Sawyer v. Worcester et al, No. 1:2009cv00431 - Document 11 (E.D. Va. 2009)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION Re: Bankruptcy Appeal. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 8/4/2009. Per LMB Chambers copy sent to appellant pro se.(stas)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES F DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division AVA MAUREEN SAWYER, Appellant, l:09cv2 98 DEAN S. (LMB/IDD) 1:O9CV431 v. (LMB/IDD) WORCESTER, Appellee. AVA MAUREEN SAWYER, Appellant, v. DEAN S. WORCESTER, et al.. Appellees. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION These two bankruptcy appeals litigation between two lawyers, appellee Dean S. Worcester, representation of Preston E. l:09cv298 (E.D. Va. of nearly 14 years of appellant Ava Maureen Sawyer and stemming filed two bankruptcy appeals. No. arise out their joint Sr. Conner, from Sawyer, In the first, filed March 18, pro Sawyer v. 2009), se, has Worcester. she appeals from the bankruptcy court's order sustaining Worcester's plea of res judicata and collateral estoppel and overruling her objection to the validity of Worcester's claim. Worcester, et al.. No. l:09cv431 The second, (E.D. Va. Sawyer v. filed April 21, 2009), involves the bankruptcy court's order denying several of her 42009 motions related to the is not needed because adequately presented would not I. claims of the appellees.1 Oral argument the facts and legal contentions are in the materials submitted and argument aid the decisional process. Background The underlying bankruptcy proceeding arises over attorneys' time, fees that began in the early Sawyer and Worcester performed legal Preston E. Conner, Sr. out of a dispute 1990s. services At that for a client, After successfully representing Conner, the parties disagreed over the attorneys' fees due, and Conner filed a Petition in Equity against Sawyer and Worcester in the Circuit Court of of funds Frederick County, apparently seeking the return Sawyer was holding in escrow. hearing on the petition, After conducting a full Judge Designate Rudolph Bumgardner, III issued a Final Decree on August 26, 1994,2 which declared that the from Conner was fee due to Sawyer and Worcester $134,000.00 and that Sawyer should disburse the fee and provide the remaining $117,085.94 that she was holding in escrow to Conner. The Decree 1 Because the two appeals arise out of one bankruptcy proceeding, In re Ava Maureen Sawyer. No. l:07bkl3021 (Bankr. E.D. Va. filed Oct. 17, 2007), they will be decided in one Memorandum Opinion. This Memorandum Opinion and the accompanying Order will be filed in both civil actions. 2 Because one of the attorneys in the suit regularly practiced before the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Judges of the Circuit requested that a Judge be the designated to preside over the matter. The hearing included opening statements and a presentation of evidence by Sawyer, Worcester, and Conner. also stated that fees should be divided between Sawyer and Worcester over Sawyer's objection. due The $62,000.00, $10,000.00 the arriving at the that figure already paid from resulting amount had already received those funds filed a notice of appeal of dismissed by the Virginia Supreme filed Debtor in the Rule Interrogatories Circuit Court of the represented by counsel, Vacate, in which she the court and was by due process. not to the Sawyer Court the ordered fees. Final Decree, but and her appeal was failed Court. funds to Worcester, his judgment That enforce the filed a Motion challenged the August arguing that she the they were Because share of Frederick County. who was $134,000.00 equally. to enforce to Show Cause and a Capias that the his to file a timely petition for review, Sawyer failed to disburse by subtracting the from Conner, Sawyer to pay Worcester $62,000.00, Sawyer concerning how the Court decided that Sawyer and Worcester were each they were due and dividing Court had heard evidence 26, who then against her court issued a judgment. Sawyer, to Quash and 1994 judgment, lacked jurisdiction to enter the judgment afforded the fundamental fairness After holding a hearing on the motion, required Judge Sinclair issued a decree denying Sawyer's Motion to Quash and Vacate. Sawyer