NOT PRECEDENTIAL

U NITED STA TE S COURT OF APPEALS

FOR T H E THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 1 9

- 3 7 6 6

__________

IN RE: ERICA LYNN MILTON, Debtor

GERALD S. LEPRE, JR., Appellant

v.

ERICA LYNN MILTON

____________________________________

On Appea l from the United States District Cou rt

f

or the W e s t e r n District of P e n n s y l v a n i a

(D.C. Ci vil Act ion No. 2

- 1 9

- c v

- 0 0 1 8 4 )

District Judge: Ho norable J o y F l o w e r s C o n t i

____________________________________

Submitted Purs uant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

J u n e 2 6

, 2 0 2 0

Before: K R A U S E

, M A T E Y

, a n d R O T H

, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : October 15, 2020 )

___________

OPINION *

__________ _

PER CURIAM

* This disposition i s not an opinion o f the full C our t and pursu ant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not

co nstit ute binding precedent.2 G e r a l d S

. L e p r e

, J r

. , f i l e d a n a d v e r s a r y p r o c e e d i n g i n B a n kr u p t c y C o u r t s e e k i n g a

determination t h a t C h a p t e r 7 d e b t o r E r i c a L y n n M i l t o n v i o l a t e d 1 1 U

. S

. C

. § 7 2 7 ( a ) ( 4 ) ( A )

b y k n o w i n g l y a n d i n t e n t i o n a l l y m a k i n g m a t e r i a l l y f a l s e s t a t e m e n t s u n d e r o a t h i n

c o n n e c t i o n w i t h h e r b a n k r u p t c y p e t i t i o n

. A f t e r a o n e

- d a y t r i a l

, t h e B a n kr u p t c y C o u r t

r u l e d i n f a v o r o f M i l t o n a n d d e n i e d L e p r e ’ s c l a i m

. T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a f f

i r m e d a n d

s u b s e q u e n t l y d e n i e d L e p r e ’ s t i m e l y m o t i o n f o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n

. T h i s a p p e a l e n s u e d

. F o r

t h e r e a s o n s t h a t f ollow

, w e w i l l a f f

i r m t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s j u d g m e n t

.

The District Court had jurisdiction to review the Bankruptcy Court ’ s final order

under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1 ). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(d) and 1291.

“On an appeal from a bankrupt cy ca se, our r eview duplicates that of the district court and

view[s] the bankruptcy court decision unfettered by the di stric t court’s deter mination.”

In re Orton

, 6 87 F.3d 612, 614

- 15 (3d Cir. 20 12) (internal quotat ion and citation

omitted). Thus, we re view the Bankr uptcy Court’s findings of fact for clear error and i t s

l e g a l c o n c l u s i o n s d e n o v o

. Id. at 615.

M i l t o n f i l e d a v o l u n t a r y C h a p t e r 7 p e t i t i o n i n M a r c h 2 0 1 6

. L e p r e

, w h o h o l d s a n

u n s a t i s f i e d judgment a g a i n s t M i l t o n s t e m m i n g f r o m a r e p l e v i n a c t i o n i n t h e C o urt o f

C o m m o n P l e a s o f A l l e g h e n y C o u n t y

, f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t in the B ankruptc y C o u r t o b j e c t i n g

t o M i l t o n ’ s d i s c h a r g e

. A s r e l e v a n t h e r e

, L e p r e a l l e g e d t h a t M i l t o n v i o l a t e d

§ 7 2 7 ( a ) ( 4 ) ( A )

, w h i c h a l l o w s f o r a d e n i a l o f discharge w h e r e a d e b t o r “ k n o w in g l y a nd3 f

r a u d u l e nt l y

, i n o r i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e c a s e [

, ] m a d e a f a l s e o a t h o r a c c o u n t

. ” 1

S p e c i f i c a l ly

, L e p r e a l l e g e d t h a t

, o n h e r S c h e d u l e s a n d S t a t e m e n t o f F i n a n c i a l A f f

a i r s

( S O F A )

, M i l t o n m i s r e p r e s e n t e d ( 1 ) t h a t s h e o w n e d p r o p e r t y b e l o n g i n g t o h i m ; ( 2 ) t h a t

s h e h e l d o r o w n e d p r o p e r t y b e l o n g i n g t o s o m e o n e e l s e

, a n d ( 3 ) t h e v a l u e o f h e r h o u s e

.

