SJ Group LLC v. Haley

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: January 25, 2022
• Docket: 2:21-cv-00502
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 SJ Group LLC, No. CV-21-00502-PHX-DJH

10 Appellant, ORDER

11 v.

12 Eric M Haley,

13 Appellee. 14 15 This is a bankruptcy appeal arising from an Order and Judgment of Bankruptcy 16 Judge Daniel Collins of the District of Arizona. Appellant SJ Group, LLC’s (“SJ Group”) 17 filed an Opening Brief (Doc. 5).1 Appellee Eric Haley (“Haley”) filed an Opening Brief, 18 as well, which the Court will construe as the response (Doc. 10). SJ Group has filed a 19 Reply (Doc. 13). For the following reasons, the Court affirms the Order and Judgment of 20 Judge Collins. 21 I. Background 22 On June 20, 2019, Bankruptcy Judge Paul Sala conducted the auction of Debtor 23 Regency Park Capital 2011, Inc.’s Super 8 Motel (the “Motel”). (Doc. 5-2 at 4–30). The 24 dispute here concerns an Earnest Money Deposit of $250,000 (the “Deposit”) that SJ Group 25 placed in escrow in order to participate in the auction. 26 1 SJ Group requested oral argument on this matter. The Court finds the issues have been 27 fully briefed and oral argument will not aid the Court’s decision. Therefore, the Court denies SJ Group’s request. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b) (court may decide motions without 28 oral hearings); LRCiv 7.2(f) (same). 1 In addition to the Deposit, all the participating bidders executed a purchase and sale 2 agreement (“PSA”) that purported to govern the auction’s terms. Under the PSA, a 3 winning bidder could not recover the Deposit “under any circumstances.” (Doc. 5-1 at 84). 4 Although this language appears definitive, the PSA also provides that a winning bidder is 5 able to terminate the agreement in the event the Motel incurred a casualty, such as a flood, 6 before the sale closed. (Id. at 93). And in the event the agreement was terminated because 7 of a flood, the PSA allowed the winner to retrieve its Deposit. (Id.) 8 Before the bidding started, counsel for one of the creditors asked Judge Sala whether 9 the Deposit became non-refundable “if the winning bidder fails to close for any reason.” 10 (Doc. 5-2 at 11–12). Judge Sala then explained to all the bidders that the Deposit “goes 11 hard and will be forfeited if you[, the winning bidder,] can’t close.” (Id. at 12). “You 12 won’t be able to rely on the fact that you couldn’t get financing, you couldn’t get your 13 funds by the right day, you couldn’t get the transfer of the franchise approved. So everyone 14 needs to understand so you’re all on the same plain.” (Id.) Judge Sala then asked if there 15 were any questions. (Id.) There were no further questions. No party objected. And the 16 auction proceeded. 17 SJ Group submitted the highest bid of $6,150,000 and became the winning bidder. 18 (Id. at 23). On June 25, 2019, Bankruptcy Judge Paul Sala entered an Order approving the 19 sale (the “Sale Order”). (Doc. 5-1 at 64). The Sale Order states, in part, that “[t]he Winning 20 Bidder’s $250,000.00 deposit is non-refundable.” (Id. at 66). Nowhere in the Sale Order 21 did Judge Sala mention the PSA or circumstances under which the PSA might allow for a 22 refund of the Deposit. No party has ever attempted to formally amend the Sale Order or 23 file an appeal. 24 Then, on July 15, 2019, there was a flood. A shower broke, and the Motel flooded 25 with water. SJ Group represents that after this flood, it attempted to renegotiate the sale of 26 the Motel for a lower price. (Doc. 5 at 15).2 But the negotiations failed. Instead of closing

27 2 Haley represents that SJ Group actually first attempted to renegotiate the purchase price on July 9, 2019, before the showerhead broke. (Doc. 10 at 7) (stating that counsel for SJ 28 Group told Haley on a July 12, 2019, conference call that SJ Group was “unable and unwilling to close at the full sale price but would be willing to close at an amount less than 1 the sale, SJ Group sought to terminate the PSA and retrieve its Deposit from Haley. Haley 2 declined to return the Deposit. 3 In August 2019, the parties turned to the Bankruptcy Court and began litigating 4 whether SJ Group was entitled to the return of its Deposit. (Id.) Judge Sala recused himself 5 in December 2019, and the matter was reassigned to Judge Collins. (Doc. 5-1 at 153). SJ 6 Group filed a Motion for Summary Judgment for Return of Earnest Money Deposit, in 7 which it argued that it was entitled to the return of the Deposit under the PSA’s terms. (Id. 8 at 157–58). The parties stipulated to limit their arguments on this matter, and Judge Collins 9 subsequently issued an Order Limiting Issues that limited discussion to “the issues raised 10 in SJ Group’s Motion for Summary Judgement.” (Doc. 5-1 at 179). 