Sawyer v. Worcester, No. 1:2009cv00298 - Document 23 (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
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division AVA MAUREEN SAWYER, Appellant, l:09cv298 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 appellee Dean S. two lawyers, Worcester, representation of Preston E. l:09cv298 (E.D. Va. of nearly 14 years of appellant Ava Maureen Sawyer and stemming from their joint Sr. Conner, filed two bankruptcy appeals. No. arise out 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 Worcester, et al.. No. claim. l:09cv431 The (E.D. second, Va. Sawyer v. filed April 21, 2009), involves the bankruptcy court's order denying several of her motions related to the claims of is not needed because the adequately presented would not I. the appellees.1 Oral argument facts and legal contentions are in the materials submitted and argument aid the decisional process. Background The underlying bankruptcy proceeding arises out of a dispute over attorneys' time, fees that began in the early 1990s. At that Sawyer and Worcester performed legal services for a client, Preston E. Conner, Sr. 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 Frederick County, of funds Sawyer was holding hearing on the petition, in escrow. After conducting a full Judge Designate Rudolph Bumgardner, issued a Final Decree on August 26, the apparently seeking the return III 1994,2 which declared that fee due to Sawyer and Worcester from Conner was $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, the Judges of the Circuit requested that a Judge be 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. Court had heard evidence concerning how the The Court decided that Sawyer and Worcester were each due $62,000.00, $10,000.00 the arriving at that they were due and dividing the figure by subtracting the already paid from the resulting amount had already received those funds $134,000.00 equally. from Conner, Sawyer to pay Worcester $62,000.00, Sawyer filed a notice of appeal of his Because Sawyer the Court ordered share of the the Final Decree, to file a timely petition for review, they were fees. but failed and her appeal was dismissed by the Virginia Supreme Court. Sawyer failed to disburse filed Debtor Interrogatories the funds to Worcester, to enforce his That court Rule the to enforce who was represented by counsel, Vacate, in which she challenged the August 26, arguing that the court then judgment against her in the Circuit Court of Frederick County. to Show Cause and a Capias who issued a judgment. Sawyer, filed a Motion to Quash and 1994 judgment, lacked jurisdiction to enter the judgment and that she was not afforded the fundamental fairness required by due process. After holding a hearing on the motion, 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 finding Court of "no reversible The United States Supreme Court denied Sawyer's certiorari. has subsequent petition for a writ Although the 1994 judgment is a final judgment, it not been satisfied. After filing two previous bankruptcy cases which were subsequently dismissed, Estate of Preston Conner, Sr., have 2007. judgment. out those Sawyer's objections to Worcester and the filed claims against based on the unsatisfied 1994 of in this district, Sawyer voluntarily filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy on October 17, II. of These Sawyer, two appeals arise claims. Discussion A. Standard of Review When reviewing the decision of district court must accept they are F.2d 568, B. the court's clearly erroneous. conclusions, however, 570 are {4th Cir. Appeal of a bankruptcy court, Fed. R. findings of Bankr. reviewed de novo. P. a fact unless 8013. Legal In re Green. 934 1991). the June 16, 2008 Order and Memorandum Opinion In Sawyer v. Worcester, l:09cv298, Sawyer appeals the bankruptcy court's Order and Memorandum Opinion of 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, After of 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 objections and affirmed Worcester's plea of res 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 court's claim After carefully reviewing the which included trial transcripts, this Court is no basis upon which to disturb the bankruptcy findings of fact. The bankruptcy court also applied the principles prevented Sawyer and Worcester and the record before the bankruptcy court, finds there to Worcester's 25, to these relitigation of facts. correct legal "The bar of res judicata precludes the same 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. wl) 2d S.E.2d at 445). (Va. 1992). the identity of the remedies identity of the cause of action; and 4) 913, 3) the identity the identity of the qualities of the for or against whom the Supp. 445 the following four elements must be present before res 2) 421 S.E.2d 444, 921 (E.D. claim is made." Va. 2006) 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; and 4) 3) in the state court and the the "quality of the persons" was also the same in both proceedings. In addition, the April 25, 2000 order of Judge Sinclair has become a final judgment, 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, 2008 Order and Memorandum Opinion In Sawyer v. Worcester, et al.. l:09cv431, Order and Memorandum Opinion of October 6, motions: 1) Pepper v. Litton; July 31, 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 Secured Claim in the $25,719.31; 3) Motion to Reconsider, Sum of Alter and Amend the July 30, 2008 Order of the Court Overruling Debtor's Objections to the Claim of Dean S. Worcester and Allowing Worcester a Secured Claim; and 4) Motion to Stay Distributions by the Chapter Trustee Until Debtor's Pepper v. 13 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. 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 the state court judgment when the claim was not in issue" 308 U.S. 295, Worcester's April 25, 302-03 "validity of in the prior (1939). judicata from examining the underlying state court proceeding. This holding claim against Sawyer because, is not applicable as recited above, to the and the bankruptcy court properly determined that it was barred from reviewing the validity of under the principle of res judicata. the bankruptcy court Next, See 2000 order of Judge Sinclair determined that the 1994 judgment was valid, of Litton. Accordingly, to deny this motion will Sawyer appeals the decision of deny her Motion to Reconsider, the judgment the decision be affirmed. the bankruptcy court Alter and Amend the July 31, to 2008 Order of the Court Overruling Debtor's Objections to the Claim of 3 In her description of her appeal, Sawyer stated that she was appealing the decision "Denying Mot. to Stay Distributions by Trustee." Because 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. Litton Motion Has Been Resolved. 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. to the calculation of Conner, Sr. Litton. Sawyer also specifically objected the amount due to the Estate of Preston 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, 2008 Alter and Amend Order of the Court Overruling Debtor's Objections to the Claim of Dean S. Worcester a Secured Claim. discussion of Sawyer v. For the Worcester, given by the bankruptcy court, Worcester and Allowing reasons 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 Litton was denied by the same October 6, 2008 Order, Pepper v. this motion was appropriately denied. Ill. 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, modifying, establishing new law." and other legal contentions violates Rule 11, P. R. Civ. P. ll(b){2). the Court may impose sanctions. If a party Fed. R. ll(c). Entered this *j Alexandria, for or reversing existing law or for Fed. . She must also are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument extending, . day of August, 2009. Virginia Briake^T United States District 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.
