In Re: Judy A. Robbins, United States Trustee
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30962
D.D.C.2014Background
- Johnny and Maria Moore filed Chapter 13 bankruptcy in 2010 and later converted to Chapter 7; they amended schedules claiming substantial personal property and exemptions.
- The Chapter 7 trustee objected to many exemptions and the Bankruptcy Court ordered the Moores to allow the trustee, auctioneers, and realtor reasonable access to their residences to inspect and evaluate assets.
- The trustee moved to compel access, obtained an order and later marshal assistance; marshals and the trustee entered the properties, changed locks, and found less personal property than the Moores had scheduled.
- The trustee brought an adversary complaint seeking denial of the Moores’ Chapter 7 discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(6) for willful refusal to obey court orders; the U.S. Trustee intervened and became primary plaintiff.
- At trial the Moores attempted to litigate the validity of their mortgages, filed a last‑minute counterclaim, repeatedly disrupted proceedings, and did not contest the Bankruptcy Court’s factual finding that they willfully disobeyed court orders by changing locks and denying access.
- The Bankruptcy Court denied discharge and dismissed the untimely counterclaim; the district court affirmed, concluding the Moores willfully violated court orders, exclusion of mortgage evidence was proper, recusal was unwarranted, and the counterclaim was untimely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether discharge may be denied under § 727(a)(6) for refusal to obey court orders | Trustee/UST: Denial appropriate because Moores willfully refused to comply with court orders to allow access | Moores: Denial improper; disputes over mortgages and trustee conduct justify their actions | Held: Affirmed — discharge may be denied; record supports willful noncompliance and no adequate explanation from Moores |
| Admissibility of evidence about mortgage validity at adversary trial | UST: Mortgage validity irrelevant to § 727(a)(6) issue; should be excluded | Moores: Mortgage evidence and trustee duties are central and should be heard | Held: Exclusion proper — mortgage validity irrelevant to whether debtors willfully disobeyed court orders |
| Recusal of the Bankruptcy Judge | Moores: Judge was biased and should have recused, citing Liteky | UST: No evidence of personal bias; rulings reflect case development not bias | Held: No recusal — adverse rulings alone do not establish disqualifying bias under Liteky |
| Timeliness of counterclaim filed the morning of trial | UST: Counterclaim was untimely (filed long after 30 days) and prejudicial; no leave sought under Rule 7015 | Moores: Should be allowed despite timing | Held: Dismissal proper — counterclaim untimely and the court did not abuse discretion in refusing late filing |
Key Cases Cited
- Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) (judicial rulings ordinarily do not constitute bias warranting recusal)
- Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (1985) (appellate standard: factual findings not clearly erroneous when two permissible views exist)
- In re Jordan, 521 F.3d 430 (4th Cir. 2008) (burden shifts to debtor to explain noncompliance after plaintiff shows debtor received order and failed to obey)
- Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384 (1990) (abuse of discretion standard when reviewing equitable determinations)
- Covad Comm’s Co. v. Bell Atl. Corp., 407 F.3d 1220 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (courts may take judicial notice of facts on the public record)
- United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364 (1948) (definition of clearly erroneous standard)