In Re: Andrena Diane Crockett ( 2023 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
IN RE:
ANDRENA DIANE CROCKETT
DEBTOR/APPELLANT
Civ. Action No. 19-2944
(EGS)
Bankr. Case No. 19-101
(Chapter 13)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Andrena Diane Crockett (“Ms. Crockett”) appeals the
Bankruptcy Court’s Order Overruling Objection to Claim of
Nationstar Mortgage LLC D/B/A Mr. Cooper (the “Order Overruling
Objection to Claim”); Memorandum Decision and Order Granting
Motion to Reconsider in Part, Sustaining Debtor’s Objection to
Nationstar’s Proof of Claim in Part, and Otherwise Denying
Debtor’s Motion to Reconsider (the “First Memorandum Decision”);
and Memorandum Decision and Order Granting Nationstar’s Motion
to Alter Order Regarding Debtor’s Motion to Reconsider (the
“Second Memorandum Decision”). See Notice of Bankruptcy Appeal
Record (“A.R.”), ECF No. 2 at 155 (Order Overruling Objection to
Claim), 166-73 (First Memorandum Decision); Suppl. Notice of
Bankruptcy Appeal Record (“Suppl. A.R.”), ECF No. 5 at 3-8. 1 Upon
1 When citing electronic filings throughout this Opinion, this
Court cites to the ECF page number, not the page number of the
filed document.
1
consideration of the briefing, the applicable law, and the
entire record, this Court AFFIRMS the Bankruptcy Court’s Order
Overruling Objection to Claim; AFFIRMS the Bankruptcy Court’s
First Memorandum Decision; and AFFIRMS the Bankruptcy Court’s
Second Memorandum Decision.
I. Background
Ms. Crockett is the owner of property located at 1249
Carrollsburg Place, SW, Washington, D.C. 20024 (“Carrollsburg
Place Property”). See A.R., ECF No. 2 at 50-51 (Deed of Trust).
She is also the borrower on a May 11, 2007 loan in the original
amount of $340,000.00 secured by a Deed of Trust on the
Carrollsburg Place Property. See id. at 46-49 (Note). The Deed
of Trust is currently assigned to Nationstar Mortgage LLC d/b/a
Mr. Cooper (“Nationstar”). See id. at 73 (Certificate of
Transfer/Assignment), 79 (Corporate Assignment of Deed of
Trust).
On February 1, 2010, Ms. Crockett entered into a Loan
Modification Agreement secured by the same property with a
principal balance of $412,891.81. See id. at 81-86 (Loan
Modification Agreement). She defaulted on the debt in June 2010.
See id. at 31 (Proof of Claim).
Nationstar thereafter initiated a judicial foreclosure
against Ms. Crockett in the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia (“D.C. Superior Court”). Id. at 166 (First Memorandum
2
Decision). Ms. Crockett challenged Nationstar’s accounting, so
the D.C. Superior Court held an evidentiary hearing on January
19, 2017. Id. In a proceeding on June 8, 2017, that court
concluded that Ms. Crockett’s claims were not viable. Id. On
October 25, 2017, the D.C. Superior Court dismissed Ms.
Crockett’s counterclaims. Id. at 166-67. Ms. Crockett appealed
this order to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
(“D.C. Court of Appeals”). Id. at 167. That court affirmed the
D.C. Superior Court’s judgment on June 26, 2019. Id.
Meanwhile, on February 15, 2019, Ms. Crockett filed a
voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy
Code in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia
(“Bankruptcy Court”). See id. at 1. On April 5, 2019, Nationstar
submitted its Proof of Claim, which shows Ms. Crockett owed
$549,337.77 in total and $184,932.67 to cure the default as of
the petition date. See id. at 26-90 (Proof of Claim).
