Matter of Anderson

130 B.R. 497, 1991 Bankr. LEXIS 1137, 1991 WL 156576
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Michigan
DecidedAugust 13, 1991
Docket18-00313
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 130 B.R. 497 (Matter of Anderson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Michigan primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Matter of Anderson, 130 B.R. 497, 1991 Bankr. LEXIS 1137, 1991 WL 156576 (Mich. 1991).

Opinion

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEBTOR’S MOTION TO WAIVE FEES AND COSTS OF APPEAL AND DENYING RELATED OBJECTIONS

JAMES D. GREGG, Bankruptcy Judge.

On July 30, 1991, this court signed and docketed an Order Granting Motion to Strike and Declaring Purported Lien Filed with the Muskegon County Register of Deeds to be Null and Void. A copy of that order is attached to this Opinion. After notice and hearing, the court determined that the Debtor, among other things, drafted and filed a “lien” against Edward C. Farmer, Jr., a judge for the 60th Judicial Court for the State of Michigan. The “lien” was prepared under the color of the United States Bankruptcy Court. The court determined that these “homemade documents” were frivolous and unsupported by fact or law. The court therefore granted Judge Farmer’s motion to strike and entered an order that the fictional and spurious liens filed by the Debtor were determined to be null and void.

On July 31, 1991, this court entered an Order Striking and Denying Certain Papers Including Debtor’s Notice of Amendment to Notice and Objection and Discharge of Motion to Strike and Discharge of Hearing and Notice of Intent to Appeal Immediately Possible Adverse Judgment. The papers considered by the court in this Order were determined to be incomprehensible. The court also found the papers appeared to be frivolous or spurious and did not comport with applicable Bankruptcy Rules. To the extent that the papers could conceivably be construed to constitute an appeal, the court noted that the papers were filed before the July 30, 1991 hearing respecting Judge Farmer’s Motion to Strike. The court further noted that the papers that were filed appeared to be interposed for improper purposes, i.e., to harass Judge Farmer, to cause undue delay with respect to court proceedings, and to increase the cost of litigation. See B.R. 9011. Based upon its review of the papers, the court entered an order that the papers were stricken.

With this procedural background, on August 5, 1991, the Debtor filed the following *499 papers: (1) Objection to Order Dated July 30, 1991, (“First Objection”); (2) Objection to Order Dated July 31, 1991, (“Second Objection”); (3) Notice of Appeal, (“The Appeal”); and (4) Motion to Waive Fees and Costs (the “Motion to Waive Fees”).

This court finds the First Objection and Second Objection to be frivolous as a matter of law. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989) {in forma pauperis complaint is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in fact or in law; the term “frivolous” embraces not only inarguable legal conclusion, but also “fanciful factual allegations”). Based upon the review of its files, the court finds that this Debtor has a history of filing frivolous papers. FRE 201; cf. In re Pearson, 773 F.2d 751 (6th Cir.1985) (the court may review a debtor’s schedules to determine whether jurisdiction exists under 11 U.S.C. § 109).

When frivolous papers are filed, the court may prevent a pro se litigant from filing an in forma pauperis complaint or, in this instance, an objection. Cf., Gibson v. R.G. Smith Co., 915 F.2d 260, 262 (6th Cir.1990). Further, this court believes that denial of the relief sought in the First Objection and the Second Objection, however frivolous, will not be prejudicial; the orders in question appear to be subject of the Appeal. The court therefore denies the Debtor’s Objection to Order Dated July 30, 1991 and the Debtor’s Objection to Order Dated July 31, 1991 without prejudice to the Debtor’s appeal rights.

With regard to the Debtor’s Appeal, the Bankruptcy Court Clerk has docketed the Appeal pursuant to instructions from this judge. The Debtor may proceed with her Appeal subject to applicable Bankruptcy Rules. See B.R. 8001-8019. To lodge and prosecute an appeal, the Debtor, as appellant, must pay certain fees. Among other fees stated in the statute, “[t]he Judicial Conference of the United States may prescribe additional fees in cases under title 11 of the same kind as the Judicial Conference prescribes under Section 1914(b) of this title.” 28 U.S.C. § 1930(b). The Judicial Conference has imposed the following fees respecting bankruptcy appeals: (1) “Upon the filing of a notice of appeal with the bankruptcy court in a proceeding arising under the Bankruptcy Act, $5 shall be paid to the clerk of the bankruptcy court by the appellant;” and (2) “For docketing a proceeding on appeal or review from a final judgment of a bankruptcy judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(a) and (b), $100.” See Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees listed in Historical and Statutory Notes to 28 U.S.C. § 1930.

In her Motion to Waive Fees, the Debtor has requested that she be allowed “to proceed with the APPEAL from the Bankruptcy Court without paying costs and fees involved due to her poverty.” The Debtor asserts her motion is governed by § 1-201(23) and (24) of the Uniform Commercial Code. This statute is totally inapposite to the relief sought.

However, this court notes the Debtor’s request is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1915 which states in pertinent part:

Any court of the United States may authorize the commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or criminal, or appeal therein, without prepayment of fees and costs or security therefor, by a person who makes affidavit that he is unable to pay such costs or give security therefor. Such affidavit shall state the nature of the action, defense or appeal and the affiant’s belief that he is entitled to redress.
An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

This Bankruptcy Court is a “court of the United States” within the meaning of the above statute. Cf., Freytag v. C.I.R., — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 2631, 115 L.Ed.2d 764 (1991) (an Article I court which exercises judicial power can be a court of law within the meaning of the Appointments Clause; the reference to “courts of law” cannot be limited to Article III courts merely because they are the only courts the Constitution mentions). This court therefore concludes it has authority to determine whether the Debtor’s request to waive the appeal fees is warranted.

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

Related

Gebhardt v. Thompson (In re Thompson)
561 B.R. 581 (N.D. Georgia, 2016)
United States ex rel. Jones v. Mann (In re Jones)
545 B.R. 778 (N.D. Georgia, 2016)
Heghmann v. Indorf (In Re Heghmann)
324 B.R. 415 (First Circuit, 2005)
Lu v. Ravida (In Re Ravida)
296 B.R. 278 (First Circuit, 2003)
In Re Stansbury
226 B.R. 360 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1998)
In Re Robinson
196 B.R. 459 (E.D. Arkansas, 1996)
In Re Koren
176 B.R. 740 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1995)
Huff v. Brooks (In Re Brooks)
175 B.R. 409 (S.D. Alabama, 1994)
Burrell v. Letterlough (In Re Burrell)
150 B.R. 369 (E.D. Virginia, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
130 B.R. 497, 1991 Bankr. LEXIS 1137, 1991 WL 156576, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-anderson-miwb-1991.