Professional Documents
Culture Documents
MARK NELSON,
Debtor,
____________
MARK NELSON,
Appellant,
v.
LINDA WIHBEY TAGLIENTI, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. A. David Mazzone, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
____________________
Before
Breyer, Chief Judge,
___________
Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
______________
____________________
STAHL,
Circuit Judge.
______________
Plaintiff-appellant
Mark
attorneys.
He
Background
Background
__________
The Nelsons
resided at
16 Dorchester Street,
2, 1985, and
Wilmington, Massachusetts.
part of a
divorce judgment.
Under the
daughter.
The
agreement
further
obligated
him
to
-22
home,
and
actively
to list
and
market the
property for
sale.1
On March
transferred
all of
right,
$1.00 consideration,
title
and interest
Family Court.
court entered
contempt
suspended
paid."
efforts
in
the Middlesex
On
May 8,
1991, and
16
County
Paula began
Probate
and
the
judgment
in
Mark
resulted
in
120-day
jail
The second
sentence,
____________________
1.
According to defendants' brief in bankruptcy court, the
agreement also provided that Paula Nelson transfer her right,
title and interest in 16 Dorchester Street to Mark.
As we
read the agreement, she was required to transfer her right,
title and interest in six Wilmington properties, including 18
Dorchester Street, but not 16 Dorchester Street.
It is
___
unclear to us, therefore, who held title to 16 Dorchester
Street as of February 12, 1991.
2.
At oral argument, plaintiff's counsel contended that
prior to the transfer, the property was in a real estate
trust, with Mark and Paula as both trustees and lifetime
beneficiaries.
Counsel argued that a second real estate
trust had been established well in advance of March 1991, and
that the "transfer" really amounted to a mere substitution of
George Nelson for Mark as trustee. There is no evidence in
the record as to whether such trust arrangements ever
existed.
Nor is there any evidence that Paula surrendered
her interest as either trustee or lifetime beneficiary of 16
Dorchester Street in the marital agreement. See n.1 supra.
___
_____
-33
hearing on
12,
the contempt
1991.
On
November 8,
"skeleton"3 petition
Bankruptcy
November
Court
12,
to November
Mark filed
a voluntary,
for the
1991,
District
Mark
filed
in
of
13 in the
Massachusetts.
the
Probate
Court
On
a
to file another
attachment and
transfer of
to
the
Subsequently, on November
temporary
the 16
Chapter 13
that court
restraining order
directed
the parties
assert that
trustee Szabo
allowing for
the sale of
____________________
to
the property,
the
According
McGovern of
meet with
Szabo.
"agreed to execute
seeking an
to prevent
defendants, during
Probate Court
action in
the
Defendants
a stipulation
asserting that
the
3.
A "skeleton" bankruptcy petition does not include the
required
itemized
lists
of assets
and
liabilities.
Petitioners obtain leave to file those lists at a later date.
After receiving two such extensions of time in which to file
the supporting
documents, Mark filed the schedules to
accompany his Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition on December 26,
1991. He listed 16 Dorchester Street as real property in
which he held an equitable interest of one-half, and on which
there were mortgages of $105,214.93 and $68,765.84.
Given
counsel's argument that Paula had relinquished all interest
in the property, see n.1 supra, it is unclear who held the
___
_____
remaining one-half beneficial interest in the property.
4.
She appears to have done so
Dorchester Street was the subject
agreement.
-44
Mark Nelson."
Mark does
not dispute
Probate Court
issued a
temporary restraining
order
an interlocutory
in
force.
The
order continuing
pending
sale
of
the
16
1992, Paula, in a
rights in
further effort to
16 Dorchester Street,
filed another
an attachment on the
property.
On
Mark commenced
an adversary
the bankruptcy
ex-wife and
court against
they
had
property
willfully
provided by 11 U.S.C.