appealed the decision. The Virginia refused the petition for appeal, error in the judgment complained of." Supreme Court of finding "no reversible The United States Supreme Court denied Sawyer's certiorari. has subsequent petition for a writ of Although the 1994 judgment is a final it not been satisfied. After filing two previous bankruptcy cases which were subsequently dismissed, Chapter 13 Estate of bankruptcy on October 17, Preston Conner, Sr., have 2007. out those Sawyer's objections to district, Worcester and the filed claims judgment. of in this Sawyer voluntarily filed for based on the unsatisfied 1994 II. judgment, These against Sawyer, two appeals arise claims. Discussion A. Standard of Review When reviewing the decision of district court must they are clearly erroneous. conclusions, F.2d 568, B. accept however, 570 of court's Fed. R. findings Bankr. are reviewed de novo. (4th Cir. Appeal the a bankruptcy court, the P. of fact unless 8013. In re a Legal Green, 934 1991). June 16, 2008 Order and Memorandum Opinion In Sawyer v. Worcester. l:09cv298, Sawyer appeals bankruptcy court's Order and Memorandum Opinion of the June 16, 2008 which sustained Worcester's plea of res judicata and overruled Sawyer's objection to the validity of Worcester's claim. reviewing the briefs on the matter, of After each side and patiently taking evidence the bankruptcy court issued a comprehensive and well-reasoned Memorandum Opinion dated June 16, 2008, which overruled Sawyer's res objections and affirmed Worcester's plea of judicata and collateral estoppel. Specifically, bankruptcy court held that Judge Sinclair's 2000, the order of April which denied Sawyer's Motion to Quash and Vacate, Sawyer from relitigating her objections before the bankruptcy court. submissions of there court's prevented claim After carefully reviewing the Sawyer and Worcester and the record before bankruptcy court, finds to Worcester's 25, which included trial transcripts, the this Court is no basis upon which to disturb the bankruptcy findings of fact. The bankruptcy court also applied the principles to these facts. relitigation of the same correct legal "The bar of res judicata precludes cause of action, or any part thereof, which could have been litigated between the same parties and their privies." Under Virginia Smith v. law, Ware, judicata applies: sought; the of the parties; persons 421 F. S.E.2d 444, nl) the identity of identity of the cause of action; and 4) the identity of the 2d 913, S.E.2d at 445). {Va. 1992). 921 {E.D. Va. 2006) the remedies 3) the identity qualities of the for or against whom the claim is made." Supp. 445 the following four elements must be present before res 2) 421 Wiliner v. (quoting Smith. Frey. 421 The bankruptcy court properly found that all four elements were satisfied because: 1) Sawyer attacked the validity of Worcester's judgment before Judge Sinclair and in her Chapter 13 bankruptcy; 2) in both proceedings, Sawyer claimed that the circuit court lacked personal and subject matter jurisdiction and that her due process rights were violated; Sawyer and Worcester were parties bankruptcy proceedings; also the same and 4) 3) in the state court and the the "quality of in both proceedings. the persons" In addition, 2000 order of Judge Sinclair has become a final the April judgment, was 25, after Sawyer's petition for appeal was denied by the Virginia Supreme Court, and the United States Supreme Court denied her petition for certiorari. Accordingly, the April 25, 2000 order bars Sawyer from relitigating those claims actually made, might have been made, Accordingly, or that in the case before Judge Sinclair. the decision of the bankruptcy court will be affirmed. C. Appeal of the October 6, 2 008 Order and Memorandum Opinion In Sawyer v. Worcester, et Order and Memorandum Opinion of motions: 1) Pepper v. Litton; July 31, al.. l:09cv431, October 6, 2008 Sawyer appeals an denying four Motion to Approve Pursuant to the Authority of 2) Motion to Reconsider, Alter and Amend the 2008 Order of the Court Overruling Debtor's Objections to the Claim of the Estate of Preston Conner and Allowing the Estate of Preston Conner a $25,719.31; 2008 3) Secured Claim in the Motion to Reconsider, Alter and Amend the July 30, Order of