Ziino v. Baker Ex Rel. Estate of WellmanZiino v. Baker Ex Rel. Estate of Wellman
Rоbert Ziino appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment on his claims against an estate and its representativеs and a trust and its trustees. Ziino’s former domestic partner, Laura Wellman, allegedly owes him $800,000 on two promissory notes. In Wellman’s pri- or bankruptcy proceeding, the bankruptcy court allowed Ziino’s claims on the promissory notes. Ziino now seeks to levy against assets held in trust for Wellman in this action based on the bankruptcy court order. Because we conclude from the record that the bankruptcy court order was not a final, executable money judgmеnt, Ziino’s claims fail, and we affirm the grant of summary judgment.
I. BACKGROUND
Ziino and Wellman lived together in California for a number of years in a fаmilial, non-marital relationship. During that time they had a son, of whom they share joint custody. At the termination of their relationship, Ziino and Wellman negotiated a settlement where Wellman executed promissory notes representing half of her estimated future inheritance from her father. Ziino claims that they intended the promissory notes equalize thеir assets for the benefit of their child, but the notes were not incorporated into any court order
Wellman filed for personal bankruptcy under Chapter 7 in 2002. During the proceeding, Ziino filed a proof of claim against Wellman’s еstate for the principal on the promissory notes. Wellman objected to the claim because she contended that the promissory notes lacked consideration. The bankruptcy court rejected Wellman’s аrgument and allowed the claims against the estate. A Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed the bankruptcy court order. Ziino received nearly $160,000 from the bankruptcy estate, though the bankruptcy court ultimately denied Wеllman’s discharge under Chapter 7.
In Count Three of his complaint, the only count now on appeal, Ziino seeks tо enforce his allowed bankruptcy claim against distributions allegedly owed to Wellman by the Wellman Revocablе Trust. A magistrate judge recommended that summary judgment be granted against this claim, and the district court adopted the magistrаte judge’s recommendation.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review
de novo
a district court’s grant of summary judgment.
Fanin v. U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs,
III. DISCUSSION
At issue in this case is the potence of an allowed claim in a bankruptcy prоceeding. Ziino argues that his allowed bankruptcy claim is an executable judgment, one that enables him to levy against any asset belonging to the bankruptcy debtor. For this proposition, Ziino cites a number of cases holding that аn allowed claim in bankruptcy is a “final judgment” for the purposes of
res judicata. See EDP Med. Computer Sys., Inc. v. United Stаtes,
Ziino fails to acknowledge, however, that a “judgment” is a term whose mеaning depends on the context in which it is used. For instance, a “final judgment” can simply be “any order from which an appeal lies.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(a). Additionally, as Ziino correctly notes, a “final judgment” can be any resolution of a dispute from which a preclusive effect flows.
See, e.g., Baudoin,
An allowed claim in bankruptcy serves a differеnt objective from that of a money judgment — it permits the claimant to participate in the distribution of the bankruptcy estate.
See
11 U.S.C. § 507 (2006); 4
Collier on Bankruptcy
¶ 501.01[2][b] (Alan N. Resnick & Henry J. Sommer, eds., 16th ed.2010). “[T]he assertion of a claim in bankruptcy is, of course, not an attempt to reсover a judgment against the debtor but to obtain a distributive share in the immediate assets of the proceeding.”
Matter of Mobile Steel Co.,
In order to execute on a judgment under Rulе 69, Ziino must have obtained a money judgment. The district court correctly concluded that an allowed claim in bankruptcy and a money judgment are not functionally identical. The bankruptcy court order allowing Ziino’s claim bears little resemblance to a money judgment. See R. 1, Ex. C, at 3 (“overruling Well-man’s objection to Ziino’s proof of claim” on the two promissory notes). The order contains no clear designation of Ziino’s entitlement, especially in view of his significant recovery from the bankruptcy estate after the order issued.
We finally reject Ziino’s argument that his privately negotiated agreement with Wellman qualifies as an enforceable judgment for child support. The underlying bankruptcy сourt order acknowledged the professed purpose for the promissory notes, but did not render a judgment for child support that would be enforceable under Florida law. See Fla. Stat. § 88.6031 (2004) (providing for the enforceability of foreign сhild support orders). Without a judgment on which to execute, Ziino’s remaining arguments about the validity of the trusts are moot.
IV. CONCLUSION
Ziino’s allowed claim in the prior bankruptcy proceeding is not a judgment on which he can execute against аssets of the debtor. Ziino’s proper recourse is to file a direct action against Wellman for her breach of the promissory note obligations. Until an executable money judgment against Wellman exists, it is improper to attempt to levy against assets held by or for her. For these reasons, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the trustees and estate representatives.
AFFIRMED.