Court Opinion

ID: 9390784
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-28 17:00:55.093698+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:36.767912
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 21-12889     Document: 45-1    Date Filed: 04/28/2023   Page: 1 of 6

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                           ____________________

                                No. 21-12889
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

       In re:
        SARA I. GARCIA,
                                                                Debtor.
       ___________________________________________________
       SARA I. GARCIA,
                                                     Plaintiff-Appellant,
       versus
       OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC,

                                                   Defendant-Appellee.

                           ____________________
USCA11 Case: 21-12889       Document: 45-1      Date Filed: 04/28/2023      Page: 2 of 6

       2                       Opinion of the Court                   21-12889

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Florida
                     D.C. Docket No. 1:17-cv-23918-JEM,
                          Bkcy No. 15-bk-28640-RAM
                           ____________________

       Before JORDAN, BRANCH, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Nearly seven years ago, a bankruptcy court determined that
       this controversy between Sara Garcia, a pro se debtor, and Ocwen
       Loan Servicing, LLC did not belong in federal court, and that
       Ocwen should be granted relief from the automatic stay. Ever
       since, Garcia has contested that decision. We now hopefully put
       an end to that dispute. We dismiss Garcia’s appeal in part and
       affirm in part.
                                          I.
               This appeal arises from Garcia’s Chapter 13 bankruptcy. 1
       Ocwen objected to Garcia’s plan and moved to be allowed to file a
       late claim, alleging that it had a security interest in real property
       owned by Garcia in Hialeah, Florida. Garcia asked the bankruptcy
       court to find that the Note attached to Ocwen’s claim was a forgery
       and to declare that it did not create an enforceable lien. Ocwen

       1 We assume the parties’ familiarity with this case’s complex procedural
       history and discuss only those portions necessary to resolve this appeal.
USCA11 Case: 21-12889      Document: 45-1      Date Filed: 04/28/2023     Page: 3 of 6

       21-12889                Opinion of the Court                         3

       said that Garcia had already litigated its standing and lost in Florida
       state court.
              The bankruptcy court denied Ocwen’s motion to file a late
       claim, but it found that Ocwen or its predecessor in interest had
       obtained a final foreclosure judgment against Garcia in state court
       prior to the commencement of the bankruptcy proceedings. The
       bankruptcy court considered it to be an “absolute limitation” on its
       authority that it was “not an appellate court to review state court
       judgments.” So, on August 23, 2016, it entered an order both (1)
       abstaining from consideration of Ocwen’s claim and (2) granting
       Ocwen relief from the automatic stay—ensuring that the dispute
       between Garcia and Ocwen could continue to be resolved through
       the state court system. And it accordingly overruled Garcia’s
       objections to Ocwen’s claim as moot.
              Garcia—believing that the bankruptcy court should have
       declared the Note a forgery and prevented Ocwen from enforcing
       the foreclosure judgment—has contested the August 23 order to
       this day. Over the next several years, this litigation became a
       procedural morass as Garcia filed motions to reconsider, multiple
       appeals, a Rule 60 motion, and a motion to reinstate a previously
       dismissed appeal. Ultimately, it all led to Garcia simultaneously
       having appeals in two separate district court cases—both of which
       challenged the August 23 order, and one of which also challenged
       the denial of Garcia’s Rule 60 motion. The first district court
       dismissed Garcia’s appeal of the August 23 order for lack of
       prosecution. The second district court denied Garcia’s motion for
USCA11 Case: 21-12889      Document: 45-1      Date Filed: 04/28/2023    Page: 4 of 6

