### 2002 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

3-21-2002 

# B eeghle y v . B eeghle y

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al :

D ocke t 99-1430

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w

. v i l l a no v a

. e du/thir dc ir c uit_2002

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou 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 a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2002 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w

. v i l l a no v a

. e du

. 

### Re c omme nde d C it a t ion

" Be e ghley v

. Be e ghley " (2002). 2002 D e cisio n s

. P ape r 194. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w

. v i l l a no v a

. e du/thir dc ir c uit_2002/194NOT PR ECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 99-1430

BARBARA J. BEEGHLEY,

Appellant

v.

JOHN L. BEEGHLEY; LAURA L. BEEGHLEY

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvan ia (D.C. Civil No. 98-cv-05527) District Judge: Hon. J. Curtis Joyner

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1( a) March 8, 2002

Before: SCIRICA and COWEN, Circuit Judg es, RESTANI*, Judge, United States Court of Internat ional Trade

(Filed: March 21, 2002)

_______________

OPINION

_______________

*Honorable Jane A. Restani, Judge, United States Co urt of International Trade, sitting by designation.COWEN, Circuit Judge

In this post-divorce case, we are presented wi th a challenge to a sanctions order of the District Court precluding Plaintiff/Appellant B arabra J. Beeghley ("Plaintiff") from any further filings with the District Court. Also presented is the issue of a wife's right to retirement fund assets after the former spouse has filed for bankruptcy. Because we conclude that the District Court's order preventing Plaintiff from further filings was overbroad and undertaken without sufficient notice, we will vacate that order and remand the matter for further review. In addition, we wil l remand the retirement fund issue to the District Court so that the Court may more fully ana lyze the substantive merits of that question. I. The procedural history of this case is extreme ly long and prolix. The case originated as a divorce-related matter in Delaware Family Court in 1995. For the past seven years, the parties have engaged in an endless stream of responsive motions and (sometimes duplicative) filings. For the sake of c larity, we will recite only those facts and procedural events necessary for the proper disp osition of the precise issues presented in this appeal. Plaintiff and Defendant/Appellee John Beeghley ("Defendant") were married in 1976 and divorced in 1993. Defendant thereafter ma rried Defendant/Appellee Laura Beeghley. On November 7, 1995, the Family Court of the State of Delaware ordered that Defendant pay $1,500 per month alimony to Plaintiff . The Court also held that Plaintiff's interest in Defendant's retirement funds (e.g., Sav ings Investment Plans and Tax Reform Stock Ownership Plans) would be split 60% to Plaint iff and 40% to Defendant. The Court directed the parties to prepare and submit a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") under the provisions of 29 U.S.C.  1056. Approximately two years later, the Family Court found Defendant in civil contempt for failing to obey the alimony order and ordered Defendant to pay Plaintiff $17,000. On February 26, 1997, Defendant filed a petiti on in bankruptcy in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The filing of the bankru ptcy stayed Defendant's legalobligation to pay alimony arrears without further o rder of the court.

Thereafter, the Bankruptcy Court enjoined Plaintiff from making any further filings in the case without Court permission. Plaintiff filed a number of appe als from the bankruptcy case to the United States District Court for the Eastern Distri ct of Pennsylvania. These appeals were either dismissed or consolidated with the present a ppeal. Among the issues raised in the appeals was the contention that she had an interest in Defendant's retirement assets that was not dischargeable in bankruptcy. On April 27, 1999, the District Court held a h earing on the merits and addressed numerous motions of both parties, including a motio n by Defendant for sanctions against Plaintiff pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedu re 11. The day after that hearing, it entered an order enjoining Plaintiff from filing an y further papers in the case without Court permission or initiating any further action i n the District Court without such permission. The District Court denied Plaintiff's requested relief regarding her alleged interest in Defendant's retirement funds. This app eal followed. II. We review the order of the District Court whic h restricted further filings in the District Court for abuse of discretion. Brow v. Fa rrelly, 994 F.2d 1027, 1032 (3d Cir. 1993). Plaintiff contends that the District Court' s order enjoining her from further filings was improper since it was entered without adequate prior notice. The record does not reflect that Plaintiff was on notice and should pre pare to defend against the all-inclusive and broad order enjoining all filings in the Distri ct Court. At most, Plaintiff was on notice to defend against Rule 11 sanctions. Plaint iff was not given sufficient notice that such a sweeping and all-inclusive sanction would be imposed by the District Court. Adequate notice must be given to protect a party's basic right to due process of law. See, e.g., Simmerman v. Corino, 27 F.3d 58, 64 (3d Cir. 1994); Brow, 994 F.2d at 1038; Gagliardi v. McWilliams, 834 F.2d 81-83 (3d Cir. 19 87). In addition, the order enjoining Plaintiff fro m further District Court filings was significantly overbroad given the facts of this cas e. We construe the language of the order to mean that Plaintiff is permanently forbidd en from filing anything whatsoever onany matter in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania without express Court

permission. In this respect, the order unquestionably went too far . An order enjoining future court filings should be tailored to the circumstances giv ing rise to the sanction and, absent special circumstances, should be limited to filings arising from the same substantive matters that are before the District Court. See Br ow, 994 F.2d at 1039; Chipps, 882 F.2d at 72-73. III. Plaintiff also appeals the confirmation of the bankruptcy plan insofar as it purports to discharge her interest in the retirement funds o f her former husband. She asserts that her interest in such a fund is nondischargeable. S ee Gendreau v. Gendreau, 122 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 1997). The propriety of this claim was n ot ruled on by the District Court. We express no opinion concerning the resolution of thi s matter, only that the issue be recognized and fully explicated. IV. For the foregoing reasons, we will vacate thos e parts of the order entered on April 28, 1999 that: (1) sanction Plaintiff; and (2) deny her requested relief regarding only the retirement fund discharge issue. All other portion s of the order remain in effect. The matter is remanded to the District Court to freshly address the question of sanctions and to rule on the merits of the retirement fund discha rgeability question.

TO THE CLERK:

Please file the foregoing opinion.

/s/ Robert E. Cowen United States Circuit Judge