552 B.R. 897
Bankr. S.D. Florida2016Background
- Plaintiff (Chapter 7 Trustee) obtained a final default judgment against Defendant Bloomer on August 24, 2015 after entry of default on July 6, 2015.
- Bloomer's Motion to Vacate (filed April 7, 2016) argued counsel Daniel Brinley’s assurances and failures caused the default and that Rule 60(b) relief is warranted for excusable neglect (or under Rule 60(b)(6)).
- At hearing Bloomer disavowed alleging fraud by Brinley and argued negligence or gross negligence; later supplemental filing attempted to characterize Brinley’s conduct as fraudulent.
- Bloomer’s affidavit: communications with Brinley in May–July 2015, was told an answer would be filed or extensions obtained, learned of motion for default in late July, default judgment entered August 24, 2015, difficulty contacting Brinley thereafter, and retained new counsel in January 2016.
- Court found (1) the Supplement improperly raised new grounds after the hearing and (2) even if considered, Brinley’s conduct did not amount to abandonment or extraordinary circumstances to justify vacatur; Bloomer delayed several months before acting and did not show diligence.
- Court denied the Motion: movant must bear consequences of counsel’s errors absent extraordinary circumstances; prejudice to Trustee from delay and collection efforts weighed against vacatur.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 60(b)(1) excusable neglect warrants vacatur of default judgment | Trustee: default judgment valid; no excusable neglect shown | Bloomer: counsel’s negligence/gross negligence caused default; excusable neglect | Denied — movant failed to show diligence; delay and prejudice weigh against vacatur |
| Whether Rule 60(b)(6) "extraordinary circumstances" justifies relief | Trustee: no extraordinary circumstances exist | Bloomer: counsel’s misconduct (in Supplement, characterized as fraud) is exceptional | Denied — attorney error (even gross negligence) not extraordinary absent abandonment severing agency |
| Whether attorney misconduct here equaled abandonment/severed agency | Trustee: Brinley’s conduct did not sever the relationship | Bloomer: counsel’s alleged pattern and misrepresentations effectively abandoned him | Denied — communications continued through December 2015; not abandonment under cited standards |
| Whether plaintiff is prejudiced by vacatur after long delay | Trustee: significant prejudice from interruption of collection and reliance on judgment | Bloomer: prejudice can be managed; merits defenses exist | Held for Trustee — lengthy delay and Trustee’s reliance make vacatur prejudicial |
Key Cases Cited
- Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380 (equitable inquiry re: excusable neglect; client responsible for attorney’s acts)
- Maples v. Thomas, 565 U.S. 266 (distinguishing attorney abandonment as extraordinary in habeas context)
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (equitable tolling where attorney abandonment may justify relief)
- SEC v. Simmons, 241 Fed. Appx. 660 (11th Cir.) (Rule 60(b) relief for attorney error disfavored; movant must show personal diligence)
- Choice Hotels Int’l, Inc. v. Grover, 792 F.3d 753 (7th Cir.) (civil litigants responsible for monitoring counsel; Maples/Holland not determinative in ordinary civil cases)
- Bakery Mach. & Fabrication, Inc. v. Traditional Baking, Inc., 570 F.3d 845 (7th Cir.) (client bears consequences of counsel’s deception; not a basis for extraordinary relief)
- Florida Physician’s Ins. Co. v. Ehlers, 8 F.3d 780 (11th Cir.) (client should be alerted by inability to contact counsel and has duty to monitor case)