Ms. Crockett filed an Objection to Creditor, Nationstar
Mortgage LLC, Proof of Claim (“Objection”), challenging
Nationstar’s accounting in the Proof of Claim and alleging that
Nationstar failed to file all the required documents. See id. at
96-99 (Objection). The Bankruptcy Court held a hearing on the
Objection on July 18, 2019. See id. at 156, 157 (audio
recordings of hearing attached to PDF documents). In an oral
decision, the Bankruptcy Court determined that Ms. Crockett did
3
not meet her burden to show that there was an error with
Nationstar’s Proof of Claim. See id. at 155-57. The Bankruptcy
Court entered its order—the Order Overruling Objection to Claim—
on July 22, 2019. See id. at 155 (Order Overruling Objection to
Claim).
On August 5, 2019, Ms. Crockett filed a Motion to
Reconsider [the Order] Overruling Debtor’s Objections to
Creditor’s Proof-of-Claim (“Motion to Reconsider”). See id. at
158-64 (Motion to Reconsider). There, she argued that: (1) the
Bankruptcy Court impermissibly relied on a decision that the
D.C. Court of Appeals entered after the automatic stay was in
place; and (2) the Bankruptcy Court did not address all the
issues she raised in her Objection briefing. See id. at 158-63.
On September 20, 2019, the Bankruptcy Court issued its
First Memorandum Decision, reversing its Order Overruling
Objection to Claim in part and reducing Nationstar’s claim by
$1,289.18. See id. at 166-73 (First Memorandum Decision). Then,
on October 7, 2019, Nationstar filed its Rule 9023 Motion
seeking reconsideration of the Bankruptcy Court’s First
Memorandum Decision. Id. at 175-77 (Rule 9023 Motion). The
Bankruptcy Court reversed its First Memorandum Decision in the
Second Memorandum Decision on December 11, 2019. See Suppl.
A.R., ECF No. 5 at 3-8 (Second Memorandum Decision).
4
Ms. Crockett filed a Notice of Appeal on September 26,
2019. See A.R., ECF No. 2 at 6. This appeal is ripe for review.
II. Standard of Review
A. Appeals of Decisions by the Bankruptcy Court
This Court has jurisdiction over appeals of decisions of
the Bankruptcy Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1) (conferring
jurisdiction on federal district courts “to hear appeals . . .
from final judgments, orders, and decrees” of bankruptcy
courts). On appeal from a bankruptcy court, a district court
“may affirm, modify, or reverse a bankruptcy judge’s judgment,
order, or decree or remand with instructions for further
proceedings.” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8013.
A district court reviews a bankruptcy court’s findings of
fact only for indication that they are clearly erroneous. Id.;
see also In re Johnson, 236 B.R. 510, 518 (D.D.C. 1999). “A
finding [of fact] is clearly erroneous when, although there is
evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire
evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a
mistake has been committed.” In re Johnson, 236 B.R. at 518(quoting United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395
(1948)). A bankruptcy court’s legal conclusions, however, are
reviewed de novo. See In re WPG, Inc., 282 B.R. 66, 68 (D.D.C.
2002) (citing Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 405
(1990)). The party seeking to reverse the bankruptcy court’s
5
ruling bears the burden of proof and may not prevail by showing
“simply that another conclusion could have been reached.” Id.(internal quotation marks omitted).
B. Pro Se Litigants
“[P]ro se litigants are not held to the same standards in
all respects as are lawyers.” Roosevelt Land, LP v. Childress,
No. CIV.A. 05-1292(RWR), 2006 WL 1877014, at *2 (D.D.C. July 5,
2006) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)). The
pleadings of pro se parties therefore “[are] to be liberally
construed.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per
curiam) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Even
so, “[t]his benefit is not . . . a license to ignore the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.” Sturdza v. United Arab Emirates, 658
F. Supp. 2d 135, 137 (D.D.C. 2009) (citing Jarrell v. Tisch, 656
F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987)). Pro se litigants must comply
with federal and local rules. See Jarrell, 656 F. Supp. at 239;
Roosevelt Land, 2006 WL 1877014, at *2.
