In Re Janice Rene Haynes, No. 2:2015cv04236 - Document 52 (C.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER AFFIRMING BANKRUPTCY COURT ORDERS by Judge Andre Birotte Jr.: The Order Denying Appellant's First Motion to Convert is AFFIRMED (Case No. 15-04236). The Order Denying Appellant's Second Motion to Convert is AFFIRMED (Case No. 15-07159). The Orders appealed from are AFFIRMED. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (gk)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
In Re Janice Rene Haynes Doc. 52 1 JS-6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 In re: JANICE RENE HAYNES, Chapter 7 Debtor 12 Appeals from Bk. No. 14-bk-31355-NB 13 14 JANICE RENE HAYNES, 15 16 17 18 19 Case Nos. CV 15-04236-AB CV 15-07159-AB ORDER AFFIRMING BANKRUPTCY COURT ORDERS Appellant, v. TIMOTHY J. YOO, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE, Appellee. 20 21 Appellant Janice Rene Haynes (“Appellant”), appearing pro se, appeals from 22 two orders of the bankruptcy court. For both appeals, Appellee Timothy J. Yoo, 23 Chaper 7 Trustee (“Trustee”) filed responsive memoranda, and Appellant filed reply 24 memoranda. Also in both appeals, Appellant filed multiple corrected memoranda, 25 amended memoranda, supplemental exhibits, and the like. In light of Appellant’s pro 26 se status, the Court accepted these filings, but the result is a confusing docket. For 27 any memorandum as to which Appellant made multiple filings, the Court will treat the 28 1. Dockets.Justia.com 1 final filing as the operative one. As such, the Court considered the following 2 memoranda: in Case No. 15-04236, Dkt Nos. 30, 39, 49; in Case No. 15-07159, Dkt. 3 Nos. 51, 54, 65. 4 I. 5 BACKGROUND Both appeals concern the bankruptcy court’s denial of Appellant’s motions to 6 convert her Chapter 7 case to a Chapter 13 case.1 Appellant claimed that she was 7 given bad advice by a non-lawyer bankruptcy preparer to file her bankruptcy under 8 Chapter 7, but she would have been better off not filing at all or filing under Chapter 9 13. Appellant therefore first sought to dismiss the case; the bankruptcy court denied 10 that motion, and Appellant has not appealed that order. Appellant thereafter moved 11 to convert her case from Chapter 7 to Chapter 13, but the court denied those motions. 12 In Case No. 15-04236, Appellant appeals the bankruptcy court’s 05/27/2015 13 Order Denying Debtor’s Motion to Convert Chapter 7 Case to Chapter 13. See 14 Supplemental Excerpts of Record (“SER,” Dkt. No. 40), Exs. 4, 5 (“First Motion”); 15 Exs. 6, 7 (Trustee’s Opposition and RJN); Ex. 9 (“First Order,” Bk. Dkt. No. 74); Ex. 16 10 (Notice of Appeal). 17 In Case No. 15-07159, Appellant appeals the bankruptcy court’s 08/26/2015 18 Order Denying Application for Order Setting Hearing on Shortened Notice and 19 Denying Underlying Motion with Prejudice. See SER (Dkt. No. 55), Exs.11, 12 20 (“Second Motion”); Ex. 13 (“Second Order” (Bk. Dkt. No. 110)); Ex. 14 (Notice of 21 Appeal). 22 The Court notes that substantial portions of Appellant’s memoranda are 23 unintelligible or concern matters not on appeal, and that the memoranda include only a 24 few citations to the record. Furthermore, Appellant’s reply memoranda are largely 25 26 27 28 1 Appellant’s memoranda in both appeals also argue that the bankruptcy court’s 04/21/2015 Order Denying Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of Chapter 7 Case was erroneous, but Appellant’s notices of appeal do not include this Order. Therefore, that Order is not before the Court on appeal. 2. 1 non-responsive to the Trustee’s memoranda, and instead mostly repeat the same 2 arguments Appellant made in her opening memoranda. 3 4 5 The district court has jurisdiction to hear these appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §158(a). The Court will first address Case No. 15-04236. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 6 The standard of review is the same in for both appeals. 7 A district court may hear appeals from “final judgments, orders, and decrees, 8 and, with leave of the court, from interlocutory orders and decrees, of bankruptcy 9 judges.” 