1. No category

Case 0:13-cv-62315-RLR Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/07/2014 Page 1 of 9
UN ITED STA TES D ISTR IC T C O U RT
SO U TH ER N D IST RICT O F FL O R ID A
0:13-CV -62315-R LR
A LLEN BO M BA RT,
Bankruptcy Case N o:
13-01028-JKO
Appellant,
TH E FA M ILY CEN TER A T
SUN RISE,LLC,
Appellee.
/
O PIN IO N A N D O R DER
ThismatterisbeforetheCourtuponAppellant'slnitialBriefgDE 10)onhisappealofthe
Bankruptcy Court's Order Granting M otion for Judgm ent on the Pleadings and FinalJudgm ent.
The Courthas considered Appellant's InitialBrief,A ppellee's A nsw er Brief, allsupporting and
opposing tilings,and the record in thiscase. Forthe reasonssetforth below ,the Courtaffirm s
the Banknlptcy Court's order.
1.
BA C K G R O U N D
O n Febnlary 6, 2007, an involuntary petition for banknlptcy w as filed against debtor
entitiesowned by the Appellant,M r.Allen Bombart. See 13-01028,DE 10 at9;13-62315,DE 2
Attach.16 at26. The Appellant'sfather,M r.LouisBombarq aded asa guardian forAppellant
because Appellanthad been declared m entally incompetent. 13-01028,DE 44 at4;13-62315,
DE 2 A ttach. 5 at 95. Approxim ately one year later, the consolidated debtors filed an
Emergency M otion forOrderAuthorizing the Sale ofSubstantially allofTheirA ssetsFree and
Clear ofLiens,Claims and Encumbrances (the $$Sa1e Order''). 13-01028,DE 3 ! l0. The
1
Case 0:13-cv-62315-RLR Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/07/2014 Page 2 of 9
Bankruptcy Courtentered the Sale Order and the consolidated debtors sold al1right, title and
interest in the property that is the subjed of this appealto Louis Bombart,the father of
Appellant,orLouisBombart'sdesignee.13-01028,DE 3! 10.
Louis Bom bartassigned his interestin the aforem entioned purchase to an entity which he
solely ow ned- the A ppellee. 13-01028,DE 3 atEx. B ;13-62315,D E 2 A ttach. 16 at28. Soon
thereafter,the consolidated debtors filed their plan ofreorganization and the Bankruptcy Court
entered an order adopting the plan. 13-01028,DE l ! 13. Because of Louis Bombart's
assignmentto Appellee,title to the property thatisthe subjectofthisappealwastransferred
from the consolidated debtorsto Appellee. 13-62315, D E 2 A ttach.16 at10;D E 15 at22.
A pproxim ately fouryears later,in M ay of2012,Appellanttiled a civilsuitpro se against
his sister,M s.Felice Bom bart,and hisfather,Louis Bom bart, in theSeventeenth JudicialCircuit
of Florida in Brow ard County under case num ber 12-013739-08.
13-01028,DE l !
Appellant'sprayerforreliefineluded arequesttohavetitlein thepropertythatisthesubjed of
this appealtransferred to him via specitic perform ance. 13-01028,DE 1! 15;13-62315,DE 2
Attach.5 at37-38. A ppellant'srequestfortitle to the property w as based on a variety oftheories
thatincluded fraud,civiltheh,and breach offiduciary duty.1 13-01028, DE 1! 14. Appellant's
suit m ay have been filed against Felice Bom bartbecause shortly prior to the suit M s. Bom bart
had taken title2 in the disputed property from Appellee by w arranty deed. See D E 2 A ttach.16 at
29. Soon afterthe aforementioned suitwasfiled (as wellasa notice oflispendens),Felice
Bom barttransferred title in the disputed property back to Appellee. 1d. Appellee,although nota
party to the suit in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,filed suit in Bankruptcy Court, under case
'TheAppellant'sbasisforhissister'sliability isunclearduetotheprosenatureofhiscomplaint.
2ltappears counselforM s. Bombarthasallegedthetransferoftitleto Ms.Bombartwasin error.See13-01028 DE
2 Attach.16 at28.
Case 0:13-cv-62315-RLR Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/07/2014 Page 3 of 9
num ber13-01028,and requested thatthe originalinvoluntary bankruptcy case, 07-10749,be reopened. D E 2 Attach.5.
Appellee's argumentforpetitioning the Bankruptcy Courtto re-open itscase and assert
itsjurisdiction wasthatAppellantwasessentially seeking to invalidatetheBanknzptcy Court's
Sale Order. DE 2 Attach.5 at 75. A fter hearing argum ent, the Bankruptcy Court granted
Appellee's motion,re-opened case 07-10749, and ruled in favorofAppellee by finding that
,
inter alia,Appellant's suit in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit violated a prior injunction
enforcing the Sale Order. See 13-01028, DE 2 Attach.7 at3. TheBankruptcy Courtenjoined
Appellant from interfering with the disputed property and ordered Appellant to essentially
withdraw his state courtclaim s that involved the Sale Order property. See ït;
l This appeal
follow ed. DE 1.