I n i t s 2 2

- p a g e wr it t en m em o r a n d u m of decision

, t h e B a n k r u p t c y C o u r t q u i c k l y

d i s p o s e d o f t h e t h i r d c l a i m

, f i nd i n g t h at L e p r e w h o l l y f a i l e d t o p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e r e g a r d i n g

t h e valuation o f M i l t o n ’ s h o m e

. B a n k r

. C o ur t O p

. a t 1 4

. W i t h r e g a r d t o h i s f i r s t c l ai m

,

t h e B a n k r u p t c y C o u r t n o te d t ha t L e p r e a n d M i l t o n “ p r e v i o u s l y r e s i d e d t o g e t h e r

, w e r e

e n g a g e d t o b e m a r r i e d

, p u r c h a s e d i t e m s f o r the h o m e t h e y s h a r e d t o g e t h e r

, a n d

e x c h a n g e d s o m e g i f t s d u r i n g t h a t p e r i o d o f t i m e

. ” 2 I d

. A s a r e s u l t

, t h e C o u r t e x p l a i n e d

,

t h e r e w a s m u c h d i s p u t e r e g a r d i n g t h e o w n e r s h i p o f c e r t a i n p r o p e r t y

. I t c o n c l u d e d t h a t

,

1 Lepre did not appeal t he Bankruptcy Court ’ s de nial o f hi s claims that the debt owed to

him w as nondischargeabl e pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), (a)(4), and (a)(6).

2 Accor ding to t he Bankrup tcy Court ’ s findi ng s of fac t, Lepre ’ s and Mil ton ’ s relatio nship

had turned acrimo nious , a nd Mil ton fi led a petition for Prot ection from A buse ( PFA).

A f ter a PFA order w as issued in March 2015

, Lepre left Milton ’ s hou se with only a few

of his belongings. Pu rsuant to the n egotiated consent order

, t h e parties we re to

coordinate an arr a nge ment by which Lepre could r etrieve his bel ongings f rom Milton ’ s

resi dence

. In antic i pation of t h e retrieval

, Milton moved Lepre ’ s bel ongings from her

hom e to a shed on the property to await pick

- up by Lepre

. He “ failed to com ply with the

term s of the PFA Order to retrieve his belo ngings ” a nd t he property re mained in the shed

“ for years

. ” Ban kr. Co urt Op. at 6, 16

. In June 2015

, Lepr e filed the a ction i n rep levin

to ob tai n his personal pr operty and to recover an alleged interest in the real property . The

s tate court entered a default ju dgment in favo r of Lepre in the a mount of $71, 700. Lepr e

s ub seq uently filed for a writ of ex ecutio n, but the st ate proceedings were staye d once

Milton fil ed a S ugg estio n of B ankruptcy.4 e v e n a s s u m i n g M i l t o n ’ s s t a t e m e n t s w e r e f a l s e

, L e p r e f a i l e d t o p r o v e t h a t s h e k n e w o f t h e

falsity

. R a t h e r

, b a s e d o n h e r c r e d i b l e t e s t i m o n y

, t h e C o u r t f o u n d t h a t M i l t o n l i s t e d

p r o p e r t y i n h e r s c h e d u l e s w h i c h s h e t r u l y b e l i e v e d s h e o w n e d

. T h e C o u r t e x p l a i n e d t h a t

t h i s c o n c l u s i o n w a s s u p p o r t e d

, n o t u n d e r m i n e d

, b y M i l t o n ’ s r e a d y a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t

d u r i n g t h e p r o c e e d i n g s t h a t c e r t a i n p r o p e r t y i n h e r p o s s e s s i o n

— w h i c h s h e l a t e r t u r n e d

o v e r t o L e p r e

— d i d i n f a c t b e l o n g t o h i m

.

