UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

 

In re: MIRIAM ONYEABOR, 

 Debtor. 

------------------------------ 

MIRIAM ONYEABOR, 

 Appellant, 

v. 

CENTENNIAL POINTE OWNERS 

ASSOCIATION; LEBR ASSOCIATES, 

LLC, 

 Appellees. 

No. 13-4037 

(BAP No. 11-117-UT) 

(BAP)

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

 

Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, ANDERSON, Circuit Judge, and BRORBY, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

 

 

 

* 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)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding 

precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral 

estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with 

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

October 9, 2013

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
- 2 - 

 Miriam Onyeabor, appearing pro se, appeals from a decision of the Bankruptcy 

Appellate Panel (BAP) affirming the bankruptcy court’s orders converting her 

Chapter 13 case to a Chapter 7 case and denying reconsideration of the conversion 

order. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1), and we affirm. 

I. BACKGROUND 

 Ms. Onyeabor filed a voluntary Chapter 13 petition on April 5, 2011, and a 

Chapter 13 plan on April 21, 2011. The plan proposed sixty monthly payments of 

$445 to the Chapter 13 Trustee and an unspecified monthly payment directly to 

several creditors (who are not parties to this appeal) holding mortgages against 

Ms. Onyeabor’s commercial and residential properties. 

The appellees, Centennial Pointe Property Owners Association (the POA) and 

LEBR Associates, LLC (LEBR), jointly filed a proof of claim asserting secured 

claims in the amount of $385,097.07 (POC #7). That sum included $124,351.23 

attributable to two Utah state-court judgments against Ms. Onyeabor for unpaid POA 

assessments, interest, and attorney’s fees (the Judgment Lien).1

 That amount was 

secured by liens against commercial properties Ms. Onyeabor owned in the 

Centennial Pointe development and against her residence. The balance of POC #7 

was for unpaid POA assessments post-dating the period covered by the Judgment 

 

1

 The judgment in the first action, affirmed on appeal, was entered on 

January 28, 2008, in favor of only the POA and awarded $95,213.70 plus interest, 

which totaled $21,221.42. The judgment in the second action, $7,916.11 in 

attorney’s fees for pursuing a wrongful-lien action against Ms. Onyeabor, was 

entered in favor of the POA and LEBR on September 13, 2010. 
- 3 - 

Lien and for insurance, utilities, maintenance, repair, and collection costs accrued 

since July 30, 2010. This balance was secured by liens against Ms. Onyeabor’s 

Centennial Pointe properties. 

The POA and LEBR also filed a joint objection to confirmation of 

Ms. Onyeabor’s plan, asserting that it was filed in bad faith because it (1) failed to 

accurately disclose all her assets and liabilities, (2) failed to provide for payment of 

their secured claim, and (3) was otherwise infeasible because Ms. Onyeabor could 

not make payments under the plan. Other parties also filed objections to 

confirmation, including the Chapter 13 Trustee and the Salt Lake County (SLC) 

Treasurer. The Trustee complained about missing information, procedural violations, 

and improper deductions. The SLC Treasurer objected on the ground that the plan 

failed to provide for payment of a secured claim for pre-petition property taxes in the 

amount of $12,875.24. 

Ms. Onyeabor filed an objection to POC #7. She contested whether the claim 

was secured and nondischargeable, whether the POA and LEBR had standing to file 

it, and whether there was sufficient substantiation of the amount in excess of the 

Judgment Lien. 

On August 12, 2011, the POA and LEBR jointly filed a motion to dismiss the 

Chapter 13 case or to convert it to a Chapter 7 case under 11 U.S.C. § 1307(c), 

arguing that Ms. Onyeabor did not file her petition or plan in good faith. 
- 4 - 

On October 6, 2011, the bankruptcy court held a hearing on the motion to 

dismiss or convert and on Ms. Onyeabor’s objection to POC #7. Although 

Ms. Onyeabor was initially represented by counsel at the hearing, she discharged her 

attorney during the hearing and represented herself. The court rendered an oral 

decision that the case should be converted to Chapter 7 because Ms. Onyeabor had 

filed her plan in bad faith. Specifically, the court found that the plan made no 

provision for repayment of the POA’s Judgment Lien, the SLC Treasurer’s claim for 

unpaid pre-petition property taxes, or another creditor’s claim for $23,558.76 in 

pre-petition property taxes it had paid on Ms. Onyeabor’s behalf. The court further 

found that Ms. Onyeabor’s income was insufficient to support her plan or even the 

Judgment Lien. 

