This аppeal arises from the bankruptcy court’s judgment (the “Judgment”) in favor of Donald R. Lassman, chapter 7 trustee (the “Trustee”), in a fraudulent transfer action against the debtor’s wife, Erika Keefe (the “Appellant”). The Appellant has raised only one issue on appeal: 1 Whether the successor bankruptcy judge, who was assigned thе case after the trial was completed, abused his discretion by rendering a decision without ordering a new trial. The Trustee has filed a cross-appeal relating to the interest rate awarded by the bankruptcy court. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the Judgment on the merits, but vacate and remand the Judgment to the extent it awarded prejudgment interest at the federal statutory rate.
BACKGROUND
John J. Keefe, III (the “Debtor”), filed a chapter 7 petition in March, 2005,
2
and the Trustee was duly appointed. Thereafter, the Trustee filed an adversary complaint
Before the bankruptcy court rendered a decision, the matter was transferred to another bankruptcy judge, who, on March 13, 2008, issued a certification pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9028 (the “Certification”) notifying the parties that he had reviewed the docket, pleadings, and trial transcript and had determined that the matter could be completed without prejudice to the parties. Neither party objected nor otherwise responded to the Certification.
On April 29, 2008, morе than six weeks after issuing the Certification, the bankruptcy court issued an order and an accompanying Memorandum of Decision finding in favor of the Trustee and against the Appellant in the amount of $90,000, plus “interest and costs.” Two months later, the bankruptcy court entered the Judgment, ordering that the Trustee recover from the Appellant “the sum of $90,000.00, plus interest thereon at the [federal] statutory rate of 2.57 percent per annum from September 19, 2005, the date on which this adversary proceeding was commenced, and costs in the amount of $570.60.”
The Appellant filed a notice of appeal from the Judgment, and the Trustee filed a notice of cross-appeal as to the interest rate awarded by the bankruptcy court.
JURISDICTION
Before addressing the merits of a dispute, the Panel must determine that it has jurisdiction, even if the issue is not raised by the litigants.
See Boylan v. George E. Bumpus, Jr. Constr. Co. (In re George E. Bumpus, Jr. Constr. Co.),
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review the bankruptcy court’s findings of fact for clear error and conclusions of law
de novo.
3
See T.I. Fed.
The Panel reviews a successor judge’s decision to decide a case after a trial conducted by another judge for an abuse of discretion.
See Riley v. National Lumber Co. (In re Reale),
DISCUSSION
I. The “Successor Judge” Issue
The Appellant argues that the bankruptcy court abused its discretion by proceeding to decision on the record without ordering a new trial or recalling witnesses becausе due process requires a new trial. She argues that the problem is particularly “extreme” here because the successor judge expressly stated that he considered, inter alia, the “demeanor and credibility of all witnesses” despite the fact that he did not hear any live testimony.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 63 (“Rule 63”), made aрplicable to bankruptcy cases by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9028, provides that:
If a judge conducting a hearing or trial is unable to proceed, any other judge may proceed upon certifying familiarity with the record and determining that the case may be completed without prejudice to the pаrties. In a hearing or a nonjury trial, the successor judge must, at a party’s request, recall any witness whose testimony is material and disputed and who is available to testify again without undue burden. The successor judge may also recall any other witness.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 63.
4
The requirements are straightforward: the successor judge in a nonjury trial may proceed with a matter if
In Reale, a case proeedurally identical to this case, the Panel recently determined that the successor judge fulfilled the requirements of Bankruptcy Rule 9028 by issuing the requisite certification and then proceeding in the absence of any objection. 5 The Reale panel concluded:
The successor judge fulfilled Bankruptсy Rule 9028’s requirements. He issued the requisite certification. He had no duty to recall witnesses as neither party asked him to do so. [The appellee] does not complain that it was given inadequate notice or insufficient time to react to the certification.
The successor judge similarly fulfilled Bankruptcy Rule 9028’s requirements here. He issued the requisite certification stating that he had reviewed the docket, the pleadings, and transcript and was familiar with the same, and that he determined that the adversary proceeding could be completed without prejudice to the parties. Although the Appellant had six weeks to request that the successor judgе recall witnesses or order a new trial, she did not do so. Nor does she claim that she received inadequate notice or that she had insufficient time to respond to the Certification. Consequently, as neither party requested the bankruptcy court to recall witnesses or to order a new trial, the successor judge had nо obligation to do so. There was no due process violation.