T h e B a n kr u p t c y C o u r t n e x t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t M i l t o n d i d n o t f a l s e l y r e p r e s e n t i n h e r

S O F A t h a t s h e d i d n o t “ h o l d o r c o n t r o l a n y p r o p e r t y t h a t s o m e o n e e l s e o w n s

. ” I t n o t e d

t h a t M i l t o n ’ s r e s p o n s e s

, b o t h a t the M e e t i n g o f C r e d i t o r s a n d a t t r i a l

, i n d i c a t e t h a t s h e

w a s u n a w a r e o f t h e e x t e n t o f L e p r e ’ s proper ty r e m a i n i n g i n h e r p o s s e s s i o n 3 a n d

, i n a n y

e v e n t

, t h a t s h e d i d n o t b e l i e v e t h a t s h e w a s “ h o l d i n g ” L e p r e ’ s p r o p e r t y b e c a u s e i t w a s

“ r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e t o h i m a s l o n g a s h e c o m p l i e d w i t h t h e P F A O r d e r

. ” I d

. a t 1 5

- 1 6

.

U l t i m a t e l y

, i t c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e r e w a s n o b a s i s f o r f i n d i n g t h a t M i l t o n i n t e n d e d t o

d e c e i v e e i t h e r t h e B a n k r u p t c y C o u r t o r L e p r e i n h e r S O F A

. M o r e o v e r

, t h e C o u r t f o u n d

t h a t L e p r e f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t a n y a l l e g e d f a l s e h o o d w a s m a t e r i a l t o M i l t o n ’ s

d i s c h a r g e

. A s t h e C o u r t o b s e r v e d

, t h e r e w a s n o a t t e m p t t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t M i l t o n ’ s

s t a t e m e n t i m p e d e d t h e t r u s t e e ’ s o r c r e d i t o r s ’ e f f

o r t s t o i n v e s t i g a t e h e r f i n a n c i a l a f f

a i r s

.

S e e 6 C o l l i e r o n B a n kr u p t c y ¶ 7 2 7

. 0 4 [ 1 ] [ b ] ( 1 6 t h e d

. 2 0 2 0 ) ( n o t i n g t h a t a f a l s e o a t h i s

3 The Court noted that t he parties were focused on a few disputed i tems

, conclud ing t hat

any misrep re se ntation regarding o t her property Milton possessed which could have easily

b een turned over to Lepre w as “ in advertent

. ”5 m a t e r i a l “ i f i t i s r e l a t e d t o t h e d e b t o r ’ s business t r a n s a c t i o n s

, o r i f i t c o n c e r n s t h e

d i s c o v e r y o f a s s e t s

, business d e a l i n g s

, o r t h e e x i s t e n c e o r d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h e d e b t o r ’ s

p r o p e r t y ” )

. A c c o r d i n g l y

, t h e B a n k r u p t c y C o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e r e w a s n o v i o l a t i o n o f

§ 7 2 7 ( a ) ( 4 ) ( A )

.

O n a p peal t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t

, L e p r e d i d n o t f i l e a s t a t e m e n t o f the issues t o b e

p r e s e n t e d o n a p p e a l

, a s r e q u i r e d b y F e d

. R

. B a n kr

. P

. 8 0 0 9 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A )

, n o r d i d h e s p e c i f y i n

h i s b r i e f a n y s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s o f f a c t o r l e g a l c o n c l u s i o n s w h i c h w e r e i n e r r o r

. T h e

D i s t r i c t C o u r t n e v e r t h e l e s s c o n s i d e r e d L e p r e ’ s g e n e r a l a r g u m e n t t h a t t h e B a n kr u p t c y

C o u r t e r r e d i n f a i l i n g t o d e t e r m i n e t h a t M i l t o n h a d m a d e a f a l s e o a t h a n d w a s n o t e n t i t l e d

t o a d i s c h a r g e

. S e e I n r e C o m e r

, 7 1 6 F

. 2 d 1 6 8

, 1 7 7 ( 3 d C i r

. 1 9 8 3 ) ( n o t i n g t h a t “ [ n ] o t

e v e r y f a i l u r e t o f o l l o w p r o c e d u r a l r u l e s m a n d a t e s d i s m i s s a l o f t h e a p p e a l ” )

. W e a g r e e

w i t h t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t h a t t h e a p p e a l w a s m e r i t l e s s

.

