Edwards v. America's Home Place, Inc

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

CATHERINE S. EDWARDS

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 20-808-JWD-EWD

AMERICA’S HOME PLACE, INC.

RULING AND ORDER

Before the Court is the Appeal from a November 13, 2020 Judgment issued by the United

States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, as supported by the Appellant’s

Brief, tendered by Catherine Edwards (“Appellant”). (Doc. 1-1.) For the reasons set forth below,

the appeal is denied, and the Judgment of the Bankruptcy Court is affirmed.

I. Relevant Background1

This is an appeal from a Judgment of the Bankruptcy Court denying Appellant’s discharge

pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4)(A). (Doc. 1-1.)

Specifically, Catherine Edwards appeals from an order entered by the United States

Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Louisiana (the “Bankruptcy Court”) in the underlying

bankruptcy proceeding. After trial and in an opinion dated November 13, 2020 (the “November

13, 2020 Order”), the Honorable Judge Douglas D. Dodd denied debtor Edwards's discharge,

pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4)(A), on the grounds that she “knowingly and fraudulently made

a materially false representation in her schedules as to her interest in and the value of her property

as well as failing to schedule the Contract to Partition Property & Purchase Agreement as an

executory contract affecting her property.” (No. 17-01053, Doc. 90 at 20.)

1 In this opinion, a specific case number will be included in any citation to a court document unless that document

has been filed in the present action’s docket, i.e., 20-cv-808-JWD-EWD.

On appeal, Edwards argues that the November 13, 2020 Order and Judgment should be

reversed and that she should be granted a discharge because the Bankruptcy Court did not

thoroughly analyze the evidence and that the evidence does not support a finding of falsehoods or

intent to deceive. (See Doc. 13.) She also contends that the Bankruptcy Court erroneously

concluded that she falsely and intentionally undervalued her property; misrepresented her

ownership interest in the property; and intentionally failed to disclose two executory contracts (a

Contract to Partition Property and Purchase Agreement) to the Bankruptcy trustee, in addition to

numerous other claims. (Id.)

II. Standard of Review

In reviewing a decision of the bankruptcy court, this Court functions as an appellate court

and applies the standards of review generally applied in a federal court of appeals. See Matter of

Webb, 954 F.2d 1102, 1103-04 (5th Cir. 1992). Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See

Matter of Herby's Foods, Inc., 2 F.3d 128, 131 (5th Cir. 1993). Findings of fact are not to be set

aside unless clearly erroneous. See id. at 130-31. “A finding is clearly erroneous when although

there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with a firm and

definite conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Matter of Missionary Baptist Foundation

of America, 712 F.2d 206, 209 (5th Cir. 1983). Thus, appellate courts will sustain a bankruptcy

court's factual findings “absent a firm and definite conviction that the bankruptcy court made a

mistake.” In re Ragos, 700 F.3d 220, 222 (5th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted); Rosbottom v. Schiff,

2018 WL 2946400, at *2 (W.D. La. June 12, 2018), aff'd sub nom. Matter of Rosbottom, 770 F.

App'x 242 (5th Cir. 2019).

III. Discussion

Bankruptcy appeals are governed by the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, which

require an appellant's brief to contain the following:

(a) Appellant’s brief. The appellant’s brief must contain the following under

appropriate headings and in the order indicated:

(1) a corporate disclosure statement, if required by Rule 8012;

(2) a table of contents, with page references;

(3) a table of authorities—cases (alphabetically arranged), statutes, and

other authorities—with references to the pages of the brief where they are

cited;

(4) a jurisdictional statement, including:

(A) the basis for the bankruptcy court’s subject-matter

jurisdiction, with citations to applicable statutory provisions and

stating relevant facts establishing jurisdiction;

(B) the basis for the district court’s or BAP’s jurisdiction, with

citations to applicable statutory provisions and stating relevant

facts establishing jurisdiction;

(C) the filing dates establishing the timeliness of the appeal; and

(D) an assertion that the appeal is from a final judgment, order,

or decree, or information establishing the district court’s or

BAP’s jurisdiction on another basis;

(5) a statement of the issues presented and, for each one, a concise

statement of the applicable standard of appellate review;

(6) a concise statement of the case setting out the facts relevant to the

issues submitted for review, describing the relevant procedural history,

and identifying the rulings presented for review, with appropriate

references to the record;

(7) a summary of the argument, which must contain a succinct, clear, and

accurate statement of the arguments made in the body of the brief, and

which must not merely repeat the argument headings;

(8) the argument, which must contain the appellant’s contentions and the

reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record

on which the appellant relies;

(9) a short conclusion stating the precise relief sought; and

(10) the certificate of compliance, if required by Rule 8015(a)(7) or (b).

Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8014(a). A district court has the authority to summarily affirm a bankruptcy

court's judgment as a sanction for serious non-jurisdictional, procedural defects. See Chlad v.

