning the issue of "in personam jurisdiction" is 

without foundation. 

-5-

Appellate Case: 90-3049 Document: 010110103840 Date Filed: 02/22/1991 Page: 5 
' . 

divorce decree because it established the ownership of 

the land at the time of the decree. 

We agree with this ruling. 

frivolous. 

Plaintiffs' contention is utterly 

AFFIRMED. Mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

-6-

Appellate Case: 90-3049 Document: 010110103840 Date Filed: 02/22/1991 Page: 6