United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 10-2618
___________
In re: Skyline Woods Country Club, *
*
Debtor. *
------------------------------------------------ *
Mid-City Bank, et al., *
* Appeal from the United States
Appellants. * Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
* for the Eighth Circuit.
v. *
*
Skyline Woods Homeowners *
Association, et al., *
*
Appellees. *
___________
Submitted: December 15, 2010
Filed: February 22, 2011
___________
Before LOKEN, ARNOLD, and BYE, Circuit Judges.
___________
LOKEN, Circuit Judge.
If so authorized, the purchaser of real property from a bankruptcy estate
acquires title to the land “free and clear of any interest” identified in 11 U.S.C.
§ 363(f). After an affiliate of Liberty Building Corporation (“Liberty”) purchased the
Skyline Woods Golf Course in Douglas County, Nebraska, from the estate of a
Chapter 11 debtor, residents of the surrounding planned community sued the
purchasers to enforce express and implied restrictive covenants. The Supreme Court
of Nebraska held that the bankruptcy sale did not extinguish equitable interests in
having the property maintained as a golf course. Skyline Woods Homeowners Ass’n,
Inc. v. Broekemeier, 758 N.W.2d 376, 392-93 (Neb. 2008). Liberty and its secured
lender, Mid-City Bank, now appeal the bankruptcy court’s denial of their motion to
reopen the closed bankruptcy proceedings in order to declare the Supreme Court of
Nebraska judgment void and to enjoin the residents from enforcing it. We conclude
denial of the motion to reopen was not an abuse of discretion because, in a reopened
bankruptcy proceeding, the state-court judgment would be entitled to the full faith
and credit mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1738. Accordingly, we affirm.
I.
After filing a voluntary Chapter 11 petition, Skyline Woods Country Club,
LLC, acting as debtor-in-possession, filed a motion under 11 U.S.C. § 363 seeking
to sell substantially all its assets, including the golf course, accompanied by a
proposed Asset Purchase Agreement. The high bid of approximately $2.9M was
submitted by an affiliate of Liberty, which is owned and operated by David and Robin
Broekemeier. The bankruptcy court approved the sale as “in the best interests of the
Debtor, its creditors, its estate, and other parties in interest” and issued a Sales
Authorization Order (the “Sales Order”) which, consistent with 11 U.S.C. § 363(f),
authorized the sale of the property to Liberty -
free and clear of all mortgages, liens, pledges, charges . . . security
interests, interests under conditional sale, capital lease or title retention
agreement[s], encumbrances, easements, options, rights of first refusal,
restrictions, judgments, claims, demands, successor liability, defects or
other adverse claims, interests or liabilities of any kind or nature
(whether known or unknown, accrued, absolute, contingent, or
otherwise) in, on or arising from the Assets.
-2-
The Sales Order further provided that -
all persons and entities . . . holding claims or interests of any kind or
nature whatsoever against or in . . . the Assets (whether legal or
equitable, secured or unsecured, matured or unmatured, contingent or
non-contingent, senior or subordinated) . . . or the transfer of the Assets
to the Buyer, hereby are forever barred and estopped from asserting
against the Buyer, its successors or assigns, its property, or the Assets,
such persons’ or entities’ claims or interests.
The bankruptcy case was converted to a “no-asset” Chapter 7 liquidation and closed.
Some time after the purchase, Liberty ceased operating the golf course and
began changing the nature and use of the property. Nearby residents and various
homeowner associations (collectively, “the Homeowners”) sued Liberty and the
Broekemeiers (who we will now refer to collectively as “Liberty”) in state court,
asserting express and implied restrictive covenants requiring that the property be
maintained as a golf course. Liberty responded by filing a motion in the bankruptcy
court to enforce terms of the Sales Order, which allegedly barred the Homeowners
from pursuing their state-law claims. However, after the bankruptcy court advised
that Liberty must move to reopen and pay a filing fee, Liberty withdrew this motion
and defended the state-court action on the merits, arguing the Homeowners’ claims
were precluded by the bankruptcy court’s Sales Order.
The state trial court granted summary judgment to the Homeowners. Liberty
appealed. The Supreme Court of Nebraska affirmed, agreeing that the property was
burdened by implied covenants that the property be maintained as a golf course and
concluding, after careful analysis, that such implied restrictive covenants running
with the land were interests that may not be extinguished under 11 U.S.C. § 363(f).
Skyline Woods, 758 N.W.2d at 392-93. Liberty then defaulted on its secured loan.