The court also noted that although Ms. Onyeabor’s case had been pending for 

six months, she had not addressed the Trustee’s objections or made any effort to 

amend the plan. Further, the court found that her bankruptcy filing was motivated by 

a desire to avoid paying the POA and LEBR. The court observed that there had been 

a long, contentious relationship between Ms. Onyeabor and the POA/LEBR that 

involved state-court litigation and continued with Ms. Onyeabor’s steadfast 

insistence, up to and including the hearing on the motion to convert, that she had no 

legal obligation to pay ongoing POA assessments despite a contrary state-court 

judgment. Thus, the bankruptcy court concluded that Ms. Onyeabor failed to 

articulate any potentially feasible plan and granted the motion to convert. The court 
- 5 - 

also determined that Ms. Onyeabor’s objection to POC #7 was moot in light of the 

conversion. 

When Ms. Onyeabor, still pro se, sought reconsideration of the conversion 

order, the bankruptcy court held another hearing and denied the motion to reconsider. 

The court rejected Ms. Onyeabor’s argument that the POA was not properly 

represented in the bankruptcy proceedings, stating that the POA was a legal entity 

and represented by counsel. The court also pointed out that even if LEBR was not 

entitled to advance claims in the bankruptcy proceeding, the POA was a judgment 

creditor entitled to do so with respect to at least a minimum of $94,000 of the 

Judgment Lien, which Ms. Onyeabor agreed was secured. The court further stated 

that it was not the proper place to litigate Ms. Onyeabor’s contention that LEBR’s 

principals, the “Railes,” had “hijacked” the POA by directing and controlling its 

actions in the bankruptcy court despite the fact that LEBR had sold all of its 

Centennial Pointe property prior to the filing of her petition. 

In a lengthy and detailed decision, the BAP affirmed the bankruptcy court’s 

conversion order and its denial of Ms. Onyeabor’s motion to reconsider the 

conversion order. This appeal followed.2

 

2

 Counsel for POA and LEBR have filed a notice of non-participation, stating 

that neither entity had authorized them to enter an appearance in this appeal, and that 

neither entity intended on retaining new counsel or filing a response brief. Counsel 

did, however, suggest that this appeal was moot because the Chapter 7 Trustee has 

sold Ms. Onyeabor’s Centennial Pointe properties, and therefore the court could not 

grant an effective remedy to the extent Ms. Onyeabor seeks reconversion to 

(continued) 
- 6 - 

II. DISCUSSSION 

“In an appeal in a bankruptcy case, we independently review the bankruptcy 

court’s decision, applying the same standard as the BAP or district court. We thus 

review the bankruptcy court’s legal determinations de novo and its factual findings 

for clear error.” Miller v. Bill & Carolyn Ltd. P’Ship (In re Baldwin), 593 F.3d 1155, 

1159 (10th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). “Whether a Chapter 13 plan has been 

proposed in good faith is a question of fact subject to the clearly erroneous standard 

of review.” Robinson v. Tenantry (In re Robinson), 987 F.2d 665, 668 (10th Cir. 

1993). We afford Ms. Onyeabor’s pro se filings a liberal construction, but we do not 

act as her advocate. See Yang v. Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925, 927 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008). 

Ms. Onyeabor’s numerous appellate issues, although difficult to follow, focus 

on the effect of the state-court litigation; whether LEBR had standing in the 

bankruptcy case; whether LEBR hijacked the POA; whether her objection to POC #7 

was separable from the bankruptcy court’s feasibility analysis; and whether the 

 

Chapter 13 for the purpose of regaining ownership and control of those properties. 

