Darrell L. Smith

CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Mississippi
DecidedAugust 12, 2020
Docket20-10507
StatusUnknown

This text of Darrell L. Smith (Darrell L. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Mississippi primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Darrell L. Smith, (Miss. 2020).

Opinion

SO ORDERED,

2 Judge Jason D. Woodard os ey United States Bankruptcy Judge Qiao The Order of the Court is set forth below. The case docket reflects the date entered.

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI In re: ) ) DARRELL L. SMITH, ) Case No.: 20-10507-JDW ) Debtor. ) Chapter 13

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM AUTOMATIC STAY AND FOR OTHER RELIEF (DKT. # 13) This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Relief from Automatic Stay and for Other Relief (Dkt. # 13) filed by the creditor HSBC Bank USA, National Association, as Indenture Trustee for People's Choice Home Loan Securities Trust Series 2005-2 and the Response to Motion to Lift Automatic Stay (Dkt. # 18) filed by the debtor Darrell L. Smith. A hearing was held on June 16, 2020, where the parties argued to the Court and agreed to a briefing schedule.

The question is at what moment does a real property foreclosure sale become final under Mississippi law, or more specifically, at what point does the

debtor lose both legal and equitable title to the property? The Court has reviewed the arguments and relevant law and finds and concludes that after legal title is divested upon default, a real property foreclosure sale is final as to the debtor’s equitable right of redemption once the public auction sale

concludes, not when a deed is delivered or recorded. Accordingly, the motion is due to be granted. I. JURISDICTION This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 151, 157(a) and

1334, and the

dated August 6, 1984. This is a core proceeding as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (B), (G), and (O).

II. FACTS AND RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY1 The debtor initiated this bankruptcy proceeding by filing a chapter 13 voluntary petition on February 4, 2020 at 11:28 a.m. (Dkt. # 1). He listed the creditor as a secured creditor in his bankruptcy schedules and listed the real

property as collateral securing the claim. (Dkt. # 6). The creditor then filed

1 To the extent any of the findings of fact are considered conclusions of law, they are adopted as such, and vice versa. this motion to lift the automatic stay asserting that a foreclosure sale had concluded on February 4, 2020, prior to the debtor filing his bankruptcy

petition, and that the debtor therefore had no interest in the property. (Dkt. # 13). The debtor argued that the bankruptcy petition was filed prior to the conclusion of the foreclosure sale and the automatic stay prohibited the transfer of title. (Dkt. # 18).

At the hearing on the motion, the foreclosure auctioneer, Pam Reel, testified that she commenced the sale on February 4 at 11:05 a.m., and that the sale took approximately two to three minutes to complete. She testified that the creditor was the highest bidder with a bid of $151,500.00 and that

there were no other bidders at the sale.2 She further testified that after the gavel fell she signed a memorandum of sale. The Court finds Ms. Reel’s testimony credible as to these facts. The Court further finds that the gavel fell and the memorandum of sale was signed before the bankruptcy petition was

filed at 11:28 a.m. The substituted trustee’s deed was delivered no earlier than the next day, February 5, when it was signed by the trustee. (Dkt. # 36, Ex. B). The deed was recorded in DeSoto County Court records on February 12. (Dkt. # 36,

Ex. C).

2 Ms. Reel made the bid as the agent of the creditor. Timeline of Events:

Date of Default? Deed Recorded Bankruptcy Public Auction Petition Foreclosure Sale Filed Begins

Noy. 1, 2018 Feb. 2020 Feb. 4, 2020 Feb. 4, 2020 Feb. 5, 2020 Feb. 12, 2020 11:05 AM 11:08 AM 11:28 AM

Public Auction Foreclosure Sale Concludes - Deed Signed and Delivered Memorandum of Sale Signed