-3-
When Mid-City Bank recorded an Election to sell the property, the
Homeowners commenced a second state-court action seeking, inter alia, to
subordinate the Bank’s deed of trust to the Homeowners’ equitable lien for the costs
of maintaining the property. The Bank and Liberty then filed this motion to reopen
the Debtor’s bankruptcy case and initiate an adversary proceeding to enforce the
Sales Order. They sought an order enjoining the Homeowners “from enforcing or
attempting to enforce the decisions of the Nebraska Supreme Court,” enjoining
“further prosecution of the Second State Court Suit,” and declaring that the state-
court orders at issue “are void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” After the
bankruptcy court1 denied the motion, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP)
affirmed, concluding that, because the Supreme Court of Nebraska had concurrent
jurisdiction to interpret the Sales Order, the judgment in the first suit was entitled to
preclusive effect and therefore reopening the bankruptcy case would be futile. In re
Skyline Woods Country Club, LLC, 431 B.R. 830, 836-38 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2010).
The Bank and Liberty appeal. As the second reviewing court, we must independently
apply the same abuse-of-discretion standard as the BAP and determine whether the
bankruptcy court “committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached.”
In re Apex Oil Co., Inc., 406 F.3d 538, 541 (8th Cir. 2005) (quotation omitted).
II.
A bankruptcy case may be reopened “to administer assets, to accord relief to
the debtor, or for other cause.” 11 U.S.C. § 350(b); see Fed. R. Bankr. P. 5010. The
Bank’s motion sought leave to commence an adversary proceeding to declare void
and enjoin enforcement of a state-court judgment. Though the parties have briefed
a great many issues, the critical question is whether the judgment is entitled to full
faith and credit under 28 U.S.C. § 1738. If it is, a federal court in a reopened
1
The Honorable Timothy J. Mahoney, United States Bankruptcy Judge for the
District of Nebraska.
-4-
bankruptcy case must give it “the same preclusive effect as would be given that
judgment under the law of the State in which the judgment was rendered.” Migra v.
Warren City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 465 U.S. 75, 81 (1984). If that rule would apply
in this case, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion for at least two reasons
-- because the relief sought by the Bank was almost certainly futile, see Redmond v.
Fifth Third Bank, 624 F.3d 793, 803 (7th Cir. 2010), and because the state court
adjudicating the Homeowners’ second lawsuit is an alternative -- and far more
suitable -- forum in which the preclusive effect of the state-court judgment under
Nebraska law can be determined, see Apex Oil, 406 F.3d at 542.
The Bank argues that Congress has vested bankruptcy courts with exclusive
jurisdiction over the property of a bankruptcy estate and therefore the Nebraska state-
court judgment is subject to collateral attack. In Duke v. Durfee, 308 F.2d 209, 212
(8th Cir. 1962), this court surveyed prior Supreme Court decisions and concluded
“that the full faith and credit clause, while foreclosing repetitious litigation of non-
jurisdictional matters, does not preclude a second forum’s inquiry into questions of
the first court’s personal or subject-matter jurisdiction.” The Supreme Court
reversed, adopting a broad principle of jurisdictional finality: “a judgment is entitled
to full faith and credit -- even as to questions of jurisdiction -- when the second
court’s inquiry discloses that those questions have been fully and fairly litigated and
finally decided in the court which rendered the original judgment.” Durfee v. Duke,
375 U.S. 106, 111 (1963). In other words, interests of finality and comity preclude
a collateral attack on the first court’s decision as to jurisdiction, even if incorrect. As
we said in McWilliams v. Blackard, 96 F.2d 43, 45 (8th Cir. 1938), “The power to
decide includes the power to decide erroneously.”
However, the Court in Durfee recognized there are exceptions to its broad rule
of jurisdictional finality. “Doctrines of federal pre-emption or sovereign immunity
may in some contexts” trump this general rule, the Court explained, citing Kalb v.
-5-
Feuerstein, 308 U.S. 433 (1940), a prior bankruptcy decision. 375 U.S. at 114. The
Bank and Liberty argue that Kalb is controlling in this case. We disagree.
In Kalb, a state appellate court decided that federal bankruptcy law did not
create an automatic statutory stay that would terminate state-court jurisdiction;
therefore the court upheld the foreclosure proceedings at issue. The Supreme Court
reversed, concluding that Congress, exercising its power to regulate bankruptcy, had
ousted the state courts of jurisdiction to proceed with foreclosure after a petition was
filed. Therefore, the state-court decision “was not merely erroneous but was beyond
its power, void, and subject to collateral attack.” 308 U.S. at 438. Because the Court
in Durfee described Kalb as an exception to finality based on federal preemption,
Kalb has been construed as authorizing a federal bankruptcy court to intervene “only
when the state proceedings are void ab initio,” that is, when the state-court judgment
“is one which, from its inception, was a complete nullity and without legal effect.”
In re James, 940 F.2d 46, 52 (3d Cir. 1991). Thus, the exception has been limited to
collateral attacks on state-court judgments that conflict with the exclusive jurisdiction
of federal bankruptcy courts. See In re Hamilton, 540 F.3d 367, 372-75 (6th Cir.