the Court Overruling Debtor's Claim of Dean S. Sum of Objections to the Worcester and Allowing Worcester a Secured Claim; and 4) Motion to Stay Distributions by the Chapter 13 Trustee Until Debtor's Pepper v. Litton Motion Has Been Resolved.3 In her Motion Pursuant to the Authority of Pepper v. Sawyer asked the bankruptcy court not judgment against her, so. In Pepper v. Litton. to enforce Worcester's arguing that it would be inequitable to do Litton. the Supreme Court held that the bankruptcy court was not barred by res judicata from examining the state court judgment when the claim was not in issue" 308 U.S. 295, 302-03 "validity of the underlying in the prior state court proceeding. (1939). This holding is not applicable to Worcester's claim against Sawyer because, April 25, See as recited above, the 2000 order of Judge Sinclair determined that the 1994 judgment was valid, and the bankruptcy court properly determined that it was barred from reviewing the validity of the judgment under the principle of res judicata. of Accordingly, the decision the bankruptcy court to deny this motion will be affirmed. Next, Sawyer appeals the decision of deny her Motion to Reconsider, the bankruptcy court to Alter and Amend the July 31, Order of the Court Overruling Debtor's Objections 3 In her description of her appeal, was appealing the decision "Denying Mot. Trustee." Because 2008 to the Claim of Sawyer stated that she to Stay Distributions by the Motion to Approve Stay Distributions by the Chapter 13 Trustee Until Appeals of this Court's Approvals of Creditors Claims Have Been Resolved was granted, this Court assumes that Sawyer is appealing the denial of her Motion to Stay Distributions by Trustee Until Debtor's Pepper v. Has Been Resolved. Litton Motion the Estate of Preston Conner and Allowing the Estate of Preston Conner a Secured Claim in the Sum of $25,719.31. Sawyer argued that the award on August 26, 1994 In this motion, of pre-judgment interest was void ab initio and that the claim should be denied pursuant to Pepper v. Litton. Sawyer also specifically objected to the calculation of the amount due to the Estate of Preston Conner, Sr. In a Memorandum Opinion dated October 6, 2008, the bankruptcy court carefully considered the debtor's objections to its calculation of the claim and explained how it determined the amount of Conner's secured claim. This Court finds no reversible error in the bankruptcy court's decision to deny this motion in its entirety, and the decision will be affirmed for the reasons stated by the bankruptcy court. Sawyer also filed a Motion to Reconsider, the July 30, Alter and Amend 2008 Order of the Court Overruling Debtor's Objections to the Claim of Dean S. Worcester a Secured Claim. discussion of Sawyer v. Worcester and Allowing For the reasons Worcester. given by the bankruptcy court, explained in the l:09cv298, above and those the decision to deny this motion will also be affirmed. Finally, Sawyer appeals the bankruptcy court's decision to deny her Motion to Stay Distributions by the Chapter 13 Trustee Until Debtor's Pepper v. Litton Motion Has Been Resolved. Because Sawyer's Motion Pursuant to the Authority of Pepper v. Litton was denied by the same October 6, 2008 Order, this motion was appropriately denied. III. Conclusion For all these reasons, will be affirmed. the decisions of the bankruptcy court An appropriate Order will issue. If the appellant chooses to appeal or pursue any further litigation related to the claims in these civil actions, she should be mindful of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which mandates that when a party files a pleading, she certifies to the best of her knowledge and belief that "it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or needlessly increase the cost of litigation." certify that "the claims, defenses, . . She must also and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, establishing new law." violates Rule 11, P. or reversing existing law or for Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2). the Court may impose sanctions. If a party Fed. R. ll(c). Entered this jj_ day of August, 2009. Alexandria, Virginia LeonieM. _ United States Dis'wct Judge Civ.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.