The Appellant also makes much of the bankruptcy court’s statement that its analysis included consideration of the witnesses’ demeanor and credibility, without having had a chance to observe any live testimony. In Reale, the successor judge made a similar statement, аnd we determined that it was not fatal to his findings, stating:
The judge did state that his analysis included consideration of the witnesses’ demeanor and credibility. We concede that, although credibility can be assayed in this case by considering the witnesses’ words and motives, observing their demeanor from the cold record would be impossible. We considеr the judge’s use of the term “demeanor” unfortunate in this case, but far from fatal to his findings. It was probably included inadvertently — and harmlessly....
Reale,
II. The Interest Issue
The Trustee argues that the bankruptcy court erred in calculating prejudgment and postjudgment interest at the federal rate prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a). According to the Trustee, “§ 1961(a) at best governs postjudgment interеst only” and that the bankruptcy court should have applied Massachusetts law in assessing both prejudgment and postjudgment interest. The Debtor has not addressed this issue. 6
Postjudgment interest is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a), which provides: “Interest shall be allowed on any money judgment in a civil action recovered in a district court.... Such interest shall be calculаted from the date of the entry of the judgment.” A bankruptcy court is a “unit” of the district court, and, therefore, 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a) applies to bankruptcy court judgments.
See Lewis v. Harlin (In re Harlin),
B. Prejudgment interest
Neither the Bankruptcy Code nor the United States Code contain a general statute granting prejudgment interest. Therefore, prejudgment interest is generally subject to the court’s discretion depending on the equities of the case.
See Neponset River,
Federal courts addressing the choice of law question often look to the source of a plaintiffs claim when determining the governing law of prejudgment interest: if federal law gives rise to the claim, federal law governs the rule of рrejudgment interest to be applied.
7
See Segal v. Gilbert Color Sys., Inc.,
Courts have reached different conclusions regarding whether federal or state law governs prejudgment interest in fraud
This action was brought concurrently under federal (§§ 554(b) and 550) and state law (Massaсhusetts fraudulent conveyance statute). However, § 544(b) is the provision that allows the trustee in the instant case to assert his Massachusetts fraudulent transfer claim and § 550 simply identifies the entities from whom recovery may be made. Therefore, neither § 544(b) nor § 550 is the substantive basis for the judgment; rather, the substantive basis is the Massachusetts fraudulent conveyance statute. Therefore, as state law is the substantive law for the fraudulent transfer judgment, the bankruptcy court should have looked to state law to determine the applicable rate of prejudgment interest.
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, § 6B, governs the award of prejudgment interest in tort actions.
See Gen. Elec. Co. Bus. Lighting Group v. Halmar Distribs., Inс. (In re Halmar Distribs., Inc.),
In any action in which a verdict is rendered or a finding made or an order for judgment made for pecuniary damages for personal injuries to the plaintiff or for consequential damages, or for damage to property, there shall be added by the clerk of the court to the amount of damages interest thеreon at the rate of twelve per cent per annum from the date of commencement of the action even though such interest brings the amount of the verdict or finding beyond the maximum liability imposed by law.
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, § 6B. Based on the foregoing, the bankruptcy court should have awarded prejudgment interest at the Massachusetts rate of 12% from the date on which the Trustee sued the Appellant.
CONCLUSION
For reasons set forth above, the Judgment is AFFIRMED IN PART and VACATED IN PART. The Judgment is VACATED to the extent it awarded pre
Notes
. The Appellant has not raised any issues regarding the merits of the fraudulent transfer action and, therefore, they are waived on appeal.
See Tower v. Leslie-Brown,
. The Debtor’s case was commencеd prior to the effective date of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 ("BAPCPA”), Pub.L. 109-8, Title III, § 302, 119 Stat. 23 (2005). Accordingly, unless expressly stated otherwise, all references
. Where factual findings are based on determinations regarding the credibility of witnesses, the Panel generally accords even greater deference to the trial court’s findings. See Fed. R. Bankr.P. 8013;
Rodriguez-Morales v. Veterans Admin.,
. Prior to being amended in 1991, Rule 63 was much narrower and courts interpreted it to require a successor judge to hold a new trial where the matter wаs a nonjury trial and the trial judge had become unavailable after the trial concluded but before issuing findings and conclusions. The pre-1991 version of Rule 63 did not include a procedure whereby parties could request that witnesses be recalled. The qualifying language of the amended Rule 63, however, assures that due process will not bе violated when the judge proceeds without ordering a new trial.
. Both
Reale
and the present case involved the same successor judge and almost identical certifications. An appeal of the
Reale
decision is currently pending before the First Circuit Court of Appeals.
See Reale,
. The Debtor did not file a reply brief addressing this issue.
. For example, courts generally award prejudgment interest at the federal rate prescribed in 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a) on preference recoveries arising under § 547 of the Bankruptcy Code.
See, e.g., Neponset River,