We question the propriety of counsel advancing legal arguments in a case in which 

they are not participating. Nonetheless, we have reviewed the matter, including 

Ms. Onyeabor’s response to the mootness argument, and we are confident that this 

appeal is not moot. Even if Ms. Onyeabor could not regain ownership of the 

now-sold properties, her bankruptcy case involves other properties whose disposition 

could be affected by a reconversion to Chapter 13. 
- 7 - 

bankruptcy court violated her due process rights. We group and address those issues 

that are presented in a sufficiently coherent manner as follows.3

First, Ms. Onyeabor contends that the POA’s rejection of her settlement offers 

while her appeal was pending in the first state-court case mooted the POA’s 

state-court judgment under Utah R. Civ. P. 68 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 68. In essence, 

this argument asks us to disregard a final state-court judgment, which we may not do. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1738 (requiring that “judicial proceedings . . . [of any State] shall 

have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States . . . as they 

have by law or usage in the courts of such State”). In any event, the Utah rule, which 

is the rule applicable to her state-court offers, requires a settlement offer to be made 

in the state court ten days before trial. Utah R. Civ. P. 68(c)(3). Ms. Onyeabor states 

that the first of her offers was not made until May 5, 2008, while her appeal of the 

judgment was pending, so her reliance on Rule 68 is misplaced. 

 

3

 Ms. Onyeabor filed a motion to submit an opening appellate brief in excess of 

thirty pages. This court denied the motion, informing her that her brief could exceed 

thirty pages provided it did not exceed 14,000 words. Her Amended Opening Brief is 

thirty-eight pages and contains a certification that it consists of 13,984 words, but 

eight pages of her statement of facts, which count toward the word limit, are set out 

in an addendum, which does not count toward the word limit if it contains statutes, 

rules, or regulations. See Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B)(iii). It appears to us that the 

placement of eight pages of facts in the addendum is an attempt to skirt this court’s 

order and the word limit set out in Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B). Although 

Ms. Onyeabor is pro se, she is required, like any other litigant, to comply with 

procedural rules, see Yang, 525 F.3d at 927 n.1, and court orders. We warn her that 

future attempts to evade procedural rules and court orders may result in appropriate 

sanctions, including the striking of briefs or portions of briefs. 
- 8 - 

Second, Ms. Onyeabor’s arguments about LEBR’s standing in the bankruptcy 

case—including that any preclusive effect of the state-court judgments does not apply 

to LEBR and that the bankruptcy “case” was not ripe for review, Aplt. Br. at 19-23, 

29-32—focus on irrelevant issues. The bankruptcy court’s conversion order rested 

on Ms. Onyeabor’s lack of good faith with respect to the POA’s Judgment Lien, the 

validity of which she acknowledged at the October 6 hearing and confirmed at the 

reconsideration hearing; the claims for unpaid pre-petition property taxes; and the 

lack of any response to the Chapter 13 Trustee’s objections. The bad-faith finding 

was not dependent on any matter solely related to LEBR or any preclusive effect of 

the state-court judgments. 

Third, Ms. Onyeabor contends that LEBR was not authorized to file in the 

bankruptcy proceeding on the POA’s behalf. But the evidentiary support for that 

contention is an email purportedly sent to Ms. Onyeabor on July 25, 2012, by another 

Centennial Pointe Property owner (who had at some point become the POA’s 

president) in which the owner says “I was not involved in your dispute with the 

Railes and I have little knowledge about it.” Aplt. BAP App. at 726.4

 There are 

multiple problems with reliance on this email: it post-dates the conversion order and 

therefore was not before the bankruptcy court when the court converted the case; it is 

 

4

 The appendix Ms. Onyeabor filed with the BAP is not part of the record on 

appeal filed with this court. Nonetheless, we have taken judicial notice of it. See 

Guttman v. Khalsa, 669 F.3d 1101, 1127 n.5 (10th Cir. 2012) (stating that we may 

take judicial notice of district court filings not included in the record on appeal). 
- 9 - 

not authenticated or sworn; it is inadmissible hearsay; and it says nothing meaningful 

about LEBR’s alleged hijacking of the POA. Further, in support of their objection to 

Ms. Onyeabor’s motion for reconsideration, counsel for the POA and LEBR filed an 

affidavit discussing the history of counsel’s representation of the POA since 2005, 

and the POA, as a creditor, unquestionably had standing to appear in the bankruptcy 

court to protect its portion of the Judgment Lien. See 11 U.S.C. § 501(a) (“A creditor 

. . . may file a proof of claim.”). We therefore find no merit in the contention that the 

joint filings by the POA and LEBR were without the POA’s authorization. 

