Silvey v. Severson ( 1997 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
DEC 22 1997
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
In re: ROMAN G. WENINGER and
MARY MADELEINE WENINGER,
Debtors,
No. 97-1238
CORAL SILVEY, (D.C. No. 96-Z-2552)
(D. Colo.)
Appellant,
v.
ROBERT SEVERSON, Trustee,
Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before ANDERSON, McKAY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Appellant Coral Silvey appeals the district court’s order affirming an order
of the bankruptcy court granting appellee-trustee Robert Severson’s motion for
approval of sale of certain pieces of property from the bankruptcy estate of
debtors Roman G. and Mary Madeleine Weninger. The district court determined
that Ms. Silvey’s claims were barred by res judicata. Ms. Silvey appeals, and we
affirm.
The three parcels of property in Kansas in which Ms. Silvey claims an
interest have been in bankruptcy litigation since March 1989 when debtors filed
for Chapter 11 protection. The bankruptcy court issued orders in 1990 and 1993,
determining that the debtors’ actions in quit claiming the property to Ms. Silvey
several weeks before filing the bankruptcy action were fraudulent pursuant to
11 U.S.C. § 548, and the transfers should be avoided pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 550.
In both orders, the bankruptcy court declared Ms. Silvey’s interest in the property
to be null and void.
Despite the bankruptcy court’s determination that Ms. Silvey had no legal
interest in the property, in August 1995, Ms. Silvey sold the property to
Melvin M. and Colleen R. Nelson in exchange for a mortgage in the amount of
$80,000. On January 16, 1996, the bankruptcy court entered an order granting the
trustee’s motion for summary judgment, and declaring the subject property to be
part of the bankruptcy estate. The court imposed a constructive trust upon all
-2-
cash and other consideration received by Ms. Silvey as a result of her sale of the
property. Ms. Silvey did not appeal this order.
On October 21, 1996, the bankruptcy court entered another order declaring
Ms. Silvey’s attempted sale null and void, and approving the sale of the property
by the bankruptcy estate to the Nelsons for the purchase price of $80,000, free
and clear of all interests, liens, and encumbrances. Ms. Silvey appealed this order
to the district court.
On appeal, the district court held that in attempting to convey the property
to the Nelsons, Ms. Silvey had ignored the prior orders of the bankruptcy court
declaring her interest in the property to be null and void. In dismissing Ms.
Silvey’s appeal, the court concluded that because she had failed to appeal from
the January 1996 order, her claims were precluded as res judicata.
We review a district court’s conclusions of law as to the applicability of the
doctrine of res judicata de novo. See State Bank of S. Utah v. Gledhill (In re
Gledhill), 76 F.3d 1070, 1082 (10th Cir. 1996). “Under res judicata, a final
judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties or their privies from
relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in that action.” Allen v.
McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94 (1980). In Colorado, the doctrine of res judicata
absolutely bars later actions “when the later action involves the same parties,
subject matter, and claims, as determined in a former proceeding.” Swisher v.
-3-
Phillips, 897 P.2d 914, 916 (Colo. App. Ct. 1995). “The doctrine of res judicata
applies generally to bankruptcy proceedings.” Griego v. Padilla (In re Griego), 64
F.3d 580, 584 (10th Cir. 1995); accord Swisher, 897 P.2d at 916.
Here, the bankruptcy court considered Ms. Silvey’s claims of interest in the
property numerous times since the institution of the bankruptcy proceeding in
1989. All of the decisions on the issue involved the same parties, subject matter,
and cause of action. Because she failed to appeal, these orders are now final, and
under the doctrine of res judicata, Ms. Silvey’s claims are foreclosed from further
consideration. Therefore, the district court was correct in refusing to consider the
claims and in dismissing Ms. Silvey’s appeal.
The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Monroe G. McKay
Circuit Judge
-4-