UNITED STATES CO URT 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 appella te record, this pa nel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not mate rially assist the de termination 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cite d, however, for its persuasi ve 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 proceedi ng 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 bankrup tcy court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The Tenth Circuit Bankrupt cy 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 decisi on 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 afte r she filed her Chapter 13 ba nkruptcy case, their failure to re-serve Ms. Kline or to halt the foreclosure pr oceedings on her condominium following the lifting of the auto matic stay did not constitu te a “willful” violation of the automatic stay wi thin the meaning of § 362(k). It further noted that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred Ms. Kline’s att acks 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 BA P 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 review ed de novo” and its findings of fact are reviewed for clear error. Id. at 1259 & n.5. “We revi ew 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 cour t’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 disa gree. Having carefully reviewed the bankruptcy court’s decision and the BAP’s affirman ce, the briefs, the record, 2 and the applicable law, we affirm the challenged decision for substant ially the reasons st ated in the BAP’s opinion issued June 1, 2012, and the bankruptcy court’s me morandum 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 reco rd on appeal to include Ms. Kline’s appendix and amended appendix filed with the BAP.