II.
STANDARD O F REVIEW AND JURISDICTION
Under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8013, a district courtreview s the factual
findings of a bankruptcy courtfor clear error. A s forconclusions of 1aw and application of1aw
to the factsofa case,adistrictcourtconductsa de novo review . In re Feingold,730 F.3d 1268,
1272 n.2 (11th Cir.2013). Districtcourtappellate jurisdiction extendsto finalorders from
bankruptcycourts.28U.S.C.j158(a)(1).
111.
D ISC USSIO N
Theissueson appealare bestdivided into threeseparatecategories:(1)thescopeofthe
Bankruptcy Court'spriorinjunctions,(2)thelegality ofthe Bankruptcy Court'sinjunctionsas
applied to Appellant, and (3) the propriety of the Bankruptcy's Court's sanctions against
Appellant, assuming Appellant did violate a lawf'ul injunction of the Bankruptcy Court
.
Case 0:13-cv-62315-RLR Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/07/2014 Page 4 of 9
Accordingly,each ofthesepointsisconsidered in turn.
1. TheScopeoftheBankruptcy Court'sPriorInjunctions
Appellantand Appellee have drastically differentcharacterizations of the facts of this
case. UnderAppellee'sview , thiscase concerns partieswho were notindividually a
prior bankruptcy case, litigating fraud-based claim s thathave no connection with
partof a
a bankruptcy
estate particularly since,at the time of suit, the prior assets of the banknlptcy estate were
owned by a party who was notconnected with the bankruptc
y proceeding in any w ay. U nder
Appellant's view , this case concerns the violation of a bankruptcy cou
rtinjunction,and the
authorityofabankruptcycourttoenforceitsown injunction
.
Appellee'sview,ifaccepted, issupported by caselaw . In re Resorts 1nt'l
, Inc.
,372 F.3d
154 (3d Cir.2004). A bankruptcy court'sjurisdiction, post-confinnation,is lim ited since the
banknzptcy court'sjurisdictionistiedtothebankruptcyestateandpostconfirm ation thedebtor's
-
estate ceases to exist. See id at 165. A ppellant's view is also supported by case law
.
Alderwoods Group, Inc. v. Garcia, 682 F .3d 958,969 (11th Cir.2012). A bankruptcy court
necessarily retainsthe powerto enforce its own ordersand itsown i
njunctions. See id.at969-
70.
In the case below , the Bankruptcy Courtsided with Appellee's view ofthe facts3 The
.
Banknlptcy Courtinterpreteditsown orderand itsown injunctionand applied itsinterpretation
to Appellant's state court law suit. A Bankruptcy Court'sinterpretation of its own orders is
entitled to substantial deference and is review ed under an abuse of discretion standard
.
In re
Optical Techs., Inc., 425 F.3d 1294, 1302-03 (11th Cir.2005). Afterreviewing the decision
3 To theextentthc Bankruptcy Co
urt'sdecision could be construed asincluding findingsoffact, the Courtfinds
thatsuch tindingsoffactarenotclear
lyerroneous
.
Case 0:13-cv-62315-RLR Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/07/2014 Page 5 of 9
below,theCourtfindsthattheBankruptcy Courtdidnotabuse itsdi
scretion.
The Bankruptcy Court's decision was based upon its Sale O
rder and its Confinnation
Order. Underthe Sale Ordcr, title to the disputed property was transferred from entiti
es owned
by the Appellant to the Appellee.
Although Appellant m akes m uch of the fact that
documentation subsequent to the Sale Order did not include references to A ppellee
, the
Bankruptcy Coul'
t disregarded this contention by noting that A
ppellant's state court law suit
soughtto havetitlein theproperty essentially transferred back to Appellant A snoted by the
.
Bankruptcy Court, such an action would essentially invalidate the Sale Order
.
H ypothetically,
the Appellant's state courtlawsuitcould have been viewed undera differentlens had the suit
merely sought,forexample, m onetary dam agesforfraud againstAppellant's sister4 Appellant's
.
request for relief,how ever, included a dem and thatthe disputed property be transferred to him
via specific perfonuance. The Bankruptcy Court's order m ust therefore be view ed in light of
Appellant'sstate courtlawsuit, and itisin thislightthattheCourtviewsthe Bankruptcy Court's
intem rctation ofitsown SaleOrderand Confirmation Order.
The Confirmation Orderspecifically enjoined the prosecution by any person orentity,
directly, derivatively, or otherwise, of any claim or suit or liability which could have bee
n
asserted against any of the released parties in the order. DE 2 A ttach.9 at 48.
