Opinion
Case No. 01-46547-JBR.
December 4, 2008
ORDER ON MOTION TO RECONSIDER
This matter came before the Court on the Debtor's Motion to Reconsider [#35] (the "Motion") seeking reconsideration of the Order of December 3, 2008 [#34] denying the Debtor's Motion to Reopen [#10]. After due consideration of the Motion and the December 3, 2008 Order, as well as other relevant pleadings including the Motion to Reopen, the Motion to Avoid Judicial Lien [#11], the Debtor's Supplemental Brief [#30] in support of the motions to reopen and avoid the judicial lien, and the Schedules filed by the Debtor [#1], the Court hereby makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
1. A motion to reconsider is governed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) made applicable to bankruptcy cases by Fed.R.Bankr.P. 9023 or Fed.R.Civ.P. 60 made applicable to bankruptcy cases by Fed.R.Bankr.P. 9024. "[T]he purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence. A party may not submit evidence that is not newly discovered in support of a motion for reconsideration." Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985), cert denied, 476 U.S. 1171 (1986) (citations omitted). A motion for reconsideration is appropriate when there has been a significant change in the law or facts since the submission of the issue to the court; it is not a vehicle for an unsuccessful party to rehash the same facts and same arguments previously presented. Keyes v. National Railroad Passenger, 766 F. Supp. 277, 280 (E.D.Pa. 1991).
2. The Motion fails to allege any newly discovered evidence, any manifest error of law, or any significant change in the law that would affect the prior outcome. Although the Motion alleges an error of law was committed by not valuing the Debtor's interest in the property she owns jointly with her husband at one half of the property's value, attributing the full value of the property to the debtor for the purpose of determining whether the judicial lien impaired the exemption to which she otherwise would have been entitled is not an error of law.
The Motion also states that only one half of the mortgage should be attributed to the Debtor.
3. On Schedule A the Debtor describes the property at issue as the "Marital Home" and the nature of her interest as "Joint Tenancy." Her husband is listed as a co-debtor jointly liable on the mortgage debt. In the Motion to Avoid Judicial Lien, the joint tenancy is further described; it is a joint tenancy with rights of survivorship. Joint tenancies with rights of survivorship between a husband and wife are presumed to be tenancies by the entirety unless another intent is evidenced in the deed. Childs v. Childs, 293 Mass. 67, 70, 199 N.E.2d 383 (1936). No deed has been provided to the Court. Because tenants by the entirety each hold an undivided 100% interest in the entire property, a debtor's interest in property held in a tenancy by the entirety is valued at 100% for the purposes of determining whether a judicial lien impairs a debtor's exemption. In re Synder, 249 B.R. 40, 46 (1st Cir. BAP 2000).
4. Because the Court correctly applied the formula set forth in 11 U.S.C § 522(f), and the application shows that the Debtor is not entitled to avoid the judicial lien, there was no need to undertake the meaningless act of reopening the case.
For the foregoing reasons, the Motion is hereby DENIED.