Niczyporuk v. O'Rourke

Opinion

1 FILED IN THE 2 EASTER U N . S D . I S D T I R S I T C R T I C O T F C W O A U S R H T I NGTON 3 Jun 06, 2025 4 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 9 No. 2:24-CV-00411-SAB 10 In re: 11 AGNES NICZYPORUK, 12 Debtor. ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL 13 14 15 16 On December 5, 2024, Debtor/Appellant Agnes Niczyporuk filed a Notice 17 of Appeal, appealing the bankruptcy court’s order denying her motion for relief 18 from judgment. Ms. Niczyporuk is representing herself in this matter. Ms. 19 Niczporuk is seeking relief from the bankruptcy court’s September 14, 2023 order 20 that granted U.S.Bank Trust’s Motion for Relief from Stay. The Stay Order 21 allowed U.S. Bank to proceed with foreclosure of the Properly located at 1315 N. 22 Dunbarton Oaks Lane, Liberty Lake, WA, which took place in December 2024. 23 Bankruptcy Court’s Order Denying Motion for Relief from Judgment 24 In its Order denying Ms. Niczyporuk’s Motion for Relief from Judgment, 25 the bankruptcy court noted that Ms. Niczyporuk had previously moved for 26 reconsideration of the Stay Order and the bankruptcy court denied the motion. In 27 her Motion for Reconsideration, Ms. Niczyporuk challenged the evidence 28 indicating U.S. Bank owned the promissory note that Ms. Niczyporuk and her 1 husband signed when they purchased the Property. In denying the Motion for 2 Reconsideration, the bankruptcy court rejected these arguments because Ms. 3 Niczyporuk failed to allege an intervening change in controlling law; newly 4 discovered evidence, or previously unavailable evidence that was discovered. Ms. 5 Niczyporuk appealed both the stay and reconsideration orders, and the Bankruptcy 6 Appellate Panel affirmed. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed the 7 bankruptcy court’s decision that no genuine issue of fact existed concerning U.S. 8 Bank’s ownership of the note. 9 With respect to the motion for relief from judgment, the bankruptcy court 10 found that Ms. Niczyporuk merely re-packaged her prior reconsideration 11 arguments under a different procedural rule. She offered no new evidence or 12 substantive allegations of fraud or misrepresentation. She simply asserted there 13 “have been several fabricated, forged, and fraudulent assignments of mortgage 14 and/or servicing recorded,” which were the same arguments Ms. Niczyporuk had 15 previously litigated. 16 The bankruptcy court noted Ms. Niczyporuk had not made payments on the 17 note for many months and Ms. Niczyporuk was not the legal owner of the 18 Property, although she has lived there since 2007. 19 The bankruptcy court concluded that issue preclusion bars Ms. Niczyporuk’s 20 motion for relief from judgment. 21 Standard of Review 22 A district court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a bankruptcy court. 23 28 U.S.C. § 158. “On an appeal the district court or bankruptcy appellate panel 24 may affirm, modify, or reverse a bankruptcy judge’s judgment, order, or decree or 25 remand with instructions for further proceedings.” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8013. 26 When examining an appeal, a district court uses the same standard of review that a 27 circuit would use when reviewing a district court’s decision. See In re Baroff, 105 28 F.3d 439, 441 (9th Cir. 1997). A bankruptcy court’s order granting relief from 1 judgment is reviewed for abuse of discretion. In re Int’l Fibercom, Inc., 503 F.3d 2 933, 939 (9th Cir. 2007). 3 A bankruptcy court abuses its discretion if it applies the wrong legal 4 standard, misapplies the correct legal standard, or makes factual findings that are 5 illogical, implausible, or without support in the record. United States v. Hinkson, 6 585 F.3d 1247, 1261-62 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc). 7 Analysis 8 The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ms. 9 Niczyporuk’s motion for relief from judgment. The bankruptcy court properly 10 found Debtor/Appellant’s arguments before it were identical to those previously 11 raised, considered and rejected by the courts, and therefore were barred by issue 12 preclusion. Courts have consistently held that U.S. Bank Trust maintained 13 possession of the original note and it was not required to present the original note 14 to prove possession. Finally, it appears the issue of the relief from stay in the 15 bankruptcy proceedings is moot, given the sale of the property in question. See In 16 re Royal Properties, Inc., 621 F.2d 984, 986 (9th Cir. 1980) (“Once the orders 17 have been performed, an appeal attacking the order is moot). Even if the Court 18 were to grant Ms. Niczyporuk’s requested relief, it would be an advisory opinion 19 upon a moot question.1 20 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 21 1. Debtor/Appellant’s Appeal is DISMISSED, with prejudice. 22 2. Debtor/Appellant’s Motion for Judicial Notice of Transcript 23 Correction Appeal (Case No. 2:25-cv-00179-TOR), ECF No. 18, is DENIED, as 24 moot. 25 // 26 // 27

28 1 Ms. Niczyporuk’s remaining arguments are frivolous or unsubstantiated. 1 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in against Debtor/Appellant and in favor of Appellees. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter this Order, forward copies to Plaintiff and counsel and close the file. 5 DATED this 6th day of June 2025.

sin 9 Chief United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL ~ 4