Court Opinion

ID: 9946924
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-01 19:01:00.771747+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:43.209684
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-40373           Document: 68-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/01/2024

          United States Court of Appeals
               for the Fifth Circuit
                                                                                  United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                           Fifth Circuit

                                  ____________                                           FILED
                                                                                     March 1, 2024
                                    No. 23-40373                                    Lyle W. Cayce
                                  ____________                                           Clerk

In the Matter of JMV Holdings, L.L.C.,

                                                                                  Debtor,

Jennifer Ruff,

                                                                             Appellant,

                                         versus

Suzann Ruff; Christopher Moser,

                                                                              Appellees.
                  ______________________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Eastern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 4:22-CV-321
                  ______________________________

Before Jones, Haynes, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
      This case is one of several chapters in a family saga concerning the
estate of Arthur Ruff, who died in 1998 and left considerable assets to his
widow, Appellee Suzann Ruff. To manage those assets, Suzann relied on one

      _____________________
      *
          This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
 Case: 23-40373          Document: 68-1          Page: 2      Date Filed: 03/01/2024

                                       No. 23-40373

of her sons, Michael Ruff. 1 A family dispute ensued, prompting more than a
decade of litigation alleging fraud and financial misconduct, with trips to
probate, arbitration, bankruptcy, and other state courts.2
        At this stage, Jennifer Ruff, Michael’s wife, appeals a bankruptcy
court’s decision about the circumstances surrounding the purchase and sale
of her prior home. For the reasons that follow, we AFFIRM the bankruptcy
court’s findings and conclusions.
                                 I.    Background
        In 2007, Suzann and Michael formed the Ruff Management Trust
(the “Trust”). Suzann was the Trust’s settlor and primary beneficiary, and
Michael was its trustee. Suzann transferred almost all her assets to the Trust.
By 2009, however, Suzann suspected that Michael was abusing his fiduciary
role as trustee. As conflicts arose, Michael resigned as trustee. In exchange
for his resignation, Michael persuaded his mother to sign a Family Settlement
Agreement, requiring Suzann to release any claims that she had against
Michael.
        Because this case involves res judicata, we provide background on two
lawsuits. Specifically, this appeal concerns a bankruptcy proceeding, In re
JMV Holdings, LLC, No. 18-42552, (Bankr. E.D. Tex. Nov. 9, 2018) (the
“Main Case”), and its adversary proceeding, Ruff v. Ruff, Adv. Case No. 21-
4003, (Bankr. E.D. Tex. Jan. 11, 2021) (the “Adversary Case”).

        _____________________
        1
         For clarity, we refer to Suzann, Michael, and Jennifer Ruff by their first names as
the lower courts have done.
        2
         See, e.g., Ruff v. Ruff, No. 05-21-00157-CV, 2022 WL 420353 (Tex. App.—Dallas
Feb. 11, 2022, pet. denied); Ruff v. Ruff, No. 11-20-00122-CV, 2021 WL 388707 (Tex.
App.—Eastland Feb. 4, 2021, pet. denied); Ruff v. JMV Holdings, No. 17-7279 (Dist. Ct.,
Dallas Cnty., Tex. Dec. 18, 2017); Ruff v. Ruff, No. 05-13-00317-CV, 2013 WL 2470750
(Tex. App. June 10, 2013).