       4                      Opinion of the Court                 21-12889

       leave to appeal the bankruptcy court’s orders, finding Garcia’s
       arguments barred by res judicata because of the first district court’s
       order. It also denied Garcia’s motion to reconsider that decision.
               Garcia appealed both district court’s orders to this Court in
       a single notice of appeal. We dismissed her appeal of the first
       district court’s order as untimely. And we carried with the case the
       question of our jurisdiction over Garcia’s appeal of the second
       district court’s orders—and the underlying August 23 order, denial
       of Garcia’s Rule 60 motion, and denials of her motions to
       reconsider those orders.
                                        II.
              “In the bankruptcy context, this court sits as a second court
       of review and thus examines independently the factual and legal
       determinations of the bankruptcy court and employs the same
       standards of review as the district court.” In re Daughtrey, 896 F.3d
       1255, 1273 (11th Cir. 2018) (quotation omitted). We review a
       bankruptcy court’s decision to lift an automatic stay and its denial
       of a Rule 60(b) motion for abuse of discretion. In re Dixie
       Broadcasting, Inc., 871 F.2d 1023, 1026 (11th Cir. 1989); Lambrix v.
       Sec’y, Florida Dep’t of Corr., 851 F.3d 1158, 1170 (11th Cir. 2017).
       We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. In re
       Feshbach, 974 F.3d 1320, 1328 (11th Cir. 2020).
                                        III.
              We begin by assessing our jurisdiction. Garcia is not precise
       in either her appellate briefing or her Rule 60 motion about what
USCA11 Case: 21-12889      Document: 45-1     Date Filed: 04/28/2023     Page: 5 of 6

       21-12889               Opinion of the Court                         5

       portion of the bankruptcy court’s August 23 order she is
       challenging—the abstention, the relief from the automatic stay, or
       both. For purposes of our jurisdiction, that distinction matters a
       great deal. This Court is strictly forbidden from reviewing a
       bankruptcy court’s “decision to abstain” under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c).
       28 U.S.C. § 1334(d); see also Christo v. Padgett, 223 F.3d 1324,
       1331–32 (11th Cir. 2000). But an order granting relief from an
       automatic stay is a reviewable final order. Ritzen Grp., Inc. v.
       Jackson Masonry, LLC, 140 S. Ct. 582, 586 (2020). Such orders are
       not covered by § 1334(d)’s text, and the question of whether to
       grant relief from the automatic stay is analytically distinct from the
       question of whether to abstain. See 28 U.S.C. § 1334(d); 9 Collier
       on Bankruptcy ¶ 5011.02 (16th ed. 2023). So as long as we do not
       question the abstention order, we may review the bankruptcy
       court’s decision to grant Ocwen relief from the automatic stay.
              To the extent that Garcia’s appeal asks us to review the
       decision of the bankruptcy court “to abstain” from the controversy
       between Garcia and Ocwen, we dismiss it for lack of jurisdiction.
       But, liberally reading Garcia’s pro se filings as also challenging the
       stay relief order, we face one question: Did the bankruptcy court
       abuse its discretion when it granted Ocwen relief from the
       automatic stay? 2

       2Because we may affirm on any ground in the record, we do not address
       whether the district court’s reliance on res judicata was proper.
USCA11 Case: 21-12889     Document: 45-1     Date Filed: 04/28/2023    Page: 6 of 6

       6                      Opinion of the Court                21-12889

              It did not. Garcia accuses the bankruptcy court of being in a
       conspiracy with Ocwen, claiming that the court’s conduct at an
       August 16, 2016, hearing and afterward proves that the court was
       biased against her. But, having reviewed the record, we see only a
       bankruptcy court that conscientiously sought to ensure that the
       stay did not interfere with matters that were outside of the scope
       of the bankruptcy. We certainly do not see any evidence of a
       conspiracy or any other abuse of discretion in granting relief from
       the stay.
              For the same reasons, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its
       discretion in denying Garcia’s Rule 60 motion or her motions to
       reconsider its other orders. And having abstained from considering
       Ocwen’s claim, the bankruptcy court was correct to deny Garcia’s
       objections to that claim as moot.
              That resolves this appeal. The rest of Garcia’s arguments
       either raise issues of state law regarding Ocwen’s relationship with
       the foreclosure judgment or challenge the bankruptcy court’s
       abstention order. But these issues are not properly before this
       Court.
                                 *      *      *
              We DISMISS this appeal for lack of jurisdiction to the extent
       it asks us to review the bankruptcy court’s “decision to abstain,”
       and we otherwise AFFIRM.