362.
equity actions in
properly
in
the
bankruptcy
violated
an
automatic
stay
defendants' obstruction
of the proposed
sale of
-55
In
response,
defendants moved
to
dismiss
the action
for
to a Chapter 7
mortgagee successfully
petitioned the
on its
petition.
Subsequently,
bankruptcy court
16 Dorchester
Street mortgage,
an action
bankruptcy court
dismissed
22,
1992, the
adversary proceeding.
He
appealed to
the district
II.
II.
___
Discussion
Discussion
__________
As
general rule,
petition
operates as
property
of the
a stay
bankruptcy
the
filing
of a
against actions
estate.
11
bankruptcy
affecting the
U.S.C.
362(a).
the need
estate
seizures
from
being eaten
of
opportunity
property
to marshal
them equitably
among
away
before
the
the
by
the
creditors' lawsuits
trustee
estate's assets
creditors."
-6-
has
had
and
the
and distribute
Martin-Trigona
______________
v.
Champion Fed. Sav. & Loan Assoc., 892 F.2d 575, 577 (7th Cir.
________________________________
1989) (citing H.R.
Rep. No.
1st Sess.
340
court
before proceeding
362(d).
The code,
party
for, and
in
receive,
must
relief
ask
from the
estate.
11
the
stay
U.S.C
interest
362(b)(2),
11 U.S.C.
362(b).
actions to "collect[] .
Under
. . alimony,
11 U.S.C.
362(b)(2)
take action
against
(emphasis supplied).
a
bankruptcy
Litigants
estate without
provided
including
by
this
costs
receiving
who
section
shall
and attorneys'
The code
the
prior
the statutory
provides that
actual
and, in
damages,
appropriate
circumstances,
may
recover
punitive damages."
11 U.S.C.
Paula's
This
case turns
equity
actions
on
in
two questions:
state
court
(1)
fell
whether
under
the
whether
Paula
violated"
the
thereby
automatic
under
stay,
362(h).
In
-77
this
case,
the answer
to the
first question
provides the
not property
___
of
(emphasis supplied).
following
(1) the
the estate."
11 U.S.C.
362(b)(2)
automatic
of Deeds
ownership of
the
as property
of the
estate because
he had
yet to
she filed
the
action, Paula
file the
At or close to
learned from
Joseph
would not
claim
any of
the
proceeds of
the
then
peculiar "facts"
applicable to
Dorchester
of this case,
we hold
property, if,
in fact,
16
Although
____________________
5. We also note that Mark's counsel conceded at oral
argument that there was no way for Paula to determine from
public records who held beneficial interest in the property
at 16 Dorchester Street.
Indeed, in retrospect, it is
impossible for this court to determine whether the property
was properly part of the bankruptcy estate. The ambiguous
record of this case contains no evidence that the property
was ever in a real estate trust, and it is unclear whether,
when and how Paula surrendered her interest in the property.
-88
Paula
whether
could have
the
asked
property
the bankruptcy
was
subject
to
court to
a
stay
determine
prior
to
was not
frivolous.
have
been
willful
that
defendants the
sum of $2,000
we
find
appeal
to cover both
this
appellate costs
to run jointly
his counsel.7
and
The decision
____________
____________________
6.
Mark does not explicitly state which of Paula's actions
interfered with the sale of 16 Dorchester Street.
To the
extent that he argues for a distinction between actions filed
before December 26, 1991, when he filed the schedules
accompanying his bankruptcy petition indicating that the
bankruptcy estate had an equitable interest in the property,
and those initiated thereafter, he does so in a most
perfunctory manner.
This court has often warned litigants
that
"issues adverted
to
in
a perfunctory
manner,
unaccompanied by some effort at developed argumentation, are
deemed waived."
United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17
_____________
_______
(1st Cir.), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1082 (1990).
_____ ______
7. Because defendants did not cross-appeal the denial
their motion for costs and fees below, they failed
preserve that issue on appeal.
of
to
-99