III. Analysis
A. The Bankruptcy Court Addressed All the Issues Ms.
Crockett Raised in Her Objection
Ms. Crockett argues that the Bankruptcy Court “committed an
error of law and an abuse of discretion” because it did not
address every issue she raised in her Objection and Prehearing
6
Brief. See Appellant’s Br., ECF No. 8 at 17. 2 She states that the
Bankruptcy Court considered only one of the sixteen claims she
presented in her Prehearing Brief regarding Nationstar’s
inadequate accounting. Id. at 18. She also provides four
examples of how Nationstar “ignored its obligations under the
Federal Consumer Protection and Bankruptcy Code by maintaining
an accounting system that was incapable of properly making
payments in a Chapter 13 case.” Id. at 17; see also id. at 17-18(reviewing accounting inadequacies).
Nationstar suggests that this Court may not consider this
argument because “the Bankruptcy Court’s reasoning for its
ruling is . . . not part of this Court’s record on appeal.”
Appellee’s Br., ECF No. 14 at 9. This is incorrect. As
Nationstar acknowledges, see id.; the Bankruptcy Court rendered
an oral decision at the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing
held on July 18, 2019 and then documented its order in the Order
Overruling Objection to Claim, see A.R., ECF No. 2 at 155.
However, as Ms. Crockett states in her reply brief, see
Appellant’s Reply, ECF No. 16 at 7; that evidentiary hearing—
2 Ms. Crockett also argues that the Bankruptcy Court did not
address issues she raised in her Motion to Reconsider in its
Order Overruling Objection to Claim. See Appellant’s Br., ECF
No. 8 at 17. This Court will not consider this part of her
argument, as Ms. Crockett did not file the Motion to Reconsider
the Order Overruling Objection to Claim until after the
Bankruptcy Court issued its Order Overruling Objection to Claim.
7
along with the Bankruptcy Court’s oral decision—is, in fact,
part of the record on appeal, see A.R., ECF No. 2 at 156 (audio
recording of first part of July 18, 2019 hearing attached to PDF
document), 157 (audio recording of second part of July 18, 2019
hearing attached to PDF document). This Court therefore may
consider the Bankruptcy Court’s reasoning from its oral decision
as it evaluates the Order Overruling Objection to Claim.
Nationstar also defends the substance of the Bankruptcy
Court’s Order Overruling Objection to Claim. Nationstar claims
that the Bankruptcy Court made one of two possible conclusions:
(1) that Ms. Crockett “did not meet her burden to negate the
prima facie validity of the filed claim”; or (2) that Nationstar
“proved the validity of the claim by a preponderance of the
evidence.” Appellee’s Br., ECF No. 14 at 9. Nationstar does not
cite any evidence from the record to support this argument. See
generally id. at 8-9.
Upon review of the record, this Court concludes that the
Bankruptcy Court considered all issues Ms. Crockett raised in
her Prehearing Brief in its Order Overruling Objection to Claim.
See A.R., ECF No. 2 at 156-57. To successfully object to
Nationstar’s Proof of Claim, Ms. Crockett needed to “produce
evidence which, if believed, would refute at least one of the
allegations that is essential to the claim’s legal sufficiency.”
In re Allegheny Int’l, Inc., 954 F.2d 167, 173–74 (3d Cir.
8
1992). The Bankruptcy Court considered the following evidence
from Ms. Crockett: the Objection, the Prehearing Brief, 12
exhibits presented at the evidentiary hearing, and Ms.
Crockett’s testimony at the hearing. See A.R., ECF No. 2 at 156-
57. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Bankruptcy Court
determined that: (1) the D.C. Superior Court had already decided
most of Ms. Crockett’s objections in Nationstar’s favor; (2) the
remaining objection—concerning the fees Nationstar charged
following the D.C. Superior Court’s decision—failed because the
more recent fees were of the same character and of similar
amounts as the fees that the D.C. Superior Court had already
adjudicated; and (3) Ms. Crockett had not produced sufficient
evidence to meet her burden of proof to show an error in the
Proof of Claim. See id. at 157. Accordingly, this Court
concludes that the Bankruptcy Court appropriately considered
every issue Ms. Crockett raised in her Objection.
B. The Bankruptcy Court Did Not Rely on the Memorandum
Opinion and Judgment by the D.C. Court of Appeals
Ms. Crockett next argues that the Bankruptcy Court erred
when it considered the Memorandum Opinion and Judgment issued by
the D.C. Court of Appeals while the automatic stay was in place.