L e p r e h a d t h e b u r d e n t o p r o v e b y a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f t he e v i d e n c e t h at

M i l t o n ’ s d i s c h a r g e s h o u l d b e d e n i e d

. S e e I n r e C r a w f o r d

, 8 4 1 F

. 3 d 1

, 7 ( 1 s t C i r

. 2 0 1 6 )

.

A s the D i s t r i c t C o u r t n o t e d

, t h e r e c o r d s u p p o r t s t h e B a n k r u p t c y C o u r t ’ s c o n c l u s i o n t h a t

h e f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t M i l t o n k n o w i n g l y m a d e a m a t e r i a l l y f a l s e s t a t e m e n t o n h e r

S O F A w i t h t h e i n t e n t t o deceive

. T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t b a s e d i t s f i n d i n g s o n t h e s u b s t a n c e

o f t h e w i t n e s s e s ’ t e s t i m o n y a n d i t s a s s e s s m e n t o f their credibility

, a n d L e p r e p r o v i d e s n o

b a s i s o n a p p e a l t o d i s t u r b t h e s e f i n d i n g s

. S e e K o o l

, M a n n

, C o f f

e e & C o

. v

. C o f f

e y

, 3 0 0

F

. 3 d 3 4 0

, 4 3 4 ( 3 d C i r

. 2 0 0 2 ) ( n o t i n g t h a t a n a p p e l l a t e c o u r t g i v e s “ d u e regard t o t h e

opportunity o f [ a b a n k r u p t c y c o u r t ] t o j u d g e f i r s t

- h a n d t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f w i t n e s s e s ” a n d6 a c c e p t s t h a t c o u r t ’ s “ u l t i m a t e factual d e t e r m i n a t i o n s ” u n l e s s t h e y a r e “ c o m p l e t e l y d e v o i d

o f m i n i m u m evidentiary s u p p o r t d i s p l a y i n g s o m e h u e o f c r e d i b i l i t y o r b e a r s n o r a t i o n a l

r e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e s u p p o r t i v e e v i d e n t i a r y d a t a ” )

.

T h e m a i n s t a y o f L e p r e ’ s a r g u m e n t i s h i s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e B a n k r u p t c y and

D i s t r i c t C o u r t s “ i n t e r m e d d l e d i n a s t a t e c o u r t m a t t e r

. ” A p p e l l a n t ’ s I n f o r m a l B r

. a t 3

.

F i r s t

, h e a r g u e s that t h e d i s c h a r g e i n b a n k r u p t c y w a s b a r r e d b y t h e R o o k e r

- F e l d m a n

d o c t r i n e

, 4 w h i c h preclud es federal consideration of “cases brought by state

- court losers

complaining of injurie s caused by state

- court judgments rend ered before the district court

procee dings commenced a nd inviting district court review and rejection of those

judgments .” Exxon M obil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Co rp. , 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005).

It is a narr ow doctr ine, limited to cases where the compla ined

- of injury stems directly

from th e st ate court’s proceedings. See Great W. Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox

Rothschild LL P , 615 F.3d 159, 167 (3d Cir. 2010)

. I t d o e s n o t a p p l y h e r e

, w h e r e L e p r e

b r o u g h t t h e a d v e r s a r y p r o c e e d i n g a n d M i l t o n d o e s n o t c h a l l e n g e t h e s t a t e c o u r t ’ s

j u d g m e n t i n t h e p r e

- p e t i t i o n r e p l e v i n a c t i o n

. I n d e e d

, t h e i s s u e b e f o r e t h e B a n kr u p t c y

C o u r t w a s w h e t h e r M i l t o n m a d e a f a l s e o a t h i n h e r S O F A s u c h t h a t s h e w a s n o t entitled

t o a d i s c h a r g e i n b a n kr u p t c y o f h e r d e b t s

, i n c l u d i n g t h e l i a b i l i t y s t e m m i n g f r o m t h e

d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t

. T h a t i s s u e

— w h e t h e r t h e b a n kr u p t c y d i s c h a r g e s h o u l d h a v e b e e n

d e n i e d

— w a s n o t b e f o r e t h e s t a t e c o u r t

, a n d

, t h e r e f o r e

, the s o u r c e o f t h e i n j u r y s o u g h t t o

4 See D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman , 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co.

