# Amicus Curiae Brief — Rivet v. Regions Bank of Louisiana > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386014_1389%3A3 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Amicus Curiae Brief - **Published:** January 1, 2001 - **Citation:** 531 U.S. 1126 ## Text 4) > Supreme Court, U.S. FILED ss DEC 22 2000 In The |_ OFFICE OF TH CLEWK ! Supreme Court of the United States ¢ MARY ANNA RIVET, MINNA REE WINER, EDMOND G. MIRANNE, and EDMOND G. MIRANNE, JR., Petitioners, versus REGIONS BANK, WALTER L. BROWN, JR., PERRY S. BROWN, and FSA, L.L.C., Respondents. ¢ On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Fifth Circuit o BRIEF OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA, AS AMICUS CURIAE, SUPPORTING THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI ¢ RIcHARD P. IEYous Attorney General Counsel of Record AnciE Rocers LAPLACE Assistant Attorney General LouisIANA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE P.O. Box 94005 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804 (225) 342-1134 Attorneys for The State of Louisiana as Amicus Curiae 225-6964 COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO., (800 OR CALL COLLECT (402) 342-283 —- QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) Must a federal bankruptcy court’s order affect- ing property rights in Louisiana be domesticated and enforced according to the statutes of the State of Louisi- ana, or may those statutes be completely ignored on the theory that the judgment is somehow “self-executing”? (2) May a federal bankruptcy court order be so con- strued as to necessarily result in erroneous and inaccu- rate entries being maintained in the Louisiana public records, thereby irreparably damaging the integrity of the public records of the State of Louisiana? il LIST OF PARTIES The State of Louisiana has no knowledge of any parties to the proceedings in the Court whose judgment is sought to be reviewed here other than those whose names appear either in the caption of the case or in the section entitled “List of Parties” in the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari. See, Petition for Writ of Certiorart, at ii. ili TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Cpsetions Presented... ....5ccccsvcaveccscisnevesase i oF 8. | rer rrerrrr rr errr rst er yr rc ii :. tae Perr errr iii cc Ue 2 errr rer iv Opinions Below ...............eee eee e eee e eee eeee 1 Giatemnent of TarieGiction. « «6.06 osc0ecesacnavcaun cs 1 Interest of the State of Louisiana as Amicus Curiae.... 2 Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Involved...... 2 a ea Per ree er ree rer 3 I. Basis for Federal Jurisdiction in the Court of ee Peer rrr er Terre ret eer tee re 3 Me Dee OE FOCES ... oo cic n ccc ai Tecan sccnces 3 III. Course Proceedings and Disposition Below.... 3 IV. The Opinion Below ..............-...eeeeeeees 3 Argument for Allowance of the Writ............--. 4 I. Summary Of Argument..................52+5: 4 II. The State of Louisiana cannot accept a situation where its valid statutory enactments are simply ignored based upon the entry of a bankruptcy I BE ona 5 coun sdcn nb anencass es cantene sss 6 III. The State of Louisiana cannot accept a situation where the integrity of its public records is com- promised by the entry of a bankruptcy court eel aa ec kG osc chead ine Wee 06.65 eawene bees 15 iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page Cases: Amoskeag Bank v. Chagnon, 133 N.H. 11, 572 A.2d SOE ere eee ere ee 16 Anthony v. Butler, 38 U.S. (13 Pet.) 423, 10 L.Ed. od BR See err er rrr rr erm 17 Baker by Thomas v. General Motors Corp., __ U.S. Sn Oe CORO ss rb is bas anerwaniaes 7, 8, 12 Clarke v. Willard, 294 U.S. 211, 55 S.Ct. 356, 79 iS % ¢: . Baer Seer eee 17 Davis v. Davis (In re Davis), 170 F.3d 475 (Sth Cir.) (En banc), cert. denied, 120 S.Ct. 67 (1999)....... 7, 10, 17, 18 Dick v. Balch, 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 30, 1 L.Ed. 856 (1834) .... 