Court Opinion

ID: 9693866
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 17:05:26.994443+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:51.177751
License: Public Domain

Dooley, J.,
¶ 10. concurring. I fully concur in the answer and the reasoning of the entry order in this ease, and write additionally only because it has significantly affected my approach to requests to certify questions of state law from the federal courts to this Court under Y.R.A.P. 14, the relatively new procedure we have adopted to allow such certifications. The procedure works well where the state law question is unconnected to any federal law question —• for example, where it arises in a diversity jurisdiction case or in a pendant state law claim — and where the record is adequate to address the questions framed by the certifying federal court. It works less well where federal and state law issues are intermixed and the correct answer may require a complicated meshing of both sources of law, particularly if we reformulate the question or find the factual record inadequate.
¶ 11. This case is an example of the latter situation. Because of the way this case came to us, we do not know if the period of redemption expired before the mortgagors filed their bankruptcy petition; if the period had expired, the trustee could' not prevail under any theory of the case. Moreover, the right of the trustee under 11 U.S.C. § 544 to set aside a mortgage foreclosure decree, after it had become final but before the period of redemption had expired, was largely unexplored by the parties and the federal courts because they did not focus on the decree. Based entirely on hindsight, I question whether we should have accepted the certification in this case.
¶ 12. Unfortunately, bankruptcy cases tend to fall in this latter category where certification works less well, and a majority of our certification requests have come from the bankruptcy court or from the other federal courts in bankruptcy cases. As a result of this case in part, I have become more reluctant to accept certifications in bankruptcy cases. Other members of the Court appear to be reacting similarly because we have recently refused to accept certifications in a number of bankruptcy eases. I am making this point so that our federal colleagues, and the lawyers who are requesting certification of cases to this Court, are informed of some of the considerations that are motivating us as we act on certification requests.
Note: Chief Justice Amestoy was present when the case was submitted on the briefs but did not participate in this decision.