                                             2
 Case: 23-40373         Document: 68-1         Page: 3      Date Filed: 03/01/2024

                                     No. 23-40373

                                     A. Main Case
        The Main Case stems from Suzann’s probate dispute. See In re Ruff
Mgmt. Trust, No. PR-11-02825-1 (Probate Ct., Dallas Cnty., Tex. Aug. 19,
2011) (the “Probate Case”). She alleged that Michael abused his position as
trustee by swindling Suzann out of millions of dollars through a series of
fraudulent transactions. Michael forced the dispute into arbitration.
        After several years, an arbitration panel issued a final award and
judgment for Suzann, finding that Michael had defrauded Suzann, breached
his fiduciary duties as the trustee, and committed negligence. The arbitration
panel rejected Michael’s affirmative defenses of release and indemnity based
on the Family Settlement Agreement, determining that Michael had
fraudulently induced Suzann into signing that Agreement. The panel
awarded Suzann $49 million in actual damages, $3.9 million in attorneys’
fees and costs, and $12.8 million in prejudgment interest.3 Importantly, the
arbitration award provided the following:
        A constructive trust exists and is imposed in favor of Suzann
        Ruff on Michael Ruff’s interests, of whatever nature, in any
        entity which he formed or invested, in whole or in part with
        monies or property misappropriated from, and originating with
        Suzann Ruff in all capacities, which the Panel finds includes,
        but is not limited to, any interest of whatever nature Michael
        has in the entities listed on Exhibit “A” to the final Award
        attached hereto and made a part hereof for all purposes
        (Exhibit “A”). Michael Ruff shall hold his ownership interests
        in such entities as constructive trustee for the benefit of Suzann

        _____________________
        3
          A probate court entered a final judgment in favor of Suzann, incorporating the
terms of that arbitration award, which a state appellate court subsequently affirmed. See
Ruff v. Ruff, No. 05-18-00326-CV, 2020 WL 4592794, at *15 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 11,
2020, pet. denied).

                                           3
 Case: 23-40373         Document: 68-1          Page: 4      Date Filed: 03/01/2024

                                      No. 23-40373

        Ruff, and Suzann Ruff shall be entitled to a lien against such
        ownership interests to enforce this Award.
        One of the entities listed in Exhibit “A” is JMV Holdings, LLC
(“JMV”). Michael formed JMV in November 2009—one month after he
fraudulently induced his mother into signing the Family Settlement
Agreement. Then, through JMV, Michael bought a property in Dallas, Texas
(the “Joyce Way Property”). Michael claimed that he paid for the property
using his personal checking account, but nonetheless bought the property in
JMV’s name.
        As to the Main Case, in 2018, JMV filed for bankruptcy claiming a
single asset—the Joyce Way Property.4 According to Michael, the purpose
of the bankruptcy was to prevent Suzann from reaching JMV’s assets upon
collection of the arbitration award. Both Jennifer and Suzann filed a proof of
claim to JMV’s bankruptcy estate. Suzann asserted an unsecured claim for
$65 million and an equitable lien on JMV’s assets. Jennifer asserted a secured
claim for $743,811.82 based on a purported deed of trust that she filed against
the Joyce Way Property on the same day that JMV filed for bankruptcy.
        Subsequently, a bankruptcy court issued an order allowing JMV’s
bankruptcy trustee, Appellee Moser, to sell the Joyce Way Property under 11
U.S.C. § 363 (the “Sale Order”). In the Sale Order, the bankruptcy court
clarified that “the liens, claims and encumbrances” asserted by both Jennifer
and Suzann “attach to the residual proceeds” of the sale to the same extent
that they attach to the Joyce Way Property. Ultimately, the Joyce Way

        _____________________
        4
        Initially, JMV filed a voluntary petition under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code,
but it was later converted to liquidation case under Chapter 7. As such, Appellee
Christopher Moser is the Chapter 7 trustee of JMV’s bankruptcy estate.