See Appellant’s Br., ECF No. 8 at 10-15.
Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362, a bankruptcy filing
“trigger[s] an automatic stay in” judicial foreclosure
9
proceedings. Maddox v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 374 F. Supp. 3d
146, 148 (D.D.C. 2019) (citing 11 U.S.C. § 362); see also Giron
v. Zeytuna, Inc., 597 F. Supp. 3d 29, 38 (D.D.C. 2022)
(collecting cases). Here, Ms. Crockett filed her Chapter 13
bankruptcy petition on February 15, 2019. See A.R., ECF No. 2 at
1. This resulted in the judicial foreclosure proceedings
initiated by Nationstar in D.C. Superior Court being
automatically stayed that same day. At that time, the D.C.
Superior Court had already concluded that Ms. Crockett’s claims
were not viable and issued an order dismissing her
counterclaims. See id. at 167-68. The D.C. Court of Appeals did
not issue its Memorandum Opinion and Judgment until after Ms.
Crockett filed her bankruptcy petition. See id. at 168(affirming decision of D.C. Superior Court on June 26, 2019).
Nationstar argues that the Bankruptcy Court did not rely on
the Memorandum Opinion and Judgment by the D.C. Court of Appeals
to render its Memorandum Decision. See Appellee’s Br., ECF No.
14 at 10-11. This Court agrees with this assessment. In the
First Memorandum Decision, the Bankruptcy Court expressly
considered and rejected Ms. Crockett’s argument that it had
impermissibly relied on the decision by the D.C. Court of
Appeals. See A.R., ECF No. 2 at 169-70. The Bankruptcy Court
stated that it “did not rely on the holding of the [D.C.] Court
of Appeals decision” and that the D.C. Court of Appeals decision
10
“was not a deciding factor in this court’s overruling [Ms.
Crockett]’s objections to Nationstar’s Proof of Claim.” Id. at
170. The Bankruptcy Court further clarified that it considered
the D.C. Court of Appeals decision only “to find what issues had
been litigated and decided in the [D.C.] Superior Court.” Id. at
169-70.
Nevertheless, Ms. Crockett asserts that these statements
“conflict[] with the many references” in the First Memorandum
Decision to the D.C. Court of Appeals decision. Appellant’s
Reply, ECF No. 16 at 9; see also Appellant’s Br., ECF No. 8 at
13-15 (listing references to the D.C. Court of Appeals decision
in the First Memorandum Decision). This Court is persuaded,
however, that each reference was appropriate. In its First
Memorandum Decision, the Bankruptcy Court discussed the D.C.
Court of Appeals decision twice: first in reviewing the
procedural history of this case and the related litigation in
the D.C. Courts; and second in discussing Ms. Crockett’s
argument about the D.C. Court of Appeals decision. See A.R., ECF
No. 2 at 167-70. These references are consistent with the
Bankruptcy Court’s statement that it did not rely on the D.C.
Court of Appeals decision.
Ms. Crockett also suggests that the Bankruptcy Court must
have relied on the D.C. Court of Appeals decision because it
“did not state what were the deciding factors in rendering the
11
decision.” Appellant’s Br., ECF No. 8 at 14. She further argues
that the Bankruptcy Court did not consider the Proof of Claim or
the evidence she submitted. See id. at 14-15. This Court is
unpersuaded by these claims. In the First Memorandum Decision,
the Bankruptcy Court explained the deciding factor in its
decision: that Ms. Crockett “had not met her burden to show that
there was an error with Nationstar’s Proof of Claim, because
[her] evidence was unclear and confusing.” A.R., ECF No. 2 at
168. Accordingly, because the Bankruptcy Court did not rely on
the Memorandum Opinion and Judgment by the D.C. Court of
Appeals, this Court concludes that the Bankruptcy Court did not
impermissibly rely on any decision issued while the automatic
stay was in place. 3
C. The Bankruptcy Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion by
Denying Ms. Crockett’s Motion to Reconsider Without
Requiring Nationstar To Explain the Proof of Claim
Ms. Crockett contends that the Bankruptcy Court abused its
discretion because it denied her Motion to Reconsider without
requiring Nationstar “to explain the issues confusing to the
[c]ourt.” Appellant’s Br., ECF No. 8 at 16. This argument
misunderstands the procedural posture of the case, the burden on
3 Ms. Crockett also makes several arguments regarding actions
taken by the D.C. Superior Court and D.C. Court of Appeals in
the judicial foreclosure proceedings. See generally Appellant’s
Br., ECF No. 8 at 10-12, 15. Because this appeal concerns only
Bankr. Case No. 19-101, this Court will not reach those
arguments.
