Opinion
19-10052
01-27-2023
In Re RODNEY THOMAS RIDDLE Debtor(s)
Lisa M. Zaring, Esq. Raymond Hartsough, Esq.
Chapter 7
Lisa M. Zaring, Esq.
Raymond Hartsough, Esq.
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DEBTOR'S AMENDED MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION RELATING TO MOTION FOR CONTEMPT [DOCKET NUMBERS 106 AND 114]
BETH A. BUCHANAN, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE
[This opinion is not intended for publication or citation.]
This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(a) and 1334, and the standing General Order of Reference in this District.
Before this Court are Debtor Rodney Thomas Riddle ("Mr. Riddle")'s Amended Motion for Contempt filed against the Honorable John Quinn ("Judge Quinn") and Magistrate Judge Janet Kleckner ("Magistrate Kleckner") of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas Domestic Relations Court and the Summit County Ohio Child Support Enforcement Agency ("CSEA") [Docket Number 106] and the Motion for Reconsideration and Objecting to the Orders dated August 24, 2020 Which Resulted from My 2nd Amended Motion for Contempt [Docket Number 114] (collectively, documents referred to as "Motions for Contempt").
I. BACKGROUND
Mr. Riddle filed this Chapter 7 bankruptcy case on January 8, 2019. In April of 2019, both the Chapter 7 Trustee ("Trustee") and the United States Trustee ("UST") filed motions to dismiss this case based on Mr. Riddle's lack of cooperation with the Trustee's requests for documents and failure to correct known inaccuracies in his schedules and statement of financial affairs. In addition, the UST requested a three-year bar to refiling be imposed against Mr. Riddle based on his lack of cooperation in the current case and his history of repetitive bankruptcy filings that were often dismissed for abuse. Following a hearing, this Court concluded that Mr. Riddle's history along with his current failure to provide the Trustee with required documents and amend inaccuracies in his schedules and statement of financial affairs supported bad faith. Accordingly, on July 19, 2019, this Court granted the Trustee and UST's motions to dismiss this case and imposed a three-year bar to Mr. Riddle re-filing a bankruptcy case [Docket Numbers 60 and 61].
While the case was still pending, Mr. Riddle filed a prior motion for contempt against Judge Quinn, Magistrate Kleckner and the CSEA [Docket Number 51] ("Prior Motion for Contempt"). In the Prior Motion for Contempt, he asserted that Judge Quinn and Magistrate Kleckner willfully violated the automatic stay by holding a divorce related hearing and denying a motion for a stay of execution of the divorce decree while the bankruptcy case was pending. He further asserted that the CSEA willfully violated the automatic stay when, after the bankruptcy filing, it suspending his driver's license for back child support owed. Judge Quinn, Magistrate Kleckner and the CSEA filed responses in opposition [Docket Numbers 56, 57 and 59]. In a decision and order dated July 29, 2019, this Court concluded that CSEA's actions did not violate the stay because certain collection actions related to domestic support obligations are excepted from the stay and that Judge Quinn and Magistrate Kleckner have immunity from suit and monetary damages for actions taken in their judicial capacity [Docket Number 68]. Mr. Riddle appealed this determination but later voluntarily dismissed his appeal [Docket Number 100].
Mr. Riddle also appealed the dismissal of his case to the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, and when the Panel affirmed the dismissal, he appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. On November 16, 2022 the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this Court's order dismissing Mr. Riddle's bankruptcy case with a three-year bar to re-filing. [See Docket Number 132 (Order from Riddle v. Greenberger (In re Riddle), Case No. 20-3901, Docket Number 90-2 (6th Cir. Nov. 16, 2022))].
II. LEGAL ANALYSIS
In the Motions for Contempt, Mr. Riddle complains of allegedly new actions in violation of the automatic stay taken by the same entities against whom he filed the Prior Motion for Contempt. However, Mr. Riddle presents no new actions by these entities that do not relate to his divorce proceedings and would not be covered by this Court's prior determination in its July 29, 2019 Decision and Order [Docket Number 68].
Indeed, the Sixth Circuit, in affirming the dismissal of this case, cited its own determination in White v. White (In re White) that bankruptcy courts should avoid intruding on matters of state-court family law. See Docket Number 132, Order from Riddle v. Greenberger (In re Riddle), Case No. 20-3901, Docket Number 90-2, p. 4 (6th Cir. Nov. 16, 2022) (citing White v. White (In re White), 851 F.2d 170, 173 (6th Cir. 1988)).
Furthermore, no automatic stay existed in this case after it was dismissed on July 19, 2019. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(c). See also Webb Mtn, LLC v. Exec. Realty P'ship, L.P. (In re Webb Mtn, LLC), 414 B.R. 308, 335-336 (Bankr.E.D.Tenn. 2009); First Inter-State Bank v. Weathersfield Farms, Inc. (In re Weathersfield Farms, Inc.) 34 B.R. 435, 439 (Bankr. D. Vt. 1983) (even though the debtor appealed the dismissal order, without a stay pending appeal, the dismissal remained in effect and the automatic stay was terminated restoring creditors to their pre-petition rights). Accordingly, any actions taken by these entities after that date would not implicate the automatic stay.
For these reasons, this Court concludes that Mr. Riddle's Motions for Contempt [Docket Number 106 and 114] are without merit and are, therefore, DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.