, 263 U.S. 413 (1923).7 b e r e d r e s s e d i s n o t t h e s t a t e c o ur t j u d g m e n t

. S e e I n r e K n a p p e r

, 4 0 7 F

. 3 d 5 7 3

, 5 8 3 n

. 2 2

( 3 d C i r

. 2 0 0 5 ) (quoting In re Gruntz , 202 F.3d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) ( “ I n

a p p a r e n t c o n t r a d i c t i o n t o R o o k e r

- F e l d m a n t h e o r y

, b a n kr u p t c y c o u r t s a r e e m p o w e r e d t o

a v o i d s t a t e j u d g m e n t s

, t o m o d i f y t h e m

, a n d t o d i s c h a r g e t h e m

. ” ) )

.

N e x t

, L e p r e c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e B a n kr u p t c y C o u r t l a c k e d t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l a u t h o r i t y

t o e n t e r i t s j u d g m e n t

, r e l y i n g o n S t e r n v

. M a r s h a l l

, 5 6 4 U

. S

. 4 6 2 ( 2 0 1 1 )

. I n t h a t c a s e

, t h e

S u p r e m e C o u r t h e l d t h a t a b a n kr u p t c y c o u r t “lack [ s ] the constitutio nal authority to enter a

final judgment on a state law countercl aim th at is not resolved in the process of rulin g on

a c reditor ’ s proof of claim

. ” I d

. a t 5 0 3

. H o w e v e r

, h e r e

, t h e B a n k r u p t c y C o u r t d i d n o t

a d j u d i c a t e a c l a i m r e g a r d i n g L e p r e ’ s r i g h t s t o t h e p r o p e r t y ; r a t h e r

, i t r e n d e r e d a j u d g m e n t

i n a “ p r o t y p i c a l b a n kr u p t c y c o n t e x t

, a d i s c h a r g e a b i l i t y a c t i o n

, ” w h i c h i t w a s a u t h o r i z e d t o

d o

. I n r e D e i t z

, 7 6 0 F

. 3 d 1 0 3 8

, 1 0 4 4 ( 9 t h C i r

. 2 0 1 4 ) ( n o t i n g t h a t t h e d e c i s i o n i n S t e r n

w a s n a r r o w a n d d i d n o t a f f

e c t t h e b a n k r u p t c y c o u r t ’ s authori ty t o d e t e r m i n e t h e

d i s c h a r g e a b i l i t y o f b a n kr u p t c y c l a i m s ) ( c i t i n g c a s e s ) ; s e e 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 5 7 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( I )

, ( J )

( “ [D] e t e r m i n a t i o n s a s t o t h e d i s c h a r g e a b i l i t y o f p a r t i c u l a r d e b t s ” a n d “ o b j e c t i o n s t o

d i s c h a r g e s ” a r e “ c o r e p r o c e e d i n g s ” i n b a n k r u p t c y

. ) ; s e e a l s o I n r e T r i b u n e M e d i a C o

. ,

9 0 2 F

. 3 d 3 8 4

, 3 9 3 ( 3 d C i r

. 2 0 1 8 ) ( n o t i n g t h a t “ [ a ] b a n kr u p t c y c o u r t h a s t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l

a u t h o r i t y t o e n t e r a f i n a l j u d g m e n t o n c o r e p r o c e e d i n g s ” )

.

For the for egoing reasons, we will affirm the orders of t he District Court a f f

i r m i n g

t h e o r d e r o f t h e B a n k r u p t c y C o u r t and denying the motion for recon sideration.