In Re Brian D. Hammer, Debtor. Brian D. Hammer v. Michael Drago and Ed SummersIn Re Brian D. Hammer, Debtor. Brian D. Hammer v. Michael Drago and Ed Summers
Debtor Brian D. Hammer appeals
pro se
from the decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirming the bankruptcy court's denial of his motion to set aside a default judgment.
In re Hammer,
BACKGROUND
Beginning in 1985, appellees Michael Drago and Ed Summers invested approximately $285,000 in several business enterprises under Hammer’s control. That sum was secured by what Hammer concedes were forged deeds of trust. In September 1986, Hammer filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. On October 23, 1986, he executed a deed of trust on his personal residence naming appellees as the beneficiaries in the amount of $400,000. Hammer was indicted for mail fraud that same month; he surrendered for incarceration on February 6, 1987.
On January 5, 1987, appellees filed an adversary complaint requesting that Hammer’s debt be declared nondischargeable on grounds of fraud,
see
Hammer failed to answer the adversary complaint and on March 7, 1987, a default judgment was entered against him in the amount of $310,866.86. Appellees levied writs of execution against Hammer’s property in December 1987 (securities brokerage account) and January 1989 (car). Hammer filed a claim of exemption for his vehicle and later moved the bankruptcy court to set aside the default judgment pursuant to
DISCUSSION
A. Motion for Relief from Judgment
This court reviews a trial court’s grant or denial of a
In this circuit, a trial court has discretion to deny a
1. Culpable Conduct
A party’s conduct is culpable if he has received actual or
constructive
notice of the filing of the action and failed to answer the complaint.
Gregorian,
2. Other Grounds
Although not necessary to the disposition of this appeal, we note here that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion with respect to the other bases for denying relief from the default judgment. The bankruptcy court ruled that Hammer’s request for relief was not timely filed under
Finally, the bankruptcy court determined that Hammer lacked a meritorious defense. This determination was not an abuse of discretion. Hammer’s unsworn contention that the debt owed to appellees had been the subject of a novation is a mere legal conclusion that cannot support disturbing the underlying judgment.
Cassidy,
B. Attorney’s Fees and Costs
Appellees allege that Hammer has taken a frivolous appeal and they request that we award them attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to
CONCLUSION
The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in holding that Hammer’s culpable conduct prompted the default judgment, that his motion to set aside that judgment was untimely, and that Hammer did not have a meritorious defense to the action.
AFFIRMED.
Notes
. Hammer styled his motion as an "Application to Set Aside Right to Attach Order And Release Attached Property, Etc.” Appellees treated the motion as requesting relief pursuant to
. The record does not support this claimed lack of notice. Indeed, Hammer knew or should have known of the default judgment less than ten months after its entry when appellees levied a writ of execution on his securities brokerage account.
. Bankruptcy Rule 7004(b) provides in pertinent part:
In addition to the methods of service authorized by Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 4(c)(2)(C)(i) and (d), service may be made within the United States by first class mail postage prepaid as follows:
[[Image here]]
(9) Upon the debtor, after a petition has been filed by ... the debtor and until the case is dismissed or closed, by mailing copies of the summons and complaint to the debtor at the address shown in the petition ... or to such other address as the debtor may designate in writing filed with the court and, if the debtor is represented by an attorney, to the attorney at the attorney’s post-office address.