United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 02-2396

___________

In re: G. Yvonne Stephens, *

*

Debtor, *

--------------------------------- *

*

G. Yvonne Stephens, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

* for the Eighth Circuit.

Mary Jo A. Jensen-Carter, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: December 4, 2002

 Filed: December 17, 2002

___________

Before LOKEN, BYE, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Georgina Yvonne Stephens (Stephens) filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in

August 1998, approximately two months after her husband, Larry Kenneth Alexander

(Alexander), filed a separate Chapter 13 petition. Neither she nor Alexander

successfully claimed a homestead exemption in their residence. Stephens received

a discharge in November 1998, and the case was closed in January 2000. In June
1

The Honorable Gregory F. Kishel, Chief Judge, United States Bankruptcy

Court for the District of Minnesota.

-2-

2001 the trustee in Alexander’s case, Mary Jo Jensen-Carter, filed, on behalf of

Alexander’s bankruptcy estate, an unlawful-detainer complaint in Minnesota state

court; she alleged that the estate was the rightful owner of the residence and that

Stephens and Alexander refused to vacate it. Stephens filed in her closed federal

bankruptcy case a motion seeking, among other things, a hearing to determine

whether the unlawful-detainer action violated the discharge injunction in her

bankruptcy case. The bankruptcy court1

 determined that the action did not violate the

discharge injunction, because Jensen-Carter’s attempts to recover the property lay in

rem and the discharge injunction frees a debtor from only in personam liability. The

court declined to address whether Stephens was entitled to a homestead exemption

because Stephens had not reopened her bankruptcy case. The Bankruptcy Appellate

Panel affirmed, and Stephens appeals.

We review the bankruptcy court’s findings of fact for clear error, and its legal

conclusions de novo. See In re Papio Keno Club, Inc., 262 F.3d 725, 728-29 (8th Cir.

2001). We agree that because Stephens did not reopen her bankruptcy case, the

bankruptcy court was limited to determining whether the unlawful-detainer action

violated the discharge injunction. See 11 U.S.C. § 524 (effects of discharge

(discharge injunction)); Local R. Bankr. P. (D. Minn.) 5010-1(a)-(c) (reopening of

case not necessary where debtor (1) requests relief that could be granted on

application if case were reopened, (2) commences adversary proceeding to determine

dischargeability of debt or to enforce rights under sections 524 or 525, or (3) requests

addition of omitted creditor; debtor must apply to reopen case in all other instances).

We also agree that the unlawful-detainer action did not violate the discharge

injunction in Stephens’s case. Unlawful-detainer actions lie in rem, see Krasner v.

Gurley, 29 So.2d 224, 227 (Ala. 1947) (unlawful-detainer action is for possession of
2

We decline to address Stephens’s various other arguments, because they are

raised for the first time on appeal or must be addressed to the state court in the

unlawful-detainer litigation.

-3-

real estate, and partakes of suits in rem); cf. In re Dabrowski, 257 B.R. 394, 415

(S.D.N.Y. 2001) (although landlord cannot obtain personal judgment against debtor,

landlord can, consistent with bankruptcy discharge, evict tenant for nonpayment of

rent), and 11 U.S.C. § 524 does not preclude in rem actions against debtors, see

Johnson v. Home State Bank, 501 U.S. 78, 84 (1991) (bankruptcy discharge

extinguishes only actions against debtor in personam, leaving intact actions in rem);

In re Annen, 246 B.R. 337, 340 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2000) (same). 

Accordingly, we affirm.2

 

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.