                                            4
 Case: 23-40373         Document: 68-1         Page: 5      Date Filed: 03/01/2024

                                     No. 23-40373

Property sold for approximately $420,000, and Moser currently holds the
proceeds of the sale.
                                  B. Adversary Case
        In 2021, Jennifer sued Suzann and Moser regarding the proof of claims
against JMV’s assets. Specifically, Jennifer requested a declaratory judgment
stating that: (1) neither the constructive trust in favor of Suzann, nor the
equitable lien imposed by the arbitration judgment is enforceable against the
sale proceeds of the Joyce Way Property, (2) JMV and its assets are Jennifer’s
separate property, and (3) Jennifer is a third-party beneficiary of the Family
Settlement Agreement. Jennifer also sought an order rejecting Suzann’s
claim against JMV.
        Following trial, the bankruptcy court issued its findings and
conclusions regarding Jennifer’s claims. The bankruptcy court determined
that Jennifer was not a third-party beneficiary of the Family Settlement
Agreement, and Jennifer could not benefit from JMV’s purchase of the Joyce
Way Property, as Michael had used his separate funds to purchase it.5 As
such, the bankruptcy court held that Suzann is entitled to recover the sale
proceeds of the Joyce Way Property. In addition, the bankruptcy court held
that Jennifer’s purported deed of trust was a preferential transfer under 11
U.S.C. § 547, and the court partially sustained Moser’s objection to
Jennifer’s proof of claim, leaving Jennifer with a $15,000 unsecured claim
against JMV.

        _____________________
        5
          Jennifer contended that she was the sole owner of JMV such that the judgment
should not reach it. Michael contended that he gave Jennifer a portion of his alleged
separate funds that he earned as a bonus through his personal services and marketing, not
from any fraud on Suzann. The bankruptcy court found otherwise.

                                           5
Case: 23-40373         Document: 68-1        Page: 6    Date Filed: 03/01/2024

                                    No. 23-40373

         Jennifer appealed the decision in the Adversary Case but to no avail
because the district court affirmed the bankruptcy court. Jennifer appeals
again.
                              II.     Discussion
         Under the bankruptcy appeals process, we are the second level of
appellate review, though we perform the same task as the district court. In re
U.S. Abatement Corp., 79 F.3d 393, 397 (5th Cir. 1996). A bankruptcy court’s
“findings of fact are reviewed for clear error and conclusions of law are
reviewed de novo.” Drive Fin. Servs., L.P. v. Jordan, 521 F.3d 343, 346 (5th
Cir. 2008). “We may affirm on any ground supported by the record,
including one not reached by the district court.” Hammervold v. Blank, 3
F.4th 803, 813 (5th Cir. 2021) (quoting Gilbert v. Donahoe, 751 F.3d 303, 311
(5th Cir. 2014)).
         Jennifer raises a myriad of issues on appeal regarding (A) the
preclusive effect of the Main and Probate Cases on her Adversary Case; (B)
the source of purchase funds and title to the Joyce Way Property; and (C) the
partial roadblock of her claim to JMV’s assets. We discuss each of these in
turn.
                                    A. Res Judicata
         Jennifer asserts that Suzann’s claim to an equitable interest in the sale
proceeds of the Joyce Way Property is barred by the doctrine of res judicata
because Suzann did not object to the arbitration judgment, or otherwise
litigate the sale of the Joyce Way Property in the Main Case. Suzann and
Moser suggest that this argument is borderline frivolous. In addition, Jennifer
contends that she is a third-party beneficiary of the Family Settlement
Agreement, and thus, Suzann released any claims against Jennifer and JMV.
Suzann and Moser counter by noting the absurdity in Jennifer’s attempt “to
enforce a contract induced by fraud.”