2008) (the statutory injunction in 11 U.S.C. § 524(a) creates an exception to full faith
and credit); Gonzales v. Parks, 830 F.2d 1033, 1034-36 (9th Cir. 1987).
We reject the contention that the bankruptcy court had exclusive jurisdiction
over the Homeowners’ claims in their first state-court action. Federal district courts,
and their bankruptcy courts by delegation, have exclusive jurisdiction “of all cases
under title 11,” 28 U.S.C. § 1334(a), but that provision is limited to the Debtor’s
Chapter 11 petition and “the proceedings that follow the filing of a bankruptcy
petition.” In re Middlesex Power Equip. & Marine, Inc., 292 F.3d 61, 66 (1st Cir.
2002) (quotation omitted). The district courts also have exclusive jurisdiction of the
debtor’s property at the commencement of a Chapter 11 case “and of property of the
estate,” § 1334(e)(1), but that in rem jurisdiction exists only so long as property is
part of the bankruptcy estate. See Valley Historic Ltd. P’ship v. Bank of New York,
-6-
486 F.3d 831, 837-38 (4th Cir. 2007). In all other cases “arising under title 11, or
arising in or related to cases under title 11,” the district courts “shall have original but
not exclusive jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b). Assuming the bankruptcy court had
jurisdiction over this post-bankruptcy dispute between the Homeowners and Liberty
regarding the title conveyed to Liberty by the Sales Order (an issue we need not
decide), it was non-exclusive jurisdiction under § 1334(b), concurrent with that of
state courts of general jurisdiction. See Apex Oil, 406 F.3d at 542 (concurrent
jurisdiction to interpret discharge orders); Middlesex, 292 F.3d at 66-67 (concurrent
jurisdiction to interpret title acquired under § 363).
The Bank and Liberty further argue that 11 U.S.C. § 363(m)2 deprived the
Supreme Court of Nebraska of authority to modify the free-and-clear title Liberty
acquired under the Sales Order. By its plain language, § 363(m) applies to appeals
of sales authorizations or orders, like the appeal we considered in In re Trism, Inc.,
328 F.3d 1003 (8th Cir. 2003). To be sure, a bankruptcy court’s Sales Order is
entitled to full faith and credit if put at issue in subsequent proceedings, and the
extent of its preclusive effect is determined “by virtue of the nature of rights
transferred under 11 U.S.C. § 363.” Regions Bank v. J.R. Oil Co., LLC, 387 F.3d
721, 732 (8th Cir. 2004). But § 363(m) does not expand the exclusive jurisdiction of
the bankruptcy courts and therefore does not create an exception to 28 U.S.C. § 1738,
the Full Faith and Credit statute. Here, the Supreme Court of Nebraska gave full faith
and credit to the Sales Order and § 363(f) and ruled against Liberty on the merits. As
that Court had concurrent jurisdiction to take up the issue, its decision -- made after
expressly considering the arguments the Bank and Liberty wish to raise again in the
bankruptcy court -- is likewise entitled to full faith and credit, in other words, to
2
11 U.S.C. § 363(m) provides, “The reversal or modification on appeal of an
authorization . . . of a sale . . . of property does not affect the validity of a sale . . . to
an entity that purchased . . . such property in good faith . . . unless such authorization
and such sale . . . were stayed pending appeal.”
-7-
whatever preclusive effect the courts of Nebraska afford it in the Homeowners’
second action.3
As the Nebraska state courts had concurrent jurisdiction over the Homeowners’
first suit, and expressly considered the “jurisdictional” arguments here asserted by the
Bank and Liberty, the bankruptcy court in a reopened proceeding would be bound to
give the Supreme Court of Nebraska decision the same preclusive effect it would be
given by the state courts. Knutson v. City of Fargo, 600 F.3d 992, 996 (8th Cir.
2010). That made the relief the Bank and Liberty were seeking in a reopened
bankruptcy case most likely futile. Moreover, the availability of an alternative forum
-- the second state-court suit in which the Bank and Liberty are parties -- was a strong
reason not to reopen a closed bankruptcy case. Apex Oil, 406 F.3d at 542. Finally,
Liberty’s action in voluntarily withdrawing its earlier motion to reopen and defending
the Homeowners’ first suit in state court was yet another reason to deny the motion
to reopen. Even when an issue of federal law is first litigated in state court because
the federal court abstained, “if a party freely and without reservation submits his
federal claims for decision by the state courts, litigates them there, and has them
decided there, then -- whether or not he seeks direct review of the state decision in
this Court -- he has elected to forgo his right to return to the District Court.” England
v. La. State Bd. of Med. Exam’rs, 375 U.S. 411, 419 (1964). The bankruptcy court
did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen.
The judgment of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel is affirmed.
______________________________
3
Of course, Liberty could have but did not petition the Supreme Court of the
United States to issue a writ of certiorari and take up the question whether the
Supreme Court of Nebraska’s interpretation of the Sales Order was contrary to federal
law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a).
-8-