III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The commencement of a bankruptcy case creates an estate that is comprised of all legal or equitable interests of a debtor in property held as of the commencement of the case.‘ “Although bankruptcy law creates the estate, non-bankruptcy law determines which assets of the debtor become part of the estate.”> “[W]hatever rights a debtor has in property at the commencement of the case continue in bankruptcy—no more, no less.”* “Property interests are

s Although no proof of default was offered into evidence, the creditor alleged that the debtor defaulted on the loan on November 1, 2018. (Dkt. # 38). The debtor admitted in his briefs that he became delinquent on his mortgage prior to the creditor engaging a law firm to handle the foreclosure. (Dkt. ## 36, 40). 411 US.C. § 541(a)(). >In re Martin, 276 B.R. 552, 555 (Bankr. N.D. Miss. 2001) (citing Jn re Pinetree, Ltd., 876 F.2d 34, 36 (5th Cir. 1989)). Moody v. Amoco Oil Co., 734 F.2d 1200, 1213 (7th Cir. 1984).

created and defined by state law. Unless some federal interest requires a different result, there is no reason why such interests should be analyzed

differently simply because an interested party is involved in a bankruptcy proceeding.”7 Accordingly, the Court looks to Mississippi state law to determine whether the debtor had a legal or equitable interest in the property at the time the bankruptcy case was commenced.8 If so, that interest is

property of the bankruptcy estate and the foreclosure sale may be set aside. If not, neither the estate nor the debtor have any interest in the property. The debtor argues that the foreclosure sale was not complete until the property was conveyed to the creditor when the deed was signed and delivered,

which occurred after the bankruptcy petition was filed. MISS. CODE ANN. § 89– 1–3 provides that “lands shall not be conveyed from one to another unless the conveyance be declared by writing signed and delivered.” “For a deed to be valid in Mississippi, the grantor must deliver it to the grantee.”9 The debtor

argues that the foreclosure sale was not complete until February 5 when the substituted trustee’s deed was signed.

7 , 440 U.S. 48, 55 (1979). 8 This Court would certify this state law question to the Mississippi Supreme Court, but Rule 20(a) of the Mississippi Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that only the United States Supreme Court or a United States Court of Appeals may so certify. M.R.A.P. 20(a). Absent a clear directive from the Mississippi Supreme Court, this Court is tasked with making a “tenable forecast” of what the Mississippi Supreme Court would do if faced with the question. , 829 F.2d 693, 696 (8th Cir. 1987) (Arnold, J., concurring). 9 , 495 B.R. 291, 298 (Bankr. N.D. Miss. 2013) (citing MISS. CODE ANN. §§ 89-1-1 and 89-1-3; , 864 So. 2d 926, 930 (Miss. 2003)). In a traditional sale of land where “A” conveys its interest in real property to “B,” the sale transaction would not be complete (i.e., the transaction

of conveying the property would not be complete) until the deed was signed and delivered. Foreclosure law is different and the debtor’s focus on the deed is inapposite. The question is not when did the creditor (as the highest bidder) take title to the property, but rather when did the debtor lose his rights in the

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Butner v. United States
440 U.S. 48 (Supreme Court, 1979)
Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corporation
549 U.S. 561 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Lake Hillsdale Estates, Inc. v. Galloway
473 So. 2d 461 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1985)
Anderson v. Kimbrough
741 So. 2d 1041 (Court of Appeals of Mississippi, 1999)
Wansley v. First Nat. Bank of Vicksburg
566 So. 2d 1218 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1990)
In Re Bardell
374 B.R. 588 (N.D. West Virginia, 2007)
Peoples Bank & Trust Co. v. L & T DEVELOPERS
434 So. 2d 699 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1983)
Estate of Dykes v. Estate of Williams
864 So. 2d 926 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 2003)
In Re Sands
328 B.R. 614 (N.D. New York, 2005)
Martin v. USDA Rural Housing Service (In Re Martin)
276 B.R. 552 (N.D. Mississippi, 2001)
In Re Grant
303 B.R. 205 (D. Nevada, 2003)
In Re Applewhite
106 B.R. 468 (S.D. Mississippi, 1989)
Brown v. Financial Enterprises Corp. (In Re Hall)
188 B.R. 476 (D. Massachusetts, 1995)
Robers v. United States
134 S. Ct. 1854 (Supreme Court, 2014)
Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
133 S. Ct. 1351 (Supreme Court, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Darrell L. Smith, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/darrell-l-smith-msnb-2020.