UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

 

In re: KAREN MARIE KLINE, 

a/k/a K.M. Kline, 

 Debtor. 

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

KAREN MARIE KLINE, 

a/k/a K.M. Kline, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL 

TRUST COMPANY; RICHARD M. 

LEVERICK, 

 Defendants-Appellees. 

No. 12-2111 

(BAP No. 11-088-NM) 

(BAP)

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

 

Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, HOLLOWAY, Senior Circuit Judge, and 

TYMKOVICH, 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 

April 18, 2013

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
- 2 - 

 Karen Marie Kline filed this adversary proceeding in the United States 

Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico, seeking damages from the 

defendants under 11 U.S.C. § 362(k) based on their alleged willful violation of the 

automatic stay. The bankruptcy court granted summary judgment in favor of the 

defendants. The Tenth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) affirmed. Kline v. 

Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. (In re Kline), 472 B.R. 98 (B.A.P. 10th Cir. 2012). 

Ms. Kline now appeals the BAP’s decision to this court, and we affirm. 

 The bankruptcy court concluded that while the defendants had committed a 

technical violation of the automatic stay by serving Ms. Kline with an amended 

complaint for foreclosure after she filed her Chapter 13 bankruptcy case, their failure 

to re-serve Ms. Kline or to halt the foreclosure proceedings on her condominium 

following the lifting of the automatic stay did not constitute a “willful” violation of 

the automatic stay within the meaning of § 362(k). It further noted that the 

Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred Ms. Kline’s attacks on the state-court foreclosure 

judgment obtained by the defendants.1

 The BAP agreed with each of these rulings 

and affirmed accordingly. 

 “When reviewing a decision of the BAP, this Court reviews only the 

Bankruptcy Court’s decision, treating the BAP as a subordinate appellate tribunal 

whose rulings may be persuasive, but are entitled to no deference.” Cohen v. 

 

1

 See Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); D.C. Cir. v. Feldman, 

460 U.S. 462 (1983). 
- 3 - 

Borgman (In re Borgman), 698 F.3d 1255, 1259 (10th Cir. 2012). “The Bankruptcy 

Court’s decisions on matters of law are reviewed de novo” and its findings of fact are 

reviewed for clear error. Id. at 1259 & n.5. “We review the application of the 

Rooker-Feldman doctrine de novo.” Miller v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. (In re 

Miller), 666 F.3d 1255, 1260 (10th Cir. 2012). 

 Ms. Kline argues that the bankruptcy court’s decision is in conflict with Tenth 

Circuit authority holding that actions taken in violation of the automatic stay are void 

and without effect. We disagree. Having carefully reviewed the bankruptcy court’s 

decision and the BAP’s affirmance, the briefs, the record,2

 and the applicable law, we 

affirm the challenged decision for substantially the reasons stated in the BAP’s 

opinion issued June 1, 2012, and the bankruptcy court’s memorandum opinion of 

September 2, 2011. We grant Ms. Kline’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 

 Entered for the Court 

 Mary Beck Briscoe 

 Chief Judge 

 

2

 We previously supplemented the record on appeal to include Ms. Kline’s 

appendix and amended appendix filed with the BAP.