Chapman, 2018 WL 4144627, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 30, 2018) (collecting cases).

Edwards's submission fails to comply with Rule 8014(a). For example, the merits section

of the brief lacks any coherent argument, meaningful citation to legal authority, specific references

to evidence, and analysis of any standard of review. See Reyes-Garcia v. Rodriguez & Del Valle,

Inc., 82 F.3d 11, 16 (1st Cir. 1996) (dismissing appeal due to appellant's failure to comply with

procedural rules, including briefing requirements); see also Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8014(a)(1)-(10)

(setting forth the requirements for an appellant's opening brief). Additionally, the brief does not

contain a proper jurisdictional statement or a summary of the argument. See Fed. R. Bankr. P.

8014(a)(4) and (a)(7); Eldredge v. Martin Marietta Corp., 207 F.3d 737, 742 n.5 (5th Cir. 2000)

(finding that issues referred to in the Statement of Issues portion of the brief but not actually argued

are abandoned); In re Fremont Hospitality Grp., LLC, 73 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d (MB) 1525, 2015

Bankr. LEXIS 2031 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. June 22, 2015) (appeal dismissed in part because appellant

brief did not include any arguments or references to record that were related to orders being

appealed); In re Burkhart, 84 B.R. 658, 1988 Bankr. LEXIS 626 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1988) (appeal

dismissed where debtors did not furnish entire record on appeal, did not cite record for their many

assertions about background, conduct and substance of litigation, as required by former

Bankruptcy Rule 8010(a)(1), and argument included only 4 general references to record which

supported trial court’s findings.).

The Court is mindful that Edwards filed this appeal pro se, but “[t]he rules of procedure

and the rules governing bankruptcy proceedings apply equally to everyone.” In re Salter, 251 B.R.

689, 692 (S.D. Miss.), aff'd, 234 F.3d 28 (5th Cir. 2000). While pro se litigants are held to a less

stringent procedural standard than others, they are not granted immunity from compliance with

procedural and substantive law. May v. Univ. of Mississippi Med. Ctr., 2015 WL 1540429, at *3

(S.D. Miss. Apr. 7, 2015) (“[a] pro se litigant's unfamiliarity with court proceedings does not

relieve him of the duty to abide by procedural rules.”); Aja v. Emigrant Funding Corp., 442 B.R.

857, 861 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 2011); see also Andrews v. Bechtel Power Corp., 780 F.2d 124, 140 (1st

Cir. 1985) (“The right of self-representation is not ‘a license not to comply with relevant rules of

procedural and substantive law.’ ”). A pro se litigant's obligation to comply with substantive and

procedural rules applies to briefing requirements. See O'Neal v. Spota, 744 F. App'x 35, 36 (2d

Cir. 2018) (“Despite affording pro se litigants ‘some latitude’ in meeting procedural rules, [courts]

‘normally will not[ ] decide issues that a party fails to raise in his or her appellate brief.’ ”).

Bankruptcy Rule 8014 “is not only a technical or aesthetic provision, but also has a

substantive function—that of providing the other parties and the court with some indication of

which flaws in the appealed order or decision motivate the appeal.” In re Ross, 2004 WL 6030762,

at *3 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. June 4, 2004). “Appellate rules governing the form of briefs do not exist

merely to serve the whimsy of appellate judges. Some of the requirements ... are essential for the

proper disposition of an appeal.” Id. (quoting Slack v. St. Louis Cnty. Gov't, 919 F.2d 98, 99 (8th

Cir. 1990)). A court is not required to overlook the procedural and substantive omissions in a

party's briefing and to stitch together a cogent argument or to guess what part of the record might

be relevant. See id. at *3-4; see also Eagle Eye Fishing Corp. v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce, 20 F.3d

503, 506 (1st Cir. 1994).

Even viewing Edwards's briefing with the required latitude, see Aja, 442 B.R. at 861, it is

still woefully deficient. The burden was on her to demonstrate a basis for reversing the bankruptcy

court and entering judgment in her favor. Simply put, Edwards failed to provide the Court with a

basis to conclude that the bankruptcy court's judgment did not apply the correct law or rested on a

clearly erroneous finding of material fact.

In light of the foregoing, the Court summarily affirms. See also United States v. Fortner,

455 F.3d 752, 754 (7th Cir. 2006) (“Summary affirmance may also be in order when the arguments

in the opening brief are incomprehensible or completely insubstantial.”); In re Ross, 2004 WL

6030762, at *4 (summarily affirming due to deficient brief); In re Sirikanjanachai, 2019 WL

6605858, at *2–3 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. Dec. 4, 2019).

IV. Conclusion

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is DENIED, and that the Bankruptcy Court’s November

13, 2020, Order is hereby AFFIRMED.

Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on September 22, 2021.

S

JUDGE JOHN W. deGRAVELLES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA