United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division
In Re CHARLES EDWARD WOIDE; and SUSANNAH CLARE WOIDE, Debtors.
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, Appellee. CHARLES EDWARD WOIDE; and SUSANNAH CLARE WOIDE, Appellants, Bankr. No. 6:10-bk-22841-KSJ
DALTON JR. United States District Judge
cause is before the Court on the following:
Appellants' Notice of Appeal (Doc. 1), filed August 24,
Brief for [Appellants'] Charles Edward Woide and Susannah
Clare Woide (Doc. 19), filed November 14, 2016;
Brief for Appellee Federal National Mortgage Association
(Doc. 20), filed December 14, 2016; and
Reply Brief for [Appellants'] Charles Edward Woide and
Susannah Clare Woide (Doc. 24), filed January 3, 2017.
consideration, the Court finds that the bankruptcy
court's orders are due to be affirmed and Appellants'
Notice of Appeal is due to be dismissed.
the second of two appeals taken by pro se Appellants
arising from their Chapter 7 bankruptcy case
(“Bankruptcy Action”), which was ultimately
closed on July 7, 2011. (See Docs. 1, 9-6.)
Frustrated by Appellants' attempts to thwart its efforts
to foreclose a valid interest in Appellants' home in
Deland, Florida (“Property”), Federal National
Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”) moved to
reopen the Bankruptcy Action to compel surrender of the
Property. (Doc. 9-18. (“Motion to Reopen”).) In
opposition, Appellants filed a motion to deny as moot the
Motion to Reopen. (Doc. 10-2 (“Motion to Deny”).)
Without first ruling on the Motion to Deny, the bankruptcy
court granted the Motion to Reopen. (Doc. 10-4
(“Surrender Order”).) Subsequently, Appellants
moved for reconsideration of the Surrender Order. (Doc. 10-8
(“Motion to Reconsider Surrender”).)
30, 2016, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Arthur B. Briskman set the
Motion to Reconsider Surrender for hearing (“July 27
Hearing”). (See Doc. 10-10.) At the July 27
Hearing, Bankruptcy Judge Briskman denied the Motion to Deny
and the Motion to Reconsider Surrender, which he then
memorialized in written orders. (See Doc. 10-16 and
Doc.10-17 collectively, “Denial Orders”.) Nearly
a week later, Bankruptcy Judge Briskman vacated the Denial
Orders “entered orally at the [July 27 Hearing]”
and recused himself, reassigning the case to U.S. Bankruptcy
Judge Karen S. Jennemann. (Doc. 10-20 (“Order to
Vacate”).) Appellants then moved for reconsideration of
the Order to Vacate, requesting that the bankruptcy court
vacate the written orders as opposed to the oral orders.
(Doc. 11-5 (“Motion to Reconsider Vacatur”).)
reassignment, Appellants filed their first notice of appeal
(“First Notice”) on August 10, 2016, challenging
the Surrender Order and the Denial Orders. (See
6:16-cv-1484-Orl-37 (“Woide I”) Doc.
A week after the First Notice, Bankruptcy Judge Jennemann
held a hearing to address several outstanding motions,
including the Motion to Deny and the Motion to Reconsider
Surrender, which remained pending after the Order to Vacate.
(Doc. 15-1 (“August 17 Hearing”).) Appellants
also presented argument regarding the Motion to Reconsider
Vacatur and an emergency motion for stay pending appeal (Doc.
11-6 (“Stay Motion”)). (Id.)
permit Appellants to proceed with their then-pending
Woide I appeal, Bankruptcy Judge Jennemann denied
Appellants' original Motion to Deny (Doc. 11-17) and
Motion to Reconsider Surrender (Doc. 11-18) at the August 17
Hearing. (Doc. 15-1, pp. 15-16.) Finding no grounds
to warrant a stay pending appeal, she also denied the Stay
Motion (Doc. 11-20 (“Order Denying Stay”))
without prejudice. (See Doc. 15-1, pp. 17-18.) The
Order Denying Stay directs the Clerk to “transmit to
the District Court the pending appeal of BOTH underlying
orders, [the Denial Orders], for consideration on
appeal.” (Doc. 11-20 (alteration in original).)
Bankruptcy Judge Jennemann, likewise, denied the Motion to
Reconsider Vacatur. (Doc. 11-19 (“Order Denying
Reconsideration of Vacatur”), collectively with the
Order Denying Stay (“Jennemann Orders”).)
then filed their second notice of appeal (“Second
Notice”) on August 24, 2016, challenging the Jennemann
Orders. (See Doc. 1.) The Court has received the
designated record in the Bankruptcy Action (see
Docs. 7-13, 15) and the parties briefing (Docs. 19, 20, 24).
The matter is now ripe for review.
reviewing decisions of a bankruptcy court, a district court
functions as an appellate court. In re Colortex Indus.,
Inc., 19 F.3d 1371, 1374 (11th Cir. 1994). The Court
generally reviews a bankruptcy court's factual findings
for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. In re
Globe Mfg. Corp., 567 F.3d 1291, 1296 (11th Cir. 2009).
Bankruptcy court orders denying motions to reconsider and
stays pending appeal are reviewed for abuse of discretion.
See In re Int'l Yacht & Tennis, Inc., 922
F.2d 659, 662 (11th Cir. 1991); In re Phillps, 483
B.R. 254, 257 (M.D. Fla. 2012) (citing In ...