The released
parties included tûthe Purchaser''and the Bankruptcy Courtappearsto have concluded thatCithe
Purchaser'' included the Appellant. Id
The Contirm ation Order also retained exclusive
jurisdiction overany claimsmadeorproceedingscommenced againstthe Purchaseraswellas
retainingtheûtfullestand mostextensivejurisdiction''to accomplish theintentsandpurposesof
4Putting aside any peripheralconcerns,thereleaseofliability forparticipantsin thebankruptcyproceedin
acarve- outforfraudulentactions
g included
. DE 2 At
tach.9 at48.
5
Case 0:13-cv-62315-RLR Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/07/2014 Page 6 of 9
theplan,which in turn implemented a generali
njunctionthatstatedthatallpersonswhoheld an
equity interest that w as discharged or tenninat
ed pursuant to the plan would be permanentl
y
enjoined from taking any action thatdid notcomply orwasinconsistentwith the plan or the
Confirmation Order. See id.at53, 35.
In response, AppelleearguesthattheBankruptcy Court'sinjunctionsdid not
encom pass
A ppellant's state courtlaw suit.5 Thebestauthority fordelin
eatingthescopeofaninjunctionis,
however,the courtthatissued the injunction Afterreviewing the ordersthe Bankruptcy Court
.
relied upon in its decision, the court'sreasoning and thetotality offacts in therecord
,
he Court
,t
tinds the Bankruptey'sC ourt's intep retation
ofthescopeofitsowninjunction wasnotan abuse
of discretion. Furtherm ore,the Court finds that the Bankruptc
y Court's intep retation was
substantively correct.
The gravam en ofA ppellant's state courtlaw suit
w as,as the Banknlptcy Courtnoted, an
attack on the validity ofthe Salc Order. The Parties do notdispute thatthe Appellantwasth
e
solc owneroftheconsolidated debtorsin thebankrupt
cy proceeding. See 13-01028, DE 10 at9;
13-62315,DE 2 Attach. l6 at26. Ownership ofthe disputed property w
as transferred in the
bankruptey proceeding from Appellant'swholly owned debtor-entitiesto Appellee
. M or
eover,
the validity ofAppellee's title in the disputed pro
perty,which itobtained via the bankruptcy
proceedings and the Sale Order, wasunderattack in the statecourtproceedingsby virtue
of the
warranty deed executed by Appellee in favor of Appellant's sister. For a state court to order
transfer oftitle to Appellant, itwould logically follow thatthe state courtw
ould find that the
5For example,Appellantar
guesthatthejurisdictionreservedbytheBankruptcyCourtwasonly validup untilsuch
tim e as the bankruptcy proceedings were closedupon the close of the proceedings, Appellant argues
reservation ofjurisdiction vanished. See DE 2 Attach. 9 at 48. A ppellee also argues
the
that under the,pl
implem entedbytheBankruptcyCourtthepurchaserwasdefined asM r
an
,
. Bomba
rt,notAppellee. Id atl2.
6
Case 0:13-cv-62315-RLR Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/07/2014 Page 7 of 9
priortransferoftitleto Appelleewaswrongful. Itisnotforastate courtto decidethata federal
bankruptcy coul't has erred. For these reasons
he Court finds that the Banknlptcy Court
, t
correctly found thatAppellant's state courtsuitwas ultim
Orderand Confirmation Orderofthe Bankruptcy C
ately a collateralattack on the Sale
ourtand,as a result, Appellant'slawsuitwas
withinthescopeoftheBankruptcyCourt'spriorinjunction
.
2. TheLegalityoftheBankruptcyCourt'sInjunction asApplied to Appellant
H aving concluded that the Banltruptcy Court's i
nterpretation of the scope of its own
injunction wasnotan abuse ofdiscretion, the Courtnextturnsto thequestion ofjurisdiction
.
M ore specifically, the Court considers whether the Bankruptcy Co
urt's application of the
injunction to Appellantwas lawful A ppellant does not appear to seriously contend th
at a
.
banknlptcy courtm ay notenforce compliance its o
wn injunctions;ratherAppellee'sargument
appearsto focuson thelength oftimethatpassed betweenthe close oftheunderlying bankruptcy
case and the filing ofA ppellant's law suit, togetherwith the factthattheoriginalbankruptcy case
wasclosed. Appellee'sargum entin thisregard isprimarily based upon an attemptto distinguish
the case ofAlderwoods Group, Inc.v.G arcia
,
682 F.3d 958 (11th Cir.2012)6 Afterreview of
.
Alderwoods,theCourtfindsAppellee'sattemptto disti
nguish thatcaseisunpersuasive.
Alderwoods concerned a bankruptcy courtordered discharge of liability
.
