[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 20

- 12379 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No s
. 1:18

- cv - 01452

- MHH , Bkcy No. 15

- bk

- 03267

- JJR13

In re: GWENETH DOUGLASS POWERS,
Debtor.

___________________________________________________________ G WENETH DOUGLASS POWERS, ANTHONY D. POWERS,
Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

versus
CHADWELL HOMES OF ALABAMA L LC,
Defendant

- Appellee.

USCA11 Case: 20-12379 Date Filed: 07/13/2021 Page: 1 of 72 ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama

________________________ (July 13, 2021)
Before MARTIN , BRANCH, and ANDERSON , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: Gweneth and Anthony Powers , proceeding pro se , appeal the district court ’ s order affirming the bankruptcy court ’ s grant of relief from the co

- debtor stay under
11 U.S.C. § 1301 to Chadwell Homes of Alabama , LLC (“Chadwell”)

. Anthony Powers is a co

- debtor with his wife , Gweneth Powers , under a mortgage owned by Chadwell. Gweneth Powers filed for C hapter 13 bankruptcy, which triggered an automatic stay that barred Chadwell from pursuing an action to collect debt related to the mortgage from Anthony Powers as a co

- debtor. 1

1 The automatic stay provision, in full, provides that: Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) of this section, after the order for relief under this chapter, a creditor may not act, or commence or continue any civ il action, to collect all or any part of a consumer debt of the debtor from any individual that is liable on such debt with the debtor, or that secured such debt, unless

-- (1) such individual became liable on or secured such debt in the ordinary course of such individual’s business; or (2) the case is closed, dismissed, or converted to a case under chapter 7 or 11 of this title. 11 U.S.C. § 1301 (a)

.

USCA11 Case: 20-12379 Date Filed: 07/13/2021 Page: 2 of 73 Chadwell moved for relief from the automatic co

- debtor stay under § 1301(c)(2) with respect to Ant hony Powers. 2 Section 1301(c)(2) provides that : [ o ] n request of a party in interest and after notice and a hearing, the court shall grant relief from the stay provided by subsection (a) of this section with respect to a creditor, to the extent that

. . . the plan filed by the debtor proposes not to pay such claim. After holding the required hearing, t he bankruptcy court granted Chadwell relief from the § 1301(a) codebtor stay because Gweneth Powers’s C hapter 13 plan
d id not provide for payment of Chadwell’s claim. 3
The Powers e s , proceeding pro se , appeal ed to the district court. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s order providing Chadwell relief from the co

debtor stay. After discussing the relationship between the parties and Gweneth Powers’s prior appeal in which the district court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s grant of stay relief with respect to Gwen eth Powers’s interest in the mortgaged
property , the district court rejected the Powers’s argument that Chadwell was not a
“creditor” because Gweneth Powers was no longer personally liable on the mortgage due to her prior bankruptcy discharge. The district court explained that
Chadwell was a creditor because it made a lo an to the Powers e s for the purchase of

2 P reviously , t he bankruptcy court granted Chadwell stay relief with respect to Gweneth Powers’s interest in the mortgaged property , and that relief was affirmed by the district court on appeal

. 3 Instead, Gweneth Powers’s C hapter 13 “plan,” which is essentially a payment plan that the debtor must file, see 11 U.S.C. §§ 1321

– 22, proposed to pay taxes, a claim for furniture, an automobile lease, and certain unsecured creditors.

USCA11 Case: 20-12379 Date Filed: 07/13/2021 Page: 3 of 74 property , the loan had not been repaid, Anthony Powers was still liable on the loan,
and the loan was subject to the automatic co

- debtor stay that took effect upon the filing of Gweneth Powers’s bankruptcy proceeding. The district court noted that
the Powers e s did not challenge the bankruptcy court’s substantive analysis under § 1301(c)(2), and the district court found no error in the bankruptcy court’s analysis. The Powers es moved for a “rehea ring , ” reiterating many of the same arguments and contending that the district court denied them due process because
it ruled on their motion within seven days of their last filing. The district court
denied their motion for reconsideration

. The Powers es timely appealed. 4 As the second court of review of the bankruptcy court ’ s judgment, we review independently the bankruptcy court ’ s factual and legal conclusions, employing the same standards of review as the district court. In re Mitchell , 633 F.3d 1319, 1326 (11th Cir. 2011). We review the bankruptcy court ’ s factual findings for clear error, and we review de novo the legal conclusions of both the bankruptcy court and the district court. In re JLJ, Inc. , 988 F.2d 11 12, 1116 (11th Cir. 1993).

4 Alt hough the Powers es appealed from the district court’s order denying their motion for reconsideration in addition to its order affirming the bankruptcy court’s grant of stay relief to Chadwell , the Powers es make no arguments on appeal related to the order denying reconsideration and thus have abandoned any challenge related to t h at order. Timson v. Samps on , 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008) (“ While we read briefs filed by pro se litigants liberally, i ssues not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned.” (citations omitted) ). Accordingly, we consider only the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order granting Chadwell relief from the co

- debtor stay.

