EL ECTRONI C CI TATI ON: 2009 FE D App. 0013P (6th Cir.) File Na me: 09b0013p.06

BA NK RU P TC Y A P P ELLA TE P AN EL OF THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
Inr e : S H IR LE Y IN G E R S O LL,

Debtor.

______________________________________ WI L L I AM TODD D ROWN,

Pla int if f- Ap pe lla nt,

v. NATI ONAL

CI TY B ANK, Def endant- Appellee

.

______________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 09-8018

Appea l from the United States B ankruptc y Court fo r t he Sou the rn

Di str ic t of

Oh io, Ea ste rn

Di vis ion a t Co lum bu s. Case No. 07- 58850; Adversa ry No. 08-2003. Argued: Novembe r 4, 2009 Dec ided and F iled: Dece mber 4, 2009
B e fo re : F UL TO N, HA RRI S, a nd SHE A- STO NU M, B ank ru ptc y Ap pe llate Pane l Judg e s.

____________________ CO UN SEL ARG UED: Wil liam Todd Drown, F OL L AND & DROWN L PA, Mount Vern o n , Ohio, for Appellant. O N B RI E F: Wil liam Todd Drown, F O L L AND & DROWN L PA, Mount Vernon, Ohio, fo r A pp e lla nt.- 2- ____________________ OP IN ION

____________________ MARI L YN S HEA-STON UM, Ba nkruptcy Appellate Panel J udg e. This is an appeal of the bankruptc y court’s gr ant of summary judgme nt in favor of Def endant - Appellee , National City Ba nk (“N CB”) , in an adve rsar

y proce eding commence d by Wil liam Todd Drown, Chapte r 7 Trustee (the “Chapter 7 Trustee ”), pur suant t o 11 U.S.C. § 544(a)(3) seekingto avoid NCB’ s mortga g e on the one-ha lf interest in ce rtain prope rty once ow ned by

Shirley I ng ersoll’s now de cea sed husband.
I. ISS UE ON AP P EAL The issue presented by this appeal is whethe r the ba nkruptcy court e rre d in concluding that NC B’ s m o rt g ag e wa s valid despite the fa ct that the notar y ’s ce rtificate of ac knowledg ment stated that bo th S hir le y

I ng e rs oll and

he r h us ba nd pe rs on a lly a

pp e are d a nd sig ne d th e mor

tg a g e wh e n, in fac t, Shirley

I ng ersoll appe are d and sig ned for herse lf and, by

virtue of a

valid power

of attorne y , her husband.
II. JU RI SDI CT ION AND STANDARD OF RE VI EW
Th e B ank ru ptc y Ap pe llate Pane l f

or the Sixth C ir c uit

ha s ju ri sd ic tio n to de c ide thi s a

pp e a l. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio ha s authorized appeal s t o the Pane l, a nd ne ith e r p art

y ha s ti me ly e le c te d to have thi s a pp e a l he ard

by the dis tr ic t c ourt . 2 8 U .S. C. §§ 15 8( b) (6 ) & (c)(1 ). A ba nk ru ptc y c ourt ’s fi na l or de r m ay

be a pp e a le d a s o f r ig ht. 28 U. S.C. § 1 58 (a )( 1) . F or

the purp os e of

an a pp e a l, a fi na l or de r is on e that “ e nd s the lit ig a tio n on the me ri ts and leaves not hing for the court to do but execute the judgment.” Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States , 489 U.S. 794, 79 8 ; 1 0 9 S

. C t

. 1494, 1497 (1989). An or der g ranting summary judgme nt constitutes a final orde r. Menninge r v. Acc redited HomeLenders ( In re M orgeson) , 371 B.R. 798, 800 (B .A.P. 6th Ci r. 2007).
Th e iss ue ra ise d o n a

pp e a l he re c ha lle ng e s th e ba nk ru ptc y c ourt ’s int e rp re ta tio n o f O hio state law and c erta in contrac tual provisions. I n t erpretations of state la w and c ontrac tual provisions constitute conclusions of law. Se e Le bovit z v. H ag e me y e r ( In re Le bo v itz

) , 360 B.R. 612, 615 (B .A .P. 6th Cir . 2 00 7) ; Van Ake n v. Van Ake n ( In re Van Ak

en) , 320 B.R. 620, 623 (B .A.P. 6th Ci r.- 3-

20 05 ); Official Unsecured Creditors Comm. of Valley- Vulcan Mold Co. v . Ampco-Pittsburgh Corp. ( In re Valley -Vulcan M

old Co.) , 23 7 B .R. 32 2, 32 6 (B .A .P. 6th Cir . 1 99 9) ; Ha mo v . W

ils on ( In re Hamo) , 2 33 B .R. 71 8, 72 1 ( B .A .P. 6th Cir . 1 99 9) ; The Bene ke Co., Inc . v. Ec onomy Lodging Sys., Inc. ( In re Ec onomy Lodging Sys., Inc .) , 234 B.R. 691, 693 (B .A.P. 6th Ci r. 1999).
A b an k ruptcy

court’s c onclusions of law re quire de novo revie w. LTV St eel Co., Inc . v. Bricke r ( In re LTV Steel Co., Inc.) , 560 F.3d 449, 452 (6th Cir. 2009). “Unde r a de novo standard of re view, the r eviewingcourt decides an issue independe ntly of, and without defe renc e to, the trial court’s de termination.” Bu c k e y e Che c k Cas hin g, In c . v . M e ad ows ( In re M eadows) , 396 B.R. 485 (B .A.P. 6th Ci r. 2008).
III . F AC TS
The re levant fac ts a

re not in dispute and are well stated by the bankruptc y court. There fore , they are not repe ated he re.
IV . D ISC USS ION
As noted above, the conclusions of law a re to be revie wed de novo

. After conducting such
a revie w in this appea l, the Panel finds the bankruptc y court’s Memorandum Op i n i o n De n y ing Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary J udg ment and Gr anting Def endant’ s Cross-Motion for Summary J udg ment contains a c omplete and we ll-rea soned ana ly sis of applicable law.
V. CO NC LU SION
Th e Pane l a do pts the re a so nin g and ana ly sis of

the ba nk ru ptc y c ourt in i ts en tir e ty and

a ff ir ms the orde r g ranting summary judgme nt to National City Ba nk.