Fourth, Ms. Onyeabor argues that her objection to POC #7, which the 

bankruptcy court deemed moot by the conversion to Chapter 7, was not separable 

from the feasibility of her plan. She points out that she included the Judgment Lien 

in a schedule of unsecured non-priority claims and argues that she could not make the 

plan more definite until the court ruled on her objections, including whether claims 

were secured or unsecured and whether LEBR had standing to pursue any of its 

claims for continued POA assessments and other post-Judgment-Lien amounts. But 

her objection was, as the bankruptcy court implicitly found, immaterial to the 

grounds for its conversion order. Although she included the Judgment Lien in the 

schedule of unsecured non-priority creditors, the plan itself did not provide for 

paying it, and the bankruptcy court determined that there was no feasible way that the 

plan could propose to pay it or the pre-petition property taxes. Further, as the 

bankruptcy court pointed out, Ms. Onyeabor did not respond to the Chapter 13 
- 10 - 

Trustee’s objections or, in the many months since objections were filed, attempt to 

amend her plan. Her objection to POC #7 had nothing to do with those additional 

bases for the bad-faith finding. Accordingly, we conclude that the objections were 

not material to the grounds for conversion and that the bankruptcy court correctly 

ruled that the conversion mooted them. 

Finally, Ms. Onyeabor claims the bankruptcy court denied her due process in 

several ways. She first argues that during the October 6 hearing on the motion to 

dismiss or convert, the court deprived her of due process when it told her attorney, 

Lou Harris, that the court would not indulge in conferences between him and 

Ms. Onyeabor. She claims that after the court’s statement, she “had” to fire 

Mr. Harris so she “could get a word in” because Mr. Harris had only taken over the 

case ten days before the hearing after her prior attorney had become seriously ill and 

was unable to continue representation. Aplt. Br. at 36. We see no due process 

violation. “[D]ue process requires notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard.” 

Standard Indus., Inc. v. Aquila, Inc. (In re C.W. Mining Co.), 625 F.3d 1240, 1244 

(10th Cir. 2010). At the hearing, the bankruptcy court simply stated that it would not 

tolerate continued attorney-client consultations. It did not require or force 

Ms. Onyeabor to take over her case pro se. Accordingly, we see no due process 

violation in the court’s admonishment. 

 Ms. Onyeabor also claims that the bankruptcy court violated her due process 

rights when it rejected her request, made at the October 6 hearing, that the court give 
- 11 - 

her until November 8, 2011, to revise her plan again. In denying her request, the 

court noted that November 8 was the date for the confirmation hearing, “not a date to 

begin proposing plans.” Aplt. BAP App. at 393. We see no due process violation. 

 Ms. Onyeabor further argues that the bankruptcy court violated her due 

process rights by not instructing her to file adversary proceedings. By this we take 

her to mean that, at a hearing on her objections to POC #7 scheduled for August 10, 

2011, but continued to October 6, the bankruptcy court should have advised her that 

some of her objections needed to be filed in an adversary proceeding. We see no 

error. Ms. Onyeabor was still represented by counsel on August 10. Courts do not 

act as advocates for pro se parties, Yang, 525 F.3d at 927 n.1, let alone those 

represented by counsel. It therefore follows that due process does not require courts 

to provide legal advice to the parties or their attorneys. See McKaskle v. Wiggins, 

465 U.S. 168, 183-84 (1984) (stating that there is no “constitutional right to receive 

personal instruction from the trial judge on courtroom procedure” and that “the 

Constitution [does not] require judges to take over chores for a pro se defendant that 

would normally be attended to by trained counsel as a matter of course”).

III. CONCLUSION 

 The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s judgment is affirmed. 

 Entered for the Court 

 Stephen H. Anderson 

 Circuit Judge