Andrea Liebman v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 20-14872

Andrea Liebman, pro se, sought reinstatement of her Chapter 13 bankruptcy case and a retroactive automatic stay to block a foreclosure sale; the bankruptcy court denied relief.
The foreclosure sale proceeded and funds were disbursed to the loan servicer, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC.
Liebman filed postjudgment motions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 seeking relief from the bankruptcy-court judgment and to retroactively stay the sale; she also moved to stay disbursement of sale proceeds and sought punitive damages for an alleged willful violation of the stay.
The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s denials; this is Liebman’s second appeal challenging those rulings.
The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the Rule 60 denial for abuse of discretion and the stay-of-disbursement denial de novo (with fact findings for clear error) and affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 60 relief should reopen/alter the prior judgment and reinstate the bankruptcy case / retroactive stay	Liebman argued the prior judgment was erroneous and sought to relitigate reinstatement and a retroactive stay	Defendants relied on law-of-the-case and that the earlier appeal already resolved these claims	Affirmed: law of the case bars relitigation; no controlling contrary authority or clear error shown; Rule 60 relief denied
Whether the bankruptcy court’s nunc pro tunc order violated Acevedo Feliciano and improperly conferred jurisdiction retroactively	Liebman argued the nunc pro tunc order unlawfully backdated events (invoking Acevedo)	Ocwen and courts argued the nunc pro tunc order merely reflected what had already occurred and did not retroactively confer jurisdiction	Affirmed: Acevedo is distinguishable; the order corrected the record rather than revising history to confer jurisdiction
Whether to stay disbursement of foreclosure proceeds and award punitive damages for a willful stay violation	Liebman sought a stay of disbursement and punitive damages, alleging Ocwen willfully violated the automatic stay and concealed facts	Ocwen argued it did not willfully violate the stay and, after the stay was lifted, accepting proceeds was permissible	Affirmed: bankruptcy court found no willful violation or basis for damages; no reasonable basis to stay disbursements

In re TOUSA, Inc., 680 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2012) (standard for appellate review of bankruptcy-court orders)
In re Glob. Energies, LLC, 763 F.3d 1341 (11th Cir. 2014) (Rule 60 review explained)
In re McLean, 794 F.3d 1313 (11th Cir. 2015) (standards for punitive damages and stay-related fact review)
United States v. Stein, 964 F.3d 1313 (11th Cir. 2020) (law-of-the-case doctrine application)
Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Juan v. Acevedo Feliciano, 140 S. Ct. 696 (2020) (limits on nunc pro tunc orders that retroactively confer jurisdiction)
United States v. Escobar-Urrego, 110 F.3d 1556 (11th Cir. 1997) (law-of-the-case quotation and principles)