28 U.S.C. §158(a). A bankruptcy court’s findings of fact are reviewed under 10 the “clearly erroneous” standard, and its conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 11 Compton Impressions, Ltd., v. Queen City Bank, N.A. et al. (In re Compton 12 Impressions, Ltd)., 217 F.3d 1256, 1260 (9th Cir. 2000); Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8013 13 (“Findings of fact, whether based on oral or documentary evidence, shall not be set 14 aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of 15 the bankruptcy court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.”). 16 A bankruptcy court’s decision on a matter subject to its discretion will not be 17 set aside unless there is plain error or abuse of discretion. An order regarding 18 conversion of a case is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Beatty v. Traub (In re 19 Beatty), 162 B.R. 853, 855 (9th Cir. BAP 1994); Rosson v. Fitzgerald (In re Rosson), 20 545 F.3d 764, 771(9th Cir. 2008) (denial of debtor’s request for dismissal of Chapter 21 13 case and to convert to Chapter 7 is reviewed for abuse of discretion). 22 Whether a bankruptcy court has abused its discretion is determined by a two- 23 part test. First, the appellate court determines de novo whether the bankruptcy court 24 identified the correct legal rule to apply to the relief requested. Second, if the 25 bankruptcy court correctly applied the legal rule, then its factual findings are 26 examined for clear error. The bankruptcy court’s factual findings are affirmed unless 27 it is determined that those findings are “(1) ‘illogical,’ (2) ‘implausible,’ or (3) without 28 ‘support in inferences that may be drawn from the facts in the record.’ ”. United States 3. 1 2 3 4 5 v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1261-62, n.20 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc). III. DISCUSSION A. The Order Denying Appellant’s First Motion to Convert is AFFIRMED (Case No. 15-04236) Appellant appeals the bankruptcy court’s order denying her First Motion to 6 convert her Chapter 7 case to a Chapter 13 case. Appellant argued that she was given 7 bad advice to file under Chapter 7 and that she should have filed, if at all, under 8 Chapter 13 instead, so she moved to convert the case. Appellant contends that the 9 order denying her motion was in error for three reasons. None of them has merit. 10 First, Appellant argues that the Trustee’s opposition to her motion to convert 11 was untimely and that it was an abuse of discretion for the bankruptcy court to 12 consider it. Appellant filed her notice of and motion to convert on May 12, 2015. 13 Under Bankruptcy Rule 9013-1(o)(1), any written objection was to be filed within 14 14 days of the service of the notice. Thus, the deadline to oppose was May 28, 2015; the 15 Trustee filed his opposition on May 25, 2015, so it was timely. Appellant says the 16 Trustee’s opposition was untimely because the bankruptcy judge ordered filings to be 17 submitted at least 7 days before May 26, 2015, which would be May 19, 2015. But 18 upon review of the full transcript Appellant cites, the judge was not referring to filings 19 on the motion to convert, but to filings related to the status conference also scheduled 20 for May 26, 2015. This ground of the appeal is therefore unfounded. 21 Second, Appellant argues that her motion to convert should have been granted 22 because she did not have any creditors to protect under Chapter 7, including the 23 Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”). Appellant argues that the IRS did not want her tax 24 debt to be in the bankruptcy case and instead wanted to resolve it in an ongoing case 25 in tax court. The only evidence Appellant points to that the IRS was willing to waive 26 its claim are Appellant’s own difficult-to-follow statements about the IRS claim at a 27 December 1, 2015 hearing—well after the bankruptcy court issued its May 27, 2015 28 Order that she appeals. It suffices to say that Appellant’s unsubstantiated statements 4. 1 do not to establish the status of the IRS’s claim. Appellant has not cited competent 2 evidence that the IRS did in fact waive its claim, and the record establishes the 3 contrary: as of August 8, 2017, the Claims Register for Appellant’s bankruptcy case 4 shows several extant claims, including an IRS clam of some $104,212. See Claims 5 Register (Dkt. No. 40-4, Ex. 11, pp. 408-410). 6 Appellant finally argues that the bankruptcy judge was biased against her. The 7 Court has reviewed Appellant’s assertions and they establish only that she disagrees 8 with his rulings. This does not establish “bias.” Furthermore, the Court has examined 9 the partial transcripts of the March 10, 2015 and April 14, 2015 hearings that 10 Appellant provided and these portions do not evidence bias against her; rather, they 11 show that the judge attempted to find some remedy for Appellant. 