503 F. App'x 13
2d Cir.2012Background
- TC Healthcare appeals district court’s affirmation of bankruptcy court’s denial of enforcement of a June 2008 Sale Order authorizing Haven Eldercare assets sale free and clear under 11 U.S.C. § 363.
- A Vermont small claims judgment held TC Healthcare liable to Dupuis under a pre-bankruptcy tuition-reimbursement contract.
- TC Healthcare sought an order in bankruptcy court declaring no liability to Dupuis under the Vermont judgment.
- Bankruptcy court denied enforcement on res judicata and Rooker-Feldman grounds; district court affirmed on res judicata grounds.
- Appellant argues Vermont small claims judgment lacked res judicata effect and/or jurisdiction; appellee Dupuis opposes enforcement.
- This Court reviews de novo the application of res judicata to state-court judgments and the district court’s conclusions of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata bars enforcement of the Vermont judgment | TC Healthcare asserts the Vermont judgment should not preclude enforcement. | Dupuis contends the Vermont judgment has res judicata effect on enforcement. | Yes; res judicata bars enforcement. |
| Whether the Vermont small claims court lacked jurisdiction to enter the judgment | TC Healthcare argues the Sale Order retained exclusive jurisdiction and Vermont court usurped it. | Dupuis contends Vermont court acted within its jurisdiction. | No; no usurpation; jurisdiction was adequate. |
| Whether Cold Springs Farm Development v. Ball defeats res judicata | TC Healthcare relies on Cold Springs Farm to negate res judicata effect. | Dupuis distinguishes or defeats that authority. | Rejected; Cold Springs Farm does not defeat res judicata here. |
| Whether TC Healthcare could raise collateral attack on the Vermont judgment on enforcement | TC Healthcare raises collateral-attack arguments for the first time on appeal. | Dupuis argues waiver and merits of the res judicata defense. | Waived; collateral attack rejected; enforcement appropriate under res judicata. |
Key Cases Cited
- Migra v. Warren City Sch. Dist., 465 U.S. 75 (U.S. 1984) (preclusion and preclusive effect analysis in § 1334 proceedings)
- In re Halstead Energy Corp., 367 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2004) (plenary review of district court rulings on bankruptcy matters; fact findings reviewed for clear error; law de novo)
- Thyroff v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 460 F.3d 400 (2d Cir. 2006) (ownership of claim preclusion in bankruptcy context; relevance to res judicata analysis)
- Nemaizer v. Baker, 793 F.2d 58 (2d Cir. 1986) (collateral attack on jurisdiction; plain usurpation requires total lack of jurisdiction)
- In re B.C., 169 Vt. 1 (1999) (Vermont law on jurisdiction and res judicata; require opportunity to contest jurisdiction)