F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JAN 30 1997
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
In re: S. DWAYNE CHASTEEN,
Debtor,
_____________________________ No. 95-3389
(D.C. No. 95-1152-PFK)
FAHEEMAH MUHAMMAD, also (D. Kan.)
known as Fehema Muhammed, also
known as Minnie Debrow,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
S. DWAYNE CHASTEEN,
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TACHA, EBEL, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
Dwayne Chasteen, the debtor in this bankruptcy action, appeals the district
court’s affirmance of the bankruptcy court’s order holding that the debt owed by
Chasteen to Faheemah Muhammad is nondischargeable. The bankruptcy court
relied on the decision of a California bankruptcy court in an earlier proceeding
holding that the debt was nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). Because
a debt found nondischargeable under § 523(a)(6) is not one of those listed in
§ 523(b) that can be discharged in a subsequent bankruptcy, the bankruptcy court
here determined that principles of res judicata prevented it from revisiting the
issue of dischargeability in this, Chasteen’s second, bankruptcy.
In reviewing the decision of a bankruptcy court, both we and the district
court apply the same standards of review that govern appellate review in other
cases. Therefore, we review the bankruptcy court’s legal determinations de novo
and its factual findings for clear error. See Sender v. Buchanan (In re
Hedged-Investments Assocs.), 84 F.3d 1286, 1288 (10th Cir. 1996).
On appeal, Chasteen does not challenge the merits of the bankruptcy
court’s application of res judicata to the issue of dischargeability. Rather, he
-2-
raises the following three challenges: (1) the bankruptcy court lost jurisdiction
over Muhammad’s claim when the judgment on the claim expired in July 1994;
(2) the district court deprived Chasteen of due process by not addressing the
foregoing challenge to the bankruptcy court’s subject matter jurisdiction; and (3)
the district court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law were inadequate under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a).
In July 1984, Muhammad obtained a California judgment against Chasteen,
her former attorney, for legal malpractice. In 1985, Chasteen filed bankruptcy in
California and attempted to discharge the debt owed Muhammad. The bankruptcy
court determined that Chasteen’s acts were “willful and malicious” within the
meaning of § 523(a)(6) and, therefore, that the debt represented by Muhammad’s
California judgment was nondischargeable. See Supp. R. Vol. I, Doc. 2,
Complaint to Determine Debt to be Non-Dischargeable, Ex. A at 7; id., Ex. B at
2. Chasteen subsequently moved to Kansas, where he filed the present
bankruptcy proceeding in 1993 and again attempted to discharge the debt owed
Muhammad. She objected to the discharge and filed an adversary proceeding in
October 1993 to have the debt declared nondischargeable on res judicata grounds.
When Muhammad filed her adversary proceeding here, her claim against
Chasteen was enforceable under California law. Her money judgment was due to
expire in July 1994, however, see Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 683.020, unless she
-3-
either filed an application to renew the judgment before its expiration date, see id.
§ 683.120, or she filed an action on the judgment in California state court within
the ten-year limitations period set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure
section 337.5, see id. § 683.050. Filing a renewal application gives the creditor
another ten years to attempt to collect on the original judgment, whereas filing an
action on the judgment gives the creditor a new judgment on which she then has
ten years to collect.
To ensure that she would be able to institute collection proceedings on her
California judgment in Kansas, where Chasteen now resides, Muhammad chose
the latter course to renew her claim against Chasteen. See, e.g. Worthington v.
Miller, 727 P.2d 928, 930-31 (Kan. Ct. App. 1986) (holding enforcement of
Colorado judgment timely under Kansas law where revival of judgment in
Colorado court created new judgment and creditor brought Kansas enforcement
action within five years of date new judgment entered). Muhammad obtained
relief from the automatic stay and, in April 1994, brought an action in California
on her original judgment, thereby preserving her right to payment. See
United States Capital Corp. v. Nickelberry, 174 Cal. Rptr. 814, 815 (Cal. Ct. App.
1981) (“Once an action is begun within the statutory period, the creditor’s right to
recover remains alive, even though the ten-year period may subsequently
expire.”). Chasteen objected to the action on the ground that the California court
-4-
could not assert personal jurisdiction over him, but the court overruled his
objection and entered judgment against him in December 1994.
Two months later, the bankruptcy court entered its decision in
Muhammad’s adversary proceeding. The court noted that whether a valid debt is
owed and, if so, whether that debt is dischargeable, are two separate inquiries.
The court then determined that, under the Bankruptcy Code and res judicata
principles, it could not revisit the issue of the dischargeability of the debt
previously held nondischargeable by the California bankruptcy court. The court
then specifically declined to consider whether the debt remained valid and
enforceable, reasoning that it would be “a waste of judicial resources for this
Court to determine the enforceability of the California judgment while the issue is
currently before the California courts.” Supp. R. Vol. I, Doc. 2, Memorandum
Opinion & Order at 6. The court noted that Chasteen’s defenses to the California
judgment were better raised in the California courts before Muhammad’s
December 1994 judgment became final and nonappealable, id., and further
reasoned that “[a]ny state in which plaintiff attempts to enforce [her] judgment
will be in a better position to decide issues relating to that state’s enforcement
laws,” id. at 9.
We turn now to Chasteen’s specific arguments on appeal, beginning with
his contention that the bankruptcy court lost jurisdiction to adjudicate the
-5-
dischargeability of Muhammad’s claim when the 1984 California judgment
expired in July 1994. As the bankruptcy court correctly noted, a proceeding to
determine the dischargeability of a debt involves two separate inquiries: whether
a debt is owed and whether that debt is dischargeable. See, e.g., Resolution Trust
Corp. v. McKendry (In re McKendry), 40 F.3d 331, 336-37 (10th Cir. 1994). A
proceeding to determine the dischargeability of a debt is a core proceeding under
28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I). See, e.g., First Bank of Colo. Springs v. Mullett (In re
Mullett), 817 F.2d 677, 678-79 (10th Cir. 1987). Therefore, the bankruptcy court
has subject matter jurisdiction to determine whether a valid claim exists, and this
jurisdiction cannot be lost by the occurrence of an event, such as the expiration of
a judgment, that may affect the validity of a claim. We, therefore, reject
Chasteen’s contention that the bankruptcy court lost jurisdiction over the subject
matter of this adversary proceeding when Muhammad’s original judgment expired
in July 1994.
We likewise reject Chasteen’s contention that the district court’s failure to
address Chasteen’s challenge to the bankruptcy court’s subject matter jurisdiction
in its opinion on appeal deprived Chasteen of due process. Chasteen had the
opportunity to present the argument to the district court and that court’s failure to
discuss this nonmeritorious argument did not result in any prejudice to Chasteen.
-6-
Finally, we reject Chasteen’s argument that the district court failed to make
adequate findings of fact pursuant to Rule 52(a). By its terms, Rule 52(a) applies
only to “actions tried upon the facts without a jury or with an advisory jury” and
to the grant or denial of an interlocutory injunction. Here, the district court was
not sitting as a trial court, but as an appellate court. As an appellate court, the
district court’s duty was not to make its own findings, but to review the findings
of the bankruptcy court for clear error. See, e.g., In re Hedged-Investments
Assocs., 84 F.3d at 1288.
The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas
is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
David M. Ebel
Circuit Judge
-7-