2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 7-7-2005 

# In Re S ec i vanovic P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-2381

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " In Re S e c iva novic " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 890. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/890NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N O S. 04- 2381 & 04- 2466

________________ 

### IN RE: PETER SECI VANOVI C,

De bt or GARY S. JACOBSON, CHAPTER 7 TRUS TE E F ORPE TE R S EC IVAN OV IC

v. PE TE R S EC I VANO VI C AND ZO RASE CIVANO VIC Zo ra Seci vano vic, Appe l l ant

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

For t he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i v. N o. 04- cv- 00797) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le G arrettE . B row n , Jr.

_______________________________________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J ul y6, 2005 Be f o r e : NY GA AR D, VA N A NTW ERPEN A ND GR EENB ERG , CI RCU I T J UD GES ( Fi l ed J ul y7, 2005 )A nyr efe r ence her eaf t ert o “Seci vanovi c” i s t o Z or a Seci vanovi c. 1 2 _______________________

OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM Z or a Seci vanovi c appe al s fr om t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or deraff i r m i ng t he B ankrupt cy C our t ’ s or dert hatdeni ed herm ot i on t o vaca t e a de faul tj udgm ent . For t he r eas ons s et f o rt h b e lo w , w e w ill a f

f ir m . T h e p arti es a re f

am il iar w ith the f

ac ts, so w e w il l on lyb ri ef lyrev isi t th em h ere . In 1998, Pet erSeci vanovi c fi l ed a vol unt arypet i t i on forper s onal bankrupt cypr ot ect i on underC hapt er11 of the B ankrupt cyC ode i n t he U ni t ed St at es B ankrupt cyC our tfort he D i s t r i c tof

N e w J e r s e y . A ft e rt he c a s e w a s c on ve r t e d t o a Chap t e r7 c a s e , G a r yS. J acobs on w as appoi nt ed as t he trus t ee. J acobs on fi l ed a c om pl ai ntagai ns tPet er Seci vanovi c and Zor a Seci vanovi c, hi s m ot her , and al l eged thatPet ert r ans ferr ed a pr oper t yt o Z or a forl es s t han r eas onabl yequi val entval ue. J acobs on fi l ed a r eques tfor entr yof def

aul tj udgm entand a j udgm entw as ent er ed aga i ns tbot h defe ndant s i n t he a m o u n t o f

$ 3 2 ,0 0 0 .0 0 . Z o ra S e c iv a n o v ic f iled a m o tio n to v a c a te th e d e f a u lt j u d g m e n t; a c o n s e n to r d e rw a s e n t e r e d v a c a t i n g t h e d e f a u l tj u d g m e n ta s t o Z o r a o n l y. 1 A ppr oxi m at el ya y earl at er , t he B ankrupt cyC our tent er ed an or dert o compel d isc o v e ry . Ja c o b so n f

iled a m o tio n to strik e S e c iv a n o v ic’ s a n sw e r f o r f a ilu re to c o m p ly w i t h t he di s coveryor der . T he mot i on w as gr ant ed and a s econd de faul tj udgm entw asR ul e 60( b) i s m ade a ppl i cabl e her e byR ul e 9024 of the Feder al R ul es of B ankrupt cy 2 Pr ocedur e. 3 ent er ed. Seci vanovi c fi l ed anotherm ot i on t o vaca t e the def aul tj udgm ent , w hi ch w as g ra n ted . A s a c o n d iti o n o f v a c a tin g th e d e f

a u lt j u d g m e n t, th e o rd e r re q u ire d S e c iv a n o v ic t o payJ acobs on’ s couns el fee s , i n t he amountof $5, 000. 00, w i t hi n 30 day s . W hen p a ym e n t w a s n o t re m itt e d , Ja c o b so n f iled a th ird m o tio n f

o r e n tryo f

d e f a u lt j u d g m e n t, w hi ch w as gr ant ed. Seci vanovi c fi l ed anotherm ot i on t o vaca t e the def aul tj udgm ent ; t he B ankrupt cyC our tdeni ed the mot i on. Seci vanovi c then fi l ed a not i ce of appea l t o t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey . T he D i s t r i ctC our taff i r m ed th e B a n k ru p tcy C o u rt’s o rd e r d e n y in g th e m o tio n to v a c a te th e d e f a u lt j u d g m e n t. 

### Th e Dis tric t Court

had j uris diction to revie w the Bankruptcy Co urt’ s order s purs uant to 28 U.S.C. § 1 58 (a), and w e have appell at e juris diction o ver the Distri ct C o urt’s o rd er un d er 2 8 U .S .C . § § 1 5 8 (d ) an d1 2 9 1 . T h e e n tryo f d e f a u lt an d d e f

a u lt ju d g m e n t w ill o n ly b e s e t a s id e if w e d e te rm in e th a t th e tr ia l c o u rta b u s e d its d is c re tio n . See U ni t ed St at es v. $55, 518. 05 i n U . S. C ur r ency , 728 F. 2d 192, 195 ( 3d C i r . 1984) ; s ee a ls o F e d . R . B a n k r. P . 7 0 5 5 , 9 0 2 4 ; A rg e n ta ri a v . F a m ily R e s ts ., In c . (I n re H o m e R e s ts ., Inc . ), 2 8 5 F . 3 d 1 1 1 , 1 1 3 (1st C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). In e x erc isi n g it s d iscreti o n , the B an k rup tcyC o u rtad d resse d the n ec essa ryfa ctors f o r re v iew in g a m o tio n to v a c a te a d e f a u lt j u d g m e n t; th e B a n k ru p tcy C o u rt p ro p e rly deni ed Seci vanovi c’ s Fed. R . C i v. P. 60( b) m ot i on aft erconcl udi ng t hat( 1) J acobs on 2 w o u ld b e p re

ju d ice d if

th e m o tio n w a s g ra n ted ; (2 ) S e c iv a n o v ic d id n o t p re se n t a4

m er i t or i ous defe ns e; and ( 3) herconduct , w hi ch l ed t o t he def aul t , w as cul pabl e. See U . S. C ur r ency , 728 F. 2d at195. W e di s cern no abus e of di s cr et i on her e. T o t he ext ent S e c iv a n o v ic a ttem p ted to ra ise n e w a rg u m e n ts o n a p p e a l to th e D istric t C o u rt o r is at t empt i ng t o pr es entnew ar gum ent s i n t hi s appea l , s he i s pr ecl uded fr om doi ng s o. See S rein v . F ran k fo rd T rust C o . , 3 2 3 F . 3 d 2 1 4 , 2 2 4 n . 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). F o r t h e re a s o n s s e t f

o rt h a b o v e , w e w ill a f

f ir m th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D is tr ic t C o u rt .5