Jones et al v. Pressley et al

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
at Greenbelt
IN RE: 	:
:
GWENDOLYN JONES 	: 	Case No. 04-14214PM
: 	Chapter 13
Debtor 	:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - :
GWEN JONES 	:
TIMOTHY P. BRANIGAN, Trustee 	:
Plaintiffs 	:
vs. 	: 	Adversary No. 06-2012PM
CELESTINE PRESSLEY 	:
BANKERS TITLE AND 	:
SETTLEMENTS, INC. 	:
LAWONNE E. BOOKER 	:
OPTION ONE MORTGAGE CORP. 	:
Defendants 	:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - :
CELESTINE PRESSLEY 	:
OPTION ONE MORTGAGE CORP. 	:
BANKERS TITLE AND 	:
SETTLEMENTS, INC. 	:
Counter-Claimants 	:
vs. 	:
GWEN JONES 	:
TIMOTHY P. BRANIGAN, Trustee 	:
Counter-Defendants 	:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - :
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
(Motions for Summary Judgment and Motions to Dismiss Filed by
Celestine Pressley, Option One Mortgage Corp., and Bankers Title and Settlements, Inc.)
Date signed May 07, 2007
Entered: May 08, 2007 Case 06-02012 Doc 109 Filed 05/08/07 Page 1 of 4

This adversary proceeding came before the court for a hearing on motions for summary
judgment filed by Option One Mortgage Corp. (“Option One”) and by Bankers Title and
Settlements, Inc. (“Bankers Title”). Two days following the argument thereon, there was filed a
Stipulation of Dismissal of Plaintiffs’ Claims Against Option One and Option One’s
Counterclaims Against Plaintiffs (Docket Entry No. 101). There is also before the court Bankers
Title’s Motion to Dismiss this adversary proceeding for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) or, in the alternative, for abstention pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1334(c). A similar motion was filed by the Defendant Celestine Pressley.
This proceeding deals with the application of emergency legislation known as the
Protection of Homeowners and Foreclosure Act that is found in MD . REAL PROP . CODE ANN .
§§ 7-301--7-315 that became effective May 22, 2005. The transaction in question by which
Debtor deeded certain real property to Celestine Pressley is described in this court’s
Memorandum of Decision on the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Celestine Pressley on
April 24, 2007, Docket Entry No. 85. The court will not rule on the motions for summary
judgment filed by Option One and Bankers Title, but will grant the motion to dismiss for the lack
of subject matter jurisdiction at this point in the proceeding.
Federal Courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and Bankruptcy Courts are courts of
extremely limited jurisdiction. Federal Courts may exercise only the authority conferred by
Article III of The Constitution and affirmably granted by Federal Statute. Cooper v. Productive
Transport Services, 147 F.3d 347, 352 (CA4 1998). A court lacking jurisdiction must dismiss
the case at any stage of the proceedings at which it becomes apparent that jurisdiction is lacking.
Here, as noted in the deposition taken of the Chapter 13 Trustee, the only party with standing to
bring this action, the situation is now that all of the Debtor’s creditors filing claims have been
paid in full. These facts taken from the deposition of the Chapter 13 Trustee are set forth in the
motion filed by the Defendant Pressley (D.E. 85). The Trustee testified that he has made all
required distributions under Debtor’s Chapter 13 Plan. All creditors filing claims have been paid
in full. The only reason this case under Chapter 13, as distinguished from this Adversary
Proceeding, remains open is because of the pendency of this Adversary Proceeding. The
absence of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time. New Horizon of NY LLC v.
Jacobs, 231 F.3d 143, 150 (CA4 2000).
Jurisdiction of Bankruptcy Court cases is conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) that provides:
Case 06-02012 Doc 109 Filed 05/08/07 Page 2 of 4

28 U.S.C. § 1334. Bankruptcy cases and proceedings
(b) Except as provided in subsection (e)(2), and notwithstanding any Act
of Congress that confers exclusive jurisdiction on a court or courts other than the
districts courts, the district courts shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction
of all civil proceedings arising under title 11, or arising in or related to cases
under title 11.
This is clearly not a civil proceeding arising under Title 11, nor does it arise in the bankruptcy
case. If there is jurisdiction existing at this time, it could only be “related to” jurisdiction. As in
the case of In re Tomasevic, 279 B.R. 358 (BC M.D. Fla. 2002), a case involving a post-petition
dispute brought by the debtor under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, this action
cannot impact or impair the court’s administration of the bankruptcy case. For all intents and
purposes, that administration was completed with the payment of all creditors filing claims.
The Fourth Circuit has adopted the test of Pacor, Inc. v. Higgins, 743 F.2d 984, 994
(CA3 1984), in ascertaining the extent related to “jurisdiction.” One part of this test is whether
the matter before the court in “any way impacts upon the handling and administration of the
bankruptcy estate.” New Horizon of NY LLC v. Jacobs, 231 F.3d at 151. The court goes on to
say,” In this circuit, a civil case is related to bankruptcy if the outcome of [the civil] proceeding
could conceivably have any effect on the estate being administered in bankruptcy.” See also,
A.H. Robins Co. v. Piccinin, 788 F.2d 994, 1102, n.11 (CA4 1986). With the completion of the
Debtor’s obligations under the Chapter 13 Plan and the subsequent discharge that must be
entered pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1128(a), there is not the slightest tangential connection to the
administration of this bankruptcy case. As in the case of In re Brown, 300 B.R. 871 (D. Md.
2003), the Debtor cannot make out a case as to why this Adversary Proceeding concerns the
implementation or execution of the confirmed and consummated Plan.
If the court were not to dismiss this Adversary Proceeding for want of jurisdiction, it
most likely would abstain from the exercise of jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c). This
is an action brought under a new state law enacted as an emergency matter less than two years
ago. There are no published state court decisions. The Debtor could have brought this action in
the Maryland courts while this bankruptcy case was pending. The court will dismiss the
Adversary Proceeding for want of subject matter jurisdiction. An appropriate order will be
entered.
Case 06-02012 Doc 109 Filed 05/08/07 Page 3 of 4

cc:
Scott C. Borison, Esq., 5500 Buckeystown Pike, Frederick, MD 21703
Timothy P. Branigan, Esquire, P.O. Box 1902, Laurel MD 20725-1902
Harvey A. Levin, Thompson Coburn, 1909 K Street, NW, #600, Washington, DC 20006
Josue Pierre, Esq., 7474 Greenway Center Drive, #820, Greenbelt, MD 20770
Richard J. Link, Esq., 8601 Georgia Avenue, #905, Silver Spring, MD 20910
Martin H. Schreiber II, Esq., 3600 Clipper Mill Road, #201, Baltimore, MD 21211
End of Memorandum
Case 06-02012 Doc 109 Filed 05/08/07 Page 4 of 4