11 On December 1, 2020, Judge Collins heard oral argument on the dispute, and he 12 requested further briefing on whether the Sale Order conflicted with the PSA. 13 (Doc. 5-2 at 39). On December 17, 2020, Judge Collins heard oral argument again to 14 discuss the Sale Order’s impact on this case. Ultimately, he found there was a flood as 15 defined by the PSA, and he found that paragraph 15(b) of the PSA gave SJ Group a right 16 to seek to terminate their agreement. (Id. at 52). However, Judge Collins did not find that 17 SJ Group was entitled to the return of its Deposit. 18 SJ Group was not so entitled because Judge Collins found the Sale Order did not 19 permit the winning bidder to retrieve its Deposit in the event of a casualty. (Id. at 53). 20 Instead, the winning bidder’s Deposit, he said quoting Judge Sala’s warning, “goes hard.” 21 (Id.) Although this was not the result that the parties had agreed to under the PSA, Judge 22 Collins found the Sale Order’s terms controlled and overrode whatever was stated in the 23 PSA. In Judge Collins’ words, “I think that [Judge Sala’s] language is clear and 24 unambiguous, and I think it trumps what the parties have otherwise agreed to under the 25 [PSA].” (Id. at 55). Ultimately, in his Final Judgement Regarding Disposition of Earnest 26 Money Deposit, Judge Collins held that “SJ Group did not close its purchase of the [Motel]. 27 Pursuant to the Sale Order, the Liquidating Agent is, and shall be, entitled to retain the 28 the full purchase price”). SJ Group’s Reply does not refute or mention this representation. 1 $250,000 bid deposit placed into escrow by SJ Group.” (Doc. 5-1 at 289). 2 On appeal, SJ Group raises two issues. The first is whether Judge Collins erred by 3 finding, “sua sponte,” that the Sale Order and PSA conflict and that the Sale Order 4 overrides the PSA. (Doc. 5 at 6). The second is whether Judge Collins erred by finding 5 that SJ Group is not entitled to the Deposit’s return. (Id. at 7). 6 II. Legal Standard 7 The Court is called to evaluate Judge Collins’ interpretation of Judge Sala’s Order. 8 In doing so, the parties dispute how much deference the Court should give Judge Collins. 9 Usually, the interpretation of a court order is a legal question, which is subject to a de novo 10 review. In re RCS Cap. Dev., LLC, 2013 WL 3619172, at *4 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. July 16, 11 2013) (citing United States v. Spallone, 399 F.3d 415, 423 (2d Cir. 2005)). Under a de 12 novo review, no deference is given to the bankruptcy court’s determinations. In re Carey, 13 446 B.R. 384, 389 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2011). 14 SJ Group argues a de novo review is appropriate here. Haley, however, argues the 15 Court should afford “broad deference” to Judge Collins’ interpretation because he and 16 Judge Sala form part of the same Bankruptcy Court. (Doc. 10 at 13). It is true that some 17 courts apply customary appellate deference to a bankruptcy court’s interpretation of its 18 own order. In re Casse, 198 F.3d 327, 333 (2d Cir. 1999). And yet, the same courts have 19 clarified that such deference only applies when a judge is interpreting his or her own order. 20 See United States v. Spallone, 399 F.3d 415, 423 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding that one judge’s 21 interpretation of another judge’s order is reviewed under the de novo standard). 22 Accordingly, the Court will conduct a de novo review. 23 III. Discussion 24 There is little doubt that SJ Group finds itself in a regrettable situation. Faced with 25 the prospect of losing $250,000 despite the terms of the PSA, SJ Group makes the sensible 26 argument that Judge Collins erred by finding Judge Sala imposed different terms on the 27 sale than what the parties had agreed to. Even though SJ Group’s argument is compelling, 28 there are other prevailing considerations that convince the Court it must affirm Judge 1 Collins’ final decision. To show why this is the necessary conclusion, the Court begins 2 with what Judge Sala meant during the auction and in the subsequent Sale Order. 3 a. Whether the Terms of the Sale Order and PSA Conflict 4 Before the auction, and in the presence of all the bidders, Judge Sala explained that 5 the winning bidder’s Deposit is non-refundable. He said if the winning bidder cannot close 6 the sale, the Deposit will be forfeited. (Doc. 5-2 at 11–12). Standing alone, this statement 7 could be interpreted as a general statement along the lines of the PSA’s general statement 8 that the Deposit is not refundable “under any circumstances.” (See Doc. 5-1 at 84). 