17 Durfee v. Duke, 375 U.S. 106, 84 S.Ct. 242, 11 Se CI Gk 5 ae eta deekaehehueak een 14 Ferguson v. Porter, 359 So.2d 676 (La. App. 1st Cir. ccc, COE Ce EE CET Se eee er oor 18 Green v. Bushkirk, 72 U.S. (5 Wall.) 307, 18 L.Ed. eT CN 5 tay ahacnsd ced bie eEN UE tee eee eueun 17 Hampton v. McConnell, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat) 234, 4 Ss ee EEN 65 cad Ove chee dCaenhatucasatbaes 11 Hervey v. Rhode Island Locomotive Works, 93 U.S. (3 Otte) 664, 23 L.Ed. 10035 C1676) ...... 2. cs cncecenes 17 Lepard v. Lepard, 722 So.2d 367 (La. App. 2nd Cir. a eee eee ey reer rr rr ery ee Pree ee ep ere 13 Levinz v. Will, 1 U.S. (1 Dall.) 430, 1 L.Ed. 209 PRPS yh ks beaka ka ae eee 17 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued Page McDuffie v. Walker, 51 So. 100 (La. 1909) ............ 16 McElmoyle ex rel. Bailey v. Cohen, 13 Pet. 312, 10 Lt, BFF COGRRP ss We must therefore conclude yet again that the actual and potential harm done to vital interests of the State of Louisi- ana is not offset by any reciprocal federal interest in letting stand the opinion below. The State statutes involved attempt in no way to negate ultimately the order of the bankruptcy court. Indeed, La. R.S. 9:5031 and 9:5251 pro- vide by express language that the cancellation of mort- gages, and the removal of their inscription from the public records, as ordered by a bankruptcy court, may be fully accomplished through the simple expedient of domestica- tion and enforcement of the bankruptcy order.!© This puts 14 The State of Louisiana concurs in Petitioners’ exposition of the various ill effects that this state of affairs will have on Louisiana’s public records. See Petition, at 21-23. In the interest of brevity, this discussion will not be repeated here. 15 Similarly, as discussed in the preceding section, one might imagine, and one must ponder, what other legislative enactments of the State of Louisiana may be effectively invalidated by the fiat of a bankruptcy court, or any other federal court, if the power implicit in the opinion below is allowed to stand unchecked. 16 In the normal and anticipated circumstance, when a sale of property is ordered free and clear of liens and encumbrances, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 363(f)(3), the proceeds of the sale will be sufficient to satisfy all such liens and encumbrances. The lien or encumbrance then is not merely extinguished but transferred to the proceeds of the sale, and ultimately satisfied. In this 20 the holder of a bankruptcy judgment in no different a position than the holder of any other federal judgment, while at the same time allowing the Louisiana courts to monitor the integrity of the public records. If one were to weigh the interests advanced by Congress in the Bank- ruptcy Code against those of the State of Louisiana in the integrity of her public records, the scales would seem to tip decisively in Louisiana’s favor. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth herein, the Petition should be granted, and a Writ of Certiorari should issue to review the opinion and judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Further, the decision below should be vacated, and the Louisiana statutory scheme in question should be upheld. Respectfully submitted, RicHArD P. IEYous Attorney General Counsel of Record AnciE Rocers LAPLACE Assistant Attorney General LouIsiANA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE P.O. Box 94005 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804 (225) 342-1134 Attorneys for The State of Louisiana as Amicus Curiae situation the purchaser of the property may, if necessary, simply convoke a summary mandamus proceeding to procure the order of a State court that the mortgage be cancelled and that the Recorder of Mortgages erase the inscription thereof, based upon satisfaction. La. Civil Code art. 3337. Moreover, under La. RS. 9:5385, the holder of a Mortgage note who fails to surrender the note when it is satisfied is liable for damages resulting from such failure. As far as the State is aware, however, during the seven-year course of this litigation, Respondents have advanced no claim that the subject mortgage was in fact satisfied in the bankruptcy proceeding. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386014_1389%3A3. Public record. Not legal advice.