Julio Novoa v. Angela Minjarez
690 F. App'x 223
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Novoa, a physician, filed Chapter 7 after facing six medical-malpractice suits; the automatic stay halted those suits.
- The Chapter 7 trustee and the plaintiffs sought and obtained an agreed bankruptcy-court order lifting the stay and authorizing Novoa’s insurers to settle claims without Novoa’s consent; Novoa did not timely respond.
- Novoa moved to vacate the agreed order, alleging counsel’s clerical omission and prejudice (risk to medical license); the bankruptcy court denied relief.
- Novoa appealed to the district court, which dismissed his appeal for lack of standing; he did not further appeal and the bankruptcy case closed.
- Nearly a year later Novoa moved to reopen the case to file a Rule 60(b)(4) motion claiming the order was void (court lacked authority to “extinguish” policy covenant); the bankruptcy court denied reopening and reconsideration.
- Novoa appealed; the Fifth Circuit reviewed whether the agreed order was void under Rule 60(b)(4) and affirmed the denial of the motion to reopen.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the agreed order is void under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) | Novoa: order is void because bankruptcy court exceeded power and nullified part of his insurance contract | Court/Defendants: no showing of jurisdictional defect or deprivation of notice; statutory error is not voidness | Held: Not void; Rule 60(b)(4) applies only to jurisdictional errors or failures of notice/hearing, not statutory/merits errors |
| Whether a court order that exceeds statutory authority (but within subject-matter jurisdiction) is void | Novoa: any clear usurpation of power renders judgment void | Court: Espinosa rejects expanding Rule 60(b)(4) to nonjurisdictional statutory errors | Held: Exceeding nonjurisdictional statutory limits does not make a judgment void |
| Whether bankruptcy court abused discretion by refusing to reopen the closed case to allow a Rule 60(b)(4) motion | Novoa: reopening required to challenge the order as void | Court: reopening discretionary; but if order were void reopening would be required — here order is not void | Held: No abuse of discretion in denying reopening because judgment is not void |
| Whether prior dismissal for lack of standing affects Rule 60(b)(4) claim | Novoa: district court erred in dismissing original appeal for lack of standing | Court: Novoa did not timely appeal that dismissal; Rule 60(b)(4) cannot substitute for a timely appeal | Held: Standing dismissal is irrelevant to whether the order is void; cannot use Rule 60(b)(4) in place of appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Espinosa v. United Student Aid Funds, 559 U.S. 260 (2010) (Rule 60(b)(4) limited to jurisdictional errors or violations of due process; statutory errors ordinarily not void)
- Travelers Indem. Co. v. Bailey, 557 U.S. 137 (2009) (finality of bankruptcy orders and limits on collateral attack)
- Jackson v. FIE Corp., 302 F.3d 515 (5th Cir. 2002) (no time limit on Rule 60(b)(4); district court must set aside void judgments)
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006) (distinguishing jurisdictional limits from nonjurisdictional statutory requirements)
- Brumfield v. La. State Bd. of Educ., 806 F.3d 289 (5th Cir. 2015) (order void when outside the court’s continuing jurisdiction)
- Callon Petroleum Co. v. Frontier Ins., 351 F.3d 204 (5th Cir. 2003) (voidness requires lack of subject-matter or personal jurisdiction)
- FDIC v. SLE, Inc., 722 F.3d 264 (5th Cir. 2013) (standard of review for denial of Rule 60(b) motions)