9 However, that interpretation loses persuasive power when considering the Sale Order’s 10 plain statement that the “Winning Bidder’s $250,000.00 deposit is non-refundable.” 11 (Doc. 5-1 at 66). Nowhere does the Sale Order mention the PSA or any means by which 12 the Deposit could be refunded. In total, every statement by Judge Sala evinces an intent to 13 make the Deposit non-refundable. 14 SJ Group argues this interpretation is unreasonable because, if true, Judge Sala 15 would have removed the winning bidder’s substantive rights and protections to which the 16 parties had agreed. (Doc. 5 at 20). However, nothing in the record suggests Judge Sala 17 was aware that such rights and protections even existed. So, it seems Judge Sala 18 unwittingly could have and indeed did remove these rights and protections from the 19 ultimate terms of the sale. 20 The Court believes this omission was an honest mistake. It was an honest mistake 21 because it is perfectly reasonable for a bankruptcy judge to make a winning bidder’s 22 deposit non-refundable so to encourage finality of judicial sales. For many years, courts 23 have supported the finality of judicial sales so to induce bidding and reliance thereon. 24 Pewabic Min. Co. v. Mason, 145 U.S. 349, 356 (1892). To permit a winning bidder to 25 renege upon its purchase after a judicial sale order “would interject an intolerable element 26 of uncertainty and inequity into judicial sales. . . . It would give an advantage to those who 27 blithely bid in ignorance at the expense of those who have made more careful inquiry into 28 the reasonable value of the property offered for sale. Moreover, it could deprive the debtor 1 and lienholders of the benefit of an offer made by a more serious bidder.” In re Winston 2 Inn & Rest. Corp., 120 B.R. 631, 637 (E.D.N.Y. 1990). Viewed in this light, it is clear 3 Judge Sala ordered the Deposit be non-refundable so to discourage parties from 4 subsequently renegotiating or reneging on their purchase. This leaves the Court to find 5 that when Judge Sala said the winning bidder’s deposit “goes hard,” he meant it. 6 Now, the Court acknowledges a likelihood that Judge Sala erred by imposing terms 7 on the sale to which the parties did not agree. See In re F & N Acquisition Co., 42 F.3d 8 1399 (9th Cir. 1994). But if Judge Sala erred, SJ Group’s opportunities to correct him have 9 passed. SJ Group could have addressed such an error during the sale itself when Judge 10 Sala asked if there were any questions about the terms he had discussed. But SJ Group 11 remained silent. SJ Group also could have challenged the Sale Order within the time 12 permitted by the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(a)(1); 13 In re Delaney, 29 F.3d 516, 518 (9th Cir. 1994) (noting that if the provisions of Rule 8002 14 are not followed, an appellate court has no jurisdiction over an appeal). But it did not seek 15 reconsideration or an appeal of the, now final, Sale Order. 16 Those decisions cannot be challenged, and SJ Group acknowledges that it is not 17 attempting to appeal Judge Sala’s decisions and fervently argues this appeal is not a 18 collateral challenge to them. (Doc. 13 at 12). Instead, SJ Group argues that the issue before 19 the Court is Judge Collins’ interpretation of Judge Sala’s decisions. But the Court can find 20 no error in Judge Collins’ interpretation. 21 b. Whether the Sale Order Overrides the PSA 22 If Judge Collins’ interpretation was not in error, then, SJ Group argues, it was error 23 to find that the Sale Order’s terms override the terms to which the parties specifically 24 agreed. At first blush, it would seem only natural that the terms of a purchase and sale 25 agreement between parties should be the controlling terms of an ordinary sale. But the 26 particular sale here, the judicial sale of a multi-million-dollar property, is not an ordinary 27 sale. 28 As noted before, Judicial sales require transparency and finality such that when 1 something is sold at auction by a bankruptcy court, the specific terms of the sale order must 2 be the terms that ultimately control in order to provide stability and certainty to all parties. 3 See Mason, 145 U.S. at 356; In re Maxko Petroleum, LLC, 425 B.R. 852, 875 (Bankr. S.D. 4 Fla. 2010) (holding that when an inconsistency arises, the bankruptcy sale order ultimately 5 “defines the terms and conditions of sale”). Permitting parties to sidestep the terms of a 6 judicial sale order through a private, maybe secret, agreement would open the door to an 7 “an intolerable element of uncertainty and inequity” because parties would no longer be 8 able to rely on the court for a concrete statement of the deal. See In re Winston Inn & Rest. 9 Corp., 120 B.R. at 637; see also In re Chateaugay Corp., 186 B.R. 561, 594 (Bankr. 