USCA11 Case: 20-12379 Date Filed: 07/13/2021 Page: 4 of 75 The sole issue on appeal is whether the bankruptcy court erred in granting
Chadwell relief from the co

- debtor stay under 11 U.S.C. § 1301 (c)(2)

. 5 When a debtor files a voluntary petition for C hapter 13 bankruptcy relief, 11 U.S.C. § 1301(a) imposes an automatic stay that prevents a creditor from pursuing an
action to collect th at debt from a co

- debtor. A creditor may seek relief from that
automatic stay , however, under § 1301(c)(2). That section provides that : “ [o] n request of a party in interest and after notice and a hearing, the court shall grant relief from the [automatic stay provision] with respect to a creditor, to the extent
that . . . the plan filed by the debtor proposes not to pay such claim.”

5 The majority of the Powers’s appellate briefing focuses on issues and arguments beyond the scope of this appeal. The Powers’s arguments related to their state fo reclosure case, including allegations that various state court judge s are conspiring against them, are irrelevant to whether the bankruptcy court erred in granting Chadwell relief from the codebtor stay, so we do not address these arguments

. Similarly, t he Powers ’s argument that the bankruptcy court was biased against them and committed fraud by not recusing from the Powers’s case is improperly before us because, though the bankruptcy court denied the Powers’s motion for recusal, the Powers es failed to id entify the failure to recuse in their statements of issues on appeal to the district court pursuant to Fed. R. Bank. P. 8009(a)(1)(A)

. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8009(a)(1)(A) (directing an appellant to file with the clerk and serve on the appellee a statement of the issues to be presented for appeal ) ; In re Freeman , 956 F.2d 252, 255 (11th Cir. 1992) (“ [A] n issue that is not listed pursuant to [the bankruptcy appeal requirements] and is not inferable from the issues that are listed is deemed waived and will not be considered on appeal.” )

. Lastly, the Powers es argue that “[a]t the time relief from automatic stay was granted, [Gweneth Powers’s] case was in chapter 7” and there is “no co

- debtor stay in chapter 7.” This argument relates to the original stay relief granted to Chadwell with respect to Gweneth Powers’s interest in the mortgaged property

. T h is appeal , however, involves stay relief granted to Chadwell with respect to Ant hony Powers’s interest in the property. Thus, this argument is also beyond the scope of this appeal. The record reveals that when the bankruptcy court granted Chadwell relief from the co

- debtor stay in the order underlying this appeal , Gweneth Powers’s
c ase had been converted back to a C hapter 13 proceeding.

USCA11 Case: 20-12379 Date Filed: 07/13/2021 Page: 5 of 76 The record reveals, and the Powers e s do not contest, that Chadwell was
listed as a creditor in the bankruptcy record , Gweneth’s C hapter 13 payment plan did not propose to pay Chadwell , and that the bankruptcy court followed the proper procedures under § 1301 (c)

. The Powers ’s only argument that we can discern challenging the bankruptcy court’s order is that the mortgage lien on the property
is “invalid a nd unenforceable” because of various defects in the deed. This argument fail s
. Regardless of whether the underlying mortgage is valid or the debt is disputed , Chadwell is still a “creditor” for purposes of the b ankruptcy c ode

. See In re Just. Oaks II, L td. , 898 F.2d 1544, 1551 n.5 (11th Cir. 1990); 11 U.S.C. § 101 (10)(A) (defining “creditor” as an “entity that has a claim against the debtor that arose at the time of or before the order for relief concerning the debtor”); 11
U.S.C. § 101 (5)(A) (defining “ claim” as a “right to payment, whether or not such right is reduced to judgment , liquidated, unliquidated, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, legal, equitable, secured, or unsecured”). The Powers’s argument miss es the point of the underlying bankruptcy court order. The order subject to this appeal does not determine whether Chadwell is entitled to foreclose on the Powers’s property

. Rather, the underlying bankruptcy court order only lifted a stay that prevented C hadwell from attempting to initiate such a proceeding. See 11 U.S.C. § 1301

. Because the Powers es have shown no error as

USCA11 Case: 20-12379 Date Filed: 07/13/2021 Page: 6 of 77 to the bankruptcy court’s grant of relief from the co

- debtor stay under 11 U.S.C. § 1301(c), we affirm. 6

AFFIRMED

.

6 The Powers es argue we should remand this case to the district court for further briefing because the district court erred in concluding that the Powers ’s arguments in the instant appeal did not rely on “new ly discovered evidence

. ” When the Powers es appealed the bankr uptcy court’s order to the district court, the Powers es represented that the present appeal differed from their prior appeal whe n the district court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s grant of stay relief to Chadwell in regard to Gweneth Powers ’s interest in the mortgaged property because this appeal relied on “newly discovered evidence

. ” The Powers es submitted a n excerpt of a years ’ old bankruptcy court transcript as their “newly discovered evidence.” The district court did not err in concluding that the Po wers’s present appeal did not, in fact, rely on new evidence. Further,
r emand is not necessary on this ground because the Powers’s arguments surrounding this transcript relate to their contention that the mortgage Chadwell owns on their property is invali d. Once again, the order subject to this appeal does not determine the validity of the mortgage on the Powers’ s property or determine whether Chadwell is entitled to foreclose on the property

.

USCA11 Case: 20-12379 Date Filed: 07/13/2021 Page: 7 of 7