                                         6
 Case: 23-40373          Document: 68-1          Page: 7       Date Filed: 03/01/2024

                                       No. 23-40373

        Claim preclusion, the doctrine of res judicata, bars the litigation of
claims that either have been litigated or should have been raised in an earlier
suit. Test Masters Educ. Servs., Inc. v. Singh, 428 F.3d 559, 571 (5th Cir. 2005).
To determine whether litigation is barred by claim preclusion, we consider
whether: (1) the parties are identical or in privity in both suits, (2) the
judgment in the prior action was rendered by a court of competent
jurisdiction, (3) the prior action was concluded by a final judgment on the
merits, and (4) the same claim or cause of action was involved in both actions.
Test Masters, 428 F.3d at 571; see In re Paige, 610 F.3d 865, 870 (5th Cir. 2010).
To determine whether two suits involve the same cause of action, we ask
whether the facts in the two suits are based on the same nucleus of operative
facts. Snow Ingredients, Inc. v. SnoWizard, Inc., 833 F.3d 512, 521 (5th Cir.
2016) (quotation and citation omitted).
        Jennifer does not dispute any specific elements of the four-pronged
test with respect to Suzann’s equitable interest claim. Instead, Jennifer
suggests that the Sale Order is a prior judgment entitled to preclusive effect
because Suzann “could have” litigated the sale of Joyce Way Property but
did not do so. Specifically, Jennifer argues that Suzann “voluntarily assented
to the sale” of Joyce Way Property without claiming an equitable interest and
thus should be barred by res judicata. As evidenced by her lack of factual and
legal support, Jennifer’s argument is indeed frivolous.
        The Sale Order preserved the “liens, claims, and encumbrances”
asserted by both Suzann and Jennifer by attaching those claims to the
“residual proceeds” of the of Joyce Way Property. Unfazed, Jennifer ignores
the Sale Order, despite the bankruptcy court’s reliance on it, and the Sale
Order is noticeably absent from the record on appeal.6 By providing no
        _____________________
        6
          Jennifer ignores that, as the Appellant, she has the burden of providing a complete
appellate record. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8009(b)(5) (“If the appellant intends to argue

                                             7
 Case: 23-40373          Document: 68-1          Page: 8       Date Filed: 03/01/2024

                                       No. 23-40373

legitimate analysis, Jennifer has failed to meet her burden of establishing
claim preclusion. See Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 907 (2008); Webb v.
Town of St. Joseph, 560 F. App’x 362, 366 (5th Cir. 2014) (noting that “the
party urging res judicata has the burden of proving each essential element by
a preponderance of the evidence.”). Nothing in the record indicates that
Suzann could or should have previously litigated her interest in the sale
proceeds of the Joyce Way Property. Thus, the bankruptcy court correctly
concluded that Suzann’s equitable interest in the Joyce Way Property is not
barred by res judicata.
        In addition, Jennifer contends that she is a third-party beneficiary of
the Family Settlement Agreement and thus, Suzann must release any claims
against her or JMV. Specifically, Jennifer argues that she is not bound by the
arbitration award and judgment because she was not a party in the Probate
Case, and can nevertheless benefit from the Family Settlement Agreement
that Michael had fraudulently induced Suzann to sign.
        To be sure, close family relationships alone do not establish privity
with a party in the original case or bind a nonparty to the judgment in that
case. See Cuauhtli v. Chase Home Fin. LLC, 308 F. App’x 772, 773 (5th Cir.
2009) (quoting Freeman v. Lester Coggins Trucking, Inc., 771 F.2d 860, 863
(5th Cir. 1985)). Spouses are in privity with one another when, as here, the
nonparty spouse’s interest in an original suit derives from, and is closely
aligned with, their spouse’s interests. See Eubanks v. FDIC, 977 F.2d 166, 170
(5th Cir. 1992). In this case, Jennifer’s privity with Michael is not based solely
        _____________________
on appeal that a finding or conclusion is unsupported by the evidence or is contrary to the
evidence, the appellant must include in the record a transcript of all relevant testimony and
copies of all relevant exhibits.”); In re CPDC Inc., 221 F.3d 693, 698 (5th Cir. 2000) (“The
burden of creating an adequate record [in a bankruptcy appeal] rests with the appellant,
who may not urge an issue on appeal if he has failed to provide the appellate court with the
requisite record excerpts.”).