12
the parties, and the Bankruptcy Court’s conclusion. As
Nationstar explains in its opposition briefing, see Appellee’s
Br., ECF No. 14 at 8-9; the Proof of Claim constitutes prima
facie evidence of the validity of the amount of Nationstar’s
claim, see Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001(f); and the objecting party—
Ms. Crockett here—bore the burden of “produc[ing] evidence
sufficient to negate the prima facie validity of the filed
claim,”—that is, “evidence equal in force to the prima facie
case,” In re Allegheny Int’l, Inc., 954 F.2d at 173.
Accordingly, the Bankruptcy Court considered Ms. Crockett’s
Objection, her Prehearing Brief, the exhibits and testimony she
presented at the evidentiary hearing, and her Motion to
Reconsider, and it concluded that her evidence—not Nationstar’s
Proof of Claim—“was unclear and confusing.” A.R., ECF No. 2 at
168.
Ms. Crockett also argues that this Court “should use ‘the
least sophisticated consumer’ standard in assessing these
claims.” Id. (citing Wallace v. Wash. Mut. Bank, F.A., 683 F.3d
323, 326 (6th Cir. 2012); Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp. v. Lamar,
503 F.3d 504, 509-10 (6th Cir. 2007)). This standard applies to
actions concerning the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, see
Wallace, 683 F.3d at 326; and is therefore inapplicable here.
13
D. Nationstar Did Not Deceive the Bankruptcy Court to Reach
the Second Memorandum Decision
Finally, Ms. Crockett asserts that the Bankruptcy Court
“was deceived into committing an error of law and an abuse of
discretion when Nationstar filed its” Rule 9023 Motion and
supporting exhibits. Appellant’s Br., ECF No. 8 at 18. She
contends that Nationstar’s submission of new evidence from 2013
“rais[es] the question whether [it] has other information,
previously withheld” and makes the Proof of Claim inaccurate.
Id. 4
This Court is not persuaded that the Bankruptcy Court erred
or abused its discretion. Ms. Crockett cites no authority—and
this Court is unaware of any—that prevents Nationstar from
supplementing its Proof of Claim in a Rule 9023 motion. See
generally id. Ms. Crockett also fails to present any evidence
showing that Nationstar deliberately withheld information to
deceive the Bankruptcy Court. See generally id. Moreover, as
Nationstar discusses in its opposition briefing, see Appellee’s
Br., ECF No. 14 at 12; the Bankruptcy Court reasonably found
that Nationstar “set[] forth evidence demonstrating that the
$1,289.18 item disallowed by the [First Memorandum Decision]
ought to be allowed instead, and set[] forth an adequate basis
4 Ms. Crockett also refers to errors in the “Alternation
Foreclosure Agreement” but does not explain their relevance to
this argument. Appellant’s Br., ECF No. 8 at 18.
14
under Rule 59(e) for altering the [First Memorandum Decision].”
Suppl. A.R., ECF No. 5 at 6. This Court therefore AFFIRMS the
Second Memorandum Decision issued by the Bankruptcy Court.
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, this Court AFFIRMS the
Bankruptcy Court’s Order Overruling Objection to Claim; AFFIRMS
the Bankruptcy Court’s First Memorandum Decision; and AFFIRMS
the Bankruptcy Court’s Second Memorandum Decision. An
appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: Emmet G. Sullivan
United States District Judge
July 20, 2023
15