12 Although the Order does not expressly provide the bankruptcy court’s 13 reasoning, it does state that the court considered the memoranda and the arguments 14 presented at hearings on March 10, 2015 and April 14, 2015. The memoranda before 15 the bankruptcy court present the applicable legal standards, and the Court finds that 16 the bankruptcy court applied them, and that it did not abuse its discretion in denying 17 Appellant’s motion. The bankruptcy code provides that a “debtor may convert a 18 case,” but “a case may not be converted. . . unless the debtor may be a debtor under 19 such chapter.” 11 U.S.C. § 706. A person “may be a debtor” under Chapter 13 only if 20 she is “an individual with regular income.” 11 U.S.C. §109(e). Here, Appellant’s 21 schedules reflect that she was not employed and had a negative net monthly income, 22 so she was not an “individual with regular income” and was not qualified to be a 23 debtor under Chapter 13. The bankruptcy court therefore did not err in denying 24 Appellant’s motion to convert. 25 26 27 28 B. The Order Denying Appellant’s Second Motion to Convert is AFFIRMED (Case No. 15-07159) Appellant appeals the bankruptcy court’s August 26, 2015, Order Denying Application for Order Setting Hearing on Shortened Notice and Denying Underlying 5. 1 Motion with Prejudice. Appellant’s underlying motion, filed earlier on August 26, 2 2015, was entitled Emergency Motion to Apply Homestead Exemption and Convert to 3 Chapter 13 (“Second Motion”). After reviewing the Second Motion and the Order, 4 the Court affirms. 5 In her Second Motion, Appellant sought to apply the homestead exemption to 6 her Heyward rental property, and to convert from Chapter 7 to Chapter 13. The 7 bankruptcy court ruled that the homestead exemption did not apply to the Heyward 8 rental property because Appellant was not living there either when she filed the case 9 or when she filed the motion. This correctly applies the law governing whether a 10 dwelling is a debtor’s “homestead.” See Cal. Code Civ. P. § 704.710(c) (defining 11 “homestead”). Appellant sought the homestead exemption because she felt that she 12 should not have filed for bankruptcy either at all or under Chapter 7, but as the 13 bankruptcy court noted, that circumstance does not allow the court to disregard the 14 law governing the homestead exemption. The bankruptcy court therefore did not 15 abuse its discretion in not allowing Appellant the apply the homestead exemption to 16 the Heyward rental property. 17 In her Second Motion, Appellant also again sought to convert from a Chapter 7 18 to a Chapter 13 case. Appellant argued that she could obtain contributions from 19 friends and family to pay the trustee and to fund a plan. The bankruptcy court noted 20 that, in connection with Appellant’s First Motion to convert, the court said that no 21 such motion would be granted “unless, at a minimum, (a) the Debtor compensated the 22 chapter 7 trustee. . . and (b) the Debtor proposed a viable chapter 13 plan.” See 23 Second Order (emphasis in original). But, while the Second Motion purported to 24 attach declarations from the donors, no such declarations were actually filed, nor did 25 Appellant file any actual proposed Chapter 13 plan showing how she could pay in full 26 her creditors or the Chapter 7 trustee. This reasoning is consistent with the applicable 27 legal standard governing eligibility for Chapter 13. Appellant argues that she was 28 entitled to automatically convert her case, but as discussed above, a case cannot be 6. 1 converted to a Chapter 13 case unless the debtor is eligible under Chapter 13, and 2 here, Appellant was simply not eligible under Chapter 13. 3 4 5 6 In sum, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant’s Second Motion. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Orders appealed from are AFFIRMED. 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 Dated: January 5, 2018 _______________________________________ HONORABLE ANDRÉ BIROTTE JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 11 12 13 CC: Bankruptcy Court and BAP 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7.
]]>
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.
