Vela, et al v. Castellano, et al

* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
February 23, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
____________________________
Summary Calendar
No. 03-40850
____________________________
IN THE MATTER OF: LISA VELA WATSON,
Debtor.
____________________________
RUDY WAUQUIN VELA; RICHARD W. VELA;
JALINDA JOYCE BISSETT; REBECCA LEE VELA; LISA VELA WATSON,
Appellants,
versus
JESUS M. CASTELLANO; LA CASA DE NYLON,
A TEXAS PARTNERSHIP CONSISTING OF ABRAHAM GALONSKY
AND ISRAEL LIAZKA,
Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas - McAllen Division
Civil Case No. M-02-CV-245
Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The appellants seek a reversal of the bankruptcy court’s
decision, affirmed by the district court, that annulled the
automatic stay as to a foreclosure of a tiny property interest that

-- 1 of 2 --

2
had been transferred to Ms. Watson on the eve of foreclosure.
Appellants contend that, because the Watson bankruptcy was
eventually dismissed, the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction to
annul the automatic stay retroactively. On the other hand, they
want the bankruptcy court to adjudicate their claim for damages
occasioned by the alleged violation of the stay.
They cannot have it both ways. If the court had
jurisdiction to reopen the case pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 350 and
adjudicate their claim, it also had jurisdiction to annul the stay
retroactively, and we find no error in its exercise of discretion
in the annulment decision.
If the court retained jurisdiction by virtue of the
ongoing litigation between these parties over these matters for the
past seven to eight years, it had jurisdiction to order retroactive
annulment.
Finally, because the main bankruptcy case was dismissed
for want of prosecution by Ms. Watson, and because the bankruptcy
court indicated it would originally have granted relief from the
automatic stay for lack of equity in the property, appellants’
claim is essentially frivolous: they can state no damages arising
from the foreclosure.
The judgments of the district and bankruptcy courts are
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --