Court Opinion

ID: 9890842
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-16 17:01:01.990645+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:28.917585
License: Public Domain

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
                                  File Name: 23b0005n.06

                     BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL
                                OF THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

                                                     ┐
 IN RE: SANDRA ARLENE SHEAR,
                                                     │
                                       Debtor.       │
 ___________________________________________         │
 SANDRA ARLENE SHEAR,                                 >    No. 23-8012
                                                     │
                              Debtor-Appellant,      │
                                                     │
 PATRICK C. SHEAR,                                   │
                                                     │
                                        Appellant,   │
                                                     │
       v.                                            │
                                                     │
                                                     │
 WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
                                                     │
                                Creditor-Appellee.   │
                                                     ┘

                   On Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court
                      for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati.
                 No. 22-bk-11891—Beth A. Buchanan, Bankruptcy Judge.

                           Decided and Filed: October 16, 2023

      Before: CROOM, MASHBURN, and STOUT, Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judges.

                                  _________________

                                      COUNSEL

ON BRIEF: Justin W. Ristau, BRICKLER GRAYDON LLP, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee.
Sandra A. Shear, Patrick C. Shear, Cincinnati, Ohio, pro se.
 No. 23-8012                                 In re Shear, et al.                                          Page 2

                                             _________________

                                                   OPINION
                                             _________________

        PER CURIAM. On November 4, 2022, Sandra Arlene Shear (“Debtor”) filed a voluntary
Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition. The case was the fifth bankruptcy case filed by either Debtor or
her husband, Patrick C. Shear (“Shear”; together, the “Shears”) after Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
(“Wells Fargo”) obtained a foreclosure judgment in state court on July 11, 2019 as to their
property located at 539 Chaswil Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio (“the Property”).1

        On November 29, 2022, Debtor filed an adversary proceeding against Wells Fargo to
determine the extent and/or validity of its lien, specifically arguing that Wells Fargo “was not
[their] lender.”     On May 22, 2023, the bankruptcy court entered an order dismissing the
adversary proceeding finding that it lacked jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to
adjudicate the Shears’ challenge to Wells Fargo’s status as a secured creditor pursuant to the
prior state court orders.         The Shears did not appeal the order dismissing the adversary
proceeding. Accordingly, they are bound by the bankruptcy court’s ruling.

        On December 8, 2022, Wells Fargo filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay
regarding the Property. On May 22, 2023, the bankruptcy court entered an order in the chapter
13 case granting Wells Fargo (1) in rem relief from the automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
§ 362(d)(4) with respect the Property, and (2) relief from the 11 U.S.C. § 1301(c) co-debtor stay
as to Shear.       In response to the Shears’ complaint that Wells Fargo lacked standing, the
bankruptcy court reiterated that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review the state court’s
determination of Wells Fargo’s secured creditor status according to the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine. On June 2, 2023, the Shears filed a timely notice of appeal from this order.

        1
           Prior to the bankruptcy filings, the Shears became delinquent under the terms of their note and mortgage
on their real property at 539 Chaswil Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio. Wells Fargo filed a complaint for foreclosure against
the Shears in the Hamilton County Ohio Court of Common Pleas on August 1, 2018. Wells Fargo attached
documentation demonstrating its status as the current holder of the note and mortgage. The state court magistrate
granted Wells Fargo’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that Wells Fargo was the real party in interest and
had standing to pursue foreclosure. (Bankr. Case 22-11891 ECF No. 59-1 at 140.) The Hamilton County Common
Pleas Court overruled the Shears’ objection to the magistrate’s decision and adopted the decision in a final order
entered on July 11, 2019. (Bankr. Case 22-11891 ECF No. 59-1 at 148.) The Shears’ various post-judgment
motions and appeals were unsuccessful. (Bankr. Case 22-11891 ECF No. 59-1 at 204, 287.)
 No. 23-8012                            In re Shear, et al.                                 Page 3

       During the appeal, the Shears filed several motions before the Bankruptcy Appellate
Panel, all of which were denied with the caveat that the Shears were unlikely to succeed on the
merits of their appeal. On August 16, 2023, the Shears filed an appellate brief that did not meet
the Sixth Circuit’s requirements in either form or substance. The brief did not address the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine or the bankruptcy court’s analysis of the requirements for lifting the
automatic stay. Rather, the brief simply reasserted that Wells Fargo is not a creditor and has no
standing to seek relief as to the Property, an argument that the state court had already rejected in
the foreclosure proceeding.

       Wells Fargo filed a thorough and well-written brief addressing both the procedural and
substantive deficiencies in the Shears’ brief and case. After reviewing the record, the parties’
briefs, and applicable law, the Panel finds that no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a
detailed panel opinion. The bankruptcy court’s findings of fact are not clearly erroneous, and its
conclusions of law are correct. We therefore affirm the bankruptcy court’s decision for the
reasons stated by that court in its artful and well-reasoned opinion.