Branigan v. Newby et al

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
at Greenbelt
In re: 	Case no. 05-10909PM
Rose Oriri Kanu-Oti,
Chapter 13
Debtor.
Timothy P. Branigan, Chapter 13 	Adv. Proc. No. 05-1304PM
Trustee,
Plaintiff,
v.
Patricia Capehart Newby, Gerald Doye,
Delmar "Duke" Witcher, Alvin Butler, JRW,
Inc. t/a Re/Max First, and First American
Properties, Inc. t/a Re/Max Advantage,
Defendants.
JRW, Inc. t/a Re/Max
First and Delmar "Duke" Witcher,
Counter-Claimants,
v.
Rose Oriri Kanu-Oti,
Counter-Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
This case came before the court on March 22, 2006, for a hearing on the motion to dismiss
the Second Amended Complaint filed by Timothy Branigan, Chapter 13 Trustee and successor
plaintiff to the Debtor. The motion alleges that the Plaintiff failed to join necessary parties, to wit,
Date signed March 23, 2006
Entered: March 24, 2006 Case 05-01304 Doc 69 Filed 03/24/06 Page 1 of 2

the Archdiocese of Washington and an entity known as the African Daughters of Mary Corporation
that appears on the records of the Maryland State Department of Assessments and Taxation as a non-
stock business corporation.
The Debtor describes herself on her Statement of Financial Affairs as the Mother Superior
of a Convent operated by the Order of the African Daughters of Mary ("the Order"), all of her
property is said to be owned for the benefit of the church. When this adversary proceeding was
before the court on November 8, 2005, the court suggested that the Archdiocese and the Order be
added as parties to the case to obtain complete relief. They were not added. The Plaintiff’s counsel
explained in open court that, as an officer of the court, before adding these parties, he had contacted
the Archdiocese and was advised that it had no financial or other interest in the outcome of this case,
nor did it recognize the Order as a religious order under its dominion. 	In these circumstances,
neither can be considered a necessary party to this litigation. This conflicts with the Debtor’s view
of the matter.
What is before the court for decision is the motion to dismiss, no more and no less. While
proof may be very hard to come by for the Plaintiff, the Second Amended Complaint states several
causes of action. 	The Second Amended Complaint states a plain statement of the claim that if
construed in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, with all allegations taken as true, it survives
a motion to dismiss. In view of the representations and report of counsel that the court accepts as
true, the court will not dismiss this Second Amended Complaint for failure to join a party pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(7), made applicable to this adversary proceeding by Fed. R Bankr. P. 7012.
An appropriate order will be entered.
cc: 	Jeffrey M. Orenstein, Esq., 15245 Shady Grove Road, Suite 465, Rockville, MD 20850
Lisa B. Tancredi, Venable LLP, 2 Hopkins Plaza, Suite 1800, Baltimore, MD 21201
Richard L. Miller, 30 Corporate Ctr., Suite 500, Columbia, MD 21044
Timothy P. Branigan, Esquire, P.O. Box 1902, Laurel, MD 20725
United States Trustee, 6305 Ivy Lane, #600, Greenbelt, MD 20770
End of Memorandum
Case 05-01304 Doc 69 Filed 03/24/06 Page 2 of 2