In Alderwoods,the Delaware Bankruptcy Courtentered a
1d.at967-69.
confirm ation orderthatdischarged all
claim sagainstthe debtorsin thatcase in 2002. Id at 962. ln 2008
awsuitwasfiled against
, al
the debtors in state court. 1d.at 961-62. The debtors sought relief from the la
w suit in the
6Appellantalso citesto lnre:Resortslnternational
,I
nc.,372F,3d 154(3dCir.2004) buttheCourtfindsthatcase
distinguishable and inapplicable to the instant ca
se. Resorts International conc,er
ned a bankruptcy court'
j
risdiction over certain claims after bankruptcy proceedings had concluded, but the instant case concerns as
bu
ankruptcy court'sabilitytoenforcecom pliancew ith it
sowninjunctions.
7
Case 0:13-cv-62315-RLR Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/07/2014 Page 8 of 9
Bankruptcy Courtfor the Southern District of Florida. 1d at 962
.
Noting thata discharge
operatesasan injunction,theEleventh Circuitcategorized thestatecourt
suitas(essentially)a
violation oftheinjunction.Seeid at965-66. The appellate courtfurthernoted thatba
.
nkruptcy
judges,likedistrid judges,havethepowerto coercecompliancewith injunctiveorders,and the
courtfurther noted:ksit would wreak havoc on the federal courts to leave enforcem ent of the
injunctive orderofabankruptcy courtin onedistrictto theinterpretive whim sofa bankruptcy
eourtin anotherdistrict.'' 1d.at968-70.
H ere, under Appellant's argum ent, the interpretation of the Banknzptcy Court's
injunction would notbelef4to the t%whims''ofanotherbankruptcy court,butinstead to a state
court. The CourtfindsthatAlderwoodsstandssquarely fo
rthepropositionthat(i)abankruptcy
courtmay issueinjunctionswithin the scopeofitsauthority, (ii)abankruptey coul'tmay actto
enforce its own injunctions,(iii)a significantlapse oftime (in Alderwoods,approxim ately 6
years) does not prevent a bankruptcy court from enforcing compliance w ithin its own
injunctions,and(iv)theenforcementand interpretation ofabankruptc
y court'sinjunctionshould
remain with the same courtthatissued the injunction Under Alderwoods the Bankruptcy
.
,
Court'sintep retationofitsowninjunction, applied to Appellant, w aslaw ful.
The Propriety ofthe B ankruptcy's Court's SanctionsA gainstA ppellant
Having concluded thatthe Bankruptcy Court's interp
retation ofitsown injunction was
lawful, the final question before the Court is whether the Bankruptcy Court's censure for
Appellant's noncompliance with its injunction was lawful After finding Appellant was in
.
contemptofcourtforviolatinganinjunction, the Bankruptcy Court:
(1)EnjoinedAppellantfrom furtherinterferencewithordersoftheBanknlptcy Court;
8
Case 0:13-cv-62315-RLR Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/07/2014 Page 9 of 9
(2)Enjoined Appellantfrom interfering with theproperty thatwasthe subjectofthe Sale
Order'
,
(3)Held thatactionstaken by Appellantwith respectto theproperty thatwasthesubjectof
the SaleOrderwerevoid;
(4)Ordered Appellantto discharge the lispendens he had filed againstthe property and
withdraw a1lreliefsoughtwith respectto theproperty;and
(5)Grantedattorneys'feesandexpensestoAppellant.
DE 2 Attach.7 at3. The Banknlptcy Court's authority forthese sanctions w as derived from 28
U.S.C.j2283,whichallowsforafederalcourtto stayproceedingsin statecourtwhennecessary
toprotectorenforcefederaljudgments,and from l1U.S.C.j 105,which allowsforacourtto
issue any order thatisnecessary and appropriate to carry outthe provisions ofTitle 11. Because
the Court agrees with the Bankruptcy Court's determination that Appellant violated a court
injunction,theCourtfindsthattheBankruptcy Courtdid havethenecessary authority to enjoin
Appellantasspecified aboveand thattheBankruptcy Court'ssanctionswere proper.
Allremaining objectionsofAppellantarepremisedupon Appellant'scharacterizationof
thefactsand,asaresult,Appellant'sremainingobjectionsareirrelevant.
lV .
CO N C LU SIO N
For the reasons set forth above, the Banknlptcy Court's O rder G ranting M otion for
Judgm ent on the Pleadings and Final Judgment is AFFIRM ED and Appellant's appeal is
DEN IED . The Clerk ofthe CourtshallC LO SE TH IS CA SE .
D O N E and O RD ER ED in Cham bers,FortPierce, Florida,this 6th day ofOd ober,
2014.
'e
. .
Q
RO IN L.ROSENBERG
Q
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copitsfurnished to CounselofRecord
9