                                             8
Case: 23-40373          Document: 68-1     Page: 9     Date Filed: 03/01/2024

                                  No. 23-40373

on their marriage. Instead, Jennifer shares Michael’s interests concerning the
arbitration award and subsequent final judgment. This is evidenced by
Jennifer now claiming that she has an interest in the Family Settlement
Agreement as an intended beneficiary. In the Probate Case, the arbitrators
determined that Michael “fraudulently induced” the Family Settlement
Agreement and cannot benefit from it or “any other alleged settlement
agreements.” And in the Adversary Case, Jennifer failed to consider how her
own reliance on a fraudulent agreement belied her argument. Even if Jennifer
could choose to be in privity when it suits her, nothing suggests that the
Agreement releases her. Accordingly, we agree with the district and
bankruptcy courts that Jennifer is barred from claiming any benefit of the
Family Settlement Agreement.
                             B. Joyce Way Property
       Jennifer asserts that the bankruptcy court erred in finding that the
Joyce Way Property was subject to the arbitration award and judgment.
Specifically, Jennifer contends that the source of funds Michael used to
purchase the property is separate from Michael’s interests “in any entity in
which he formed or invested, in whole or in part with monies
misappropriated from” Suzann that were listed in Exhibit A. Suzann and
Moser contend that Jennifer’s argument is again frivolous.
       In applying the clear-error standard to a bankruptcy court’s fact
findings, we will reverse only if, “‘on the entire evidence, we are left with the
definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.’” In re Lopez, 897
F.3d 663, 672 (5th Cir. 2018) (quoting In re Am. Hous. Found., 785 F.3d 143,
152 (5th Cir. 2015)).
       Because the bankruptcy court’s fact findings regarding the purchase
and title of the Joyce Way Property are supported by the record, no “mistake
has been made.” In re Am. Hous. Found., 785 F.3d at 152. First, it is evident

                                       9
Case: 23-40373       Document: 68-1        Page: 10    Date Filed: 03/01/2024

                                 No. 23-40373

that Michael purchased the Joyce Way Property in the name of JMV with his
personal funds. But, according to Jennifer, she purchased the Joyce Way
Property after Michael gave her a piece of his 3-million-dollar bonus. Jennifer
never produced any documentation of this gift from Michael. Nor did she
produce any documents establishing that Michael actually received that
bonus. Nonetheless, Jennifer argues that her and Michael’s trial and
deposition testimony explain the source of funds to purchase Joyce Way
Property. Jennifer has failed to show that the bankruptcy court erred in
finding that the testimony was not credible.
       The evidence purportedly corroborating the testimony of Jennifer and
Michael is an alleged pre-marital agreement that they failed to produce, and
the funds wired into Michael’s bank account from an entity included in the
arbitration award and judgment. To be clear, the arbitration award states that
a constructive trust attaches to Michael’s interests in “any entity which he
formed or invested” funds or “property misappropriated from, and
originating with Suzann Ruff, in all capacities” including but “not limited to
any interest of whatever nature Michael has in the entities listed on Exhibit
‘A’,” which includes JMV and ARS Investment Holdings, the entity he
received the wire from. Indeed, the record shows that Michael’s earnings,
including those from JMV and ARS Investment Holdings, are reachable by
Suzann. Thus, Jennifer’s attempt to make an end run around the
constructive trust is unpersuasive.
                      C. Proof of Claim to JMV’s Assets
       Lastly, Jennifer contends that the bankruptcy court erroneously
“disallowed” her proof of claim against JMV. Jennifer also contends that the
Probate Case did not include JMV in the arbitration award and thus JMV is
not subject to the constructive trust. Both arguments fail on the record. First,
the bankruptcy court did not simply “disallow” Jennifer’s proof of claim,

                                      10
Case: 23-40373       Document: 68-1         Page: 11   Date Filed: 03/01/2024

                                  No. 23-40373

rather it sustained the Chapter 7 Trustee’s objection in part, leaving Jennifer
with an unsecured claim of $15,000 for JMV’s bankruptcy counsel. Because
we conclude that the bankruptcy court’s finding that the testimony of
Jennifer and Michael regarding the source of funds to purchase or maintain
the Joyce Way Property was not credible is not erroneous, the majority of
Jennifer’s claim to JMV’s assets is unsubstantiated. The deed of trust
Jennifer filed within hours of JMV’s bankruptcy petition is “fictitious” at
best. Second, the arbitration panel explicitly stated that the constructive trust
attaches to “whatever interest” Michael has in the entities listed on Exhibit
A. Thus, the bankruptcy court correctly sustained Moser’s objection to
Jennifer’s claim.
                           III.    Conclusion
       Based on our review of the briefs, record, and relevant pleadings, we
AFFIRM the bankruptcy court’s decision.

                                       11