10 S.D.N.Y. 1995), order aff’d, appeal dismissed, 198 B.R. 848 (S.D.N.Y. 1996), aff’d, 108 11 F.3d 1369 (2d Cir. 1997) (“Thus, the successful bidder at a bankruptcy sale is bound by 12 the offer as stated and as embodied in an approval order.”); In re Silver Bros. Co., Inc., 13 179 B.R. 986, 1007 (Bankr. D.N.H. 1995) (“If there is any ambiguity in the stated terms of 14 sale the bidder has the obligation to bring that matter up for clarification before the call of 15 the sale or the bidder will otherwise be strictly bound to the terms of the sale as called.”). 16 For this reason, a court’s sale order, not the parties’ private agreement, must have the final 17 say on the terms governing a judicial sale. 18 Putting these considerations to the side, SJ Group also argues the Sale Order here 19 does not govern the specific terms of the sale because it merely authorizes the sale. 20 (Doc. 5 at 20). Although the Sale Order does authorize the sale, it does not say the winning 21 bidder may proceed with the sale. Its language is more forceful. It states the winning 22 bidder “shall” pay the full purchase price for the Motel and that the Sale Order is 23 “enforceable in law and equity, including the remedy of specific performance.” (Doc. 5-1 24 at 59). Instead of just authorizing a sale, the Sale Order requires it.3 Therefore, the Court 25 cannot accept SJ Group’s argument that the Sale Order only authorizes the sale. 26 3 SJ Group cites In re Allegiance Telecom, Inc., 356 B.R. 93, 103 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2006), 27 for the proposition that agreements among parties supersede sale orders. (Doc. 5 at 20). In that case, the sale order had explicitly incorporated the terms of the parties’ purchase 28 agreement. Allegiance 356, B.R. at 102. It is, therefore, inapplicable to the situation here where the Sale Order does not incorporate the PSA. 1 The Court finds, the Sale Order’s terms necessarily override the PSA’s terms, and 2 Judge Collins did not err by finding so. It follows that Judge Collins did not err in finding 3 that SJ Group was not entitled to the return of the Deposit under the Sale Order. 4 c. Whether Judge Collins Erred by Acting Sua Sponte 5 Finally, SJ Group argues that Judge Collins erred in finding the Sale Order 6 contradicts and overrides the PSA, sua sponte, because he was not permitted to do so. 7 (Doc. 5 at 21). Specifically, SJ Group argues that Judge Collins violated his own Order 8 Limiting Issues by considering whether Judge Sala’s Order contradicted and preempted the 9 PSA. (Doc. 5 at 21). 10 The Order Limiting Issues limited discussion to “the issues raised in SJ Group’s 11 Motion for Summary Judgement.” (Doc. 5-1 at 179). The Order does not require the 12 Bankruptcy Court to accept SJ Group’s assumption that the PSA governed the terms of the 13 sale. Underlying the issue of whether the PSA permits the Deposit’s return is the question 14 of whether the Sale Order does too, and whether it or the PSA controls the Deposit’s 15 disposition. Judge Collins, therefore, did not err by questioning the implicit argument in 16 SJ Group’s Motion that the Sale Order does not contradict or override the PSA. 17 IV. Conclusion 18 The Court concludes by addressing SJ Groups’ argument that if the Court were to 19 affirm Judge Collins’ decision, it could encourage fraud by permitting a party to enter into 20 contracts it knows will be contrary to and overridden by a subsequent court order. 21 (Doc. 5 at 22). To be clear, SJ Group does not actually claim Haley committed fraud, and 22 nothing in the record suggests Haley did. Even in the abstract, the Court does not see its 23 decision here as one that encourages fraud. 24 SJ Group’s hypothetical assumes a signing party will not know to object to the terms 25 of the sale or a subsequent sale order that differ from the sale agreement. Judge Collins 26 noted that during the auction, SJ Group was not represented by counsel. (Doc. 5-2 at 55). 27 The rude truth is that a party choosing to proceed pro se in the judicial sale of a multi- 28 million-dollar property accepts some legal risk that could be mitigated by counsel. Here, 1 || the risk materialized. That SJ Group failed to note a discrepancy between the Sale Order 2|| and the PSA strikes the Court not as fraud but, instead, a costly mistake. 3 Accordingly, 4 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Final Judgment Regarding Disposition of 5 || Earnest Money Deposit is AFFIRMED. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment || accordingly and terminate this action. 8 Dated this 25th day of January, 2022. 9 10 oC. . fo □ norable' Diang4. Huretewa 2 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-9-