Karen Marie Kline a/k/a K.M. Kline v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company

Karen Marie Kline filed this adversary proceedi ng in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico, seeking damages from the defendants under 11 U.S.C. § 362( k) based on their alleged willful violation of the automatic stay. The bankruptcy court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The Tenth Circuit Bankrupt cy Appellate Panel (BAP) affirmed. Kline v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. (In re Kline) , 472 B.R. 98 (B.A.P. 10th Cir. 2012).



Ms. Kline now appeals the BAP's decisi on to this court, and we affirm.



The bankruptcy court concluded that while the defendants had committed a technical violation of the automatic stay by serving Ms. Kline with an amended complaint for foreclosure after she filed her Chapter 13 ba nkruptcy case, their failure to re-serve Ms. Kline or to halt the foreclosure proceedings on her condominium following the lifting of the auto matic stay did not constitute a "willful” violation of the automatic stay wi thin the meaning of § 362(k). It further noted that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred Ms. Kline's attacks on the state-court foreclosure judgment obtained by the defendants.



1



The BAP agreed with each of these rulings and affirmed accordingly. "When reviewing a decision of the BAP, this Court reviews only the Bankruptcy Court's decision, treating the BA P as a subordinate appellate tribunal whose rulings may be persuasive, but are entitled to no deference.” Cohen v.



______________________



1 See Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co. , 263 U.S. 413 (1923); D.C. Cir. v. Feldman , 460 U.S. 462 (1983).



Borgman (In re Borgman) , 698 F.3d 1255, 1259 (10th Cir. 2012). "The Bankruptcy Court's decisions on matters of law are review ed de novo” and its findings of fact are reviewed for clear error. Id. at 1259 & n.5. "We revi ew the application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine de novo.” Miller v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. (In re Miller), 666 F.3d 1255, 1260 (10th Cir. 2012). Ms. Kline argues that the bankruptcy court's decision is in conflict with Tenth Circuit authority holding that actions taken in violation of the automatic stay are void and without effect. We disagree.



Having carefully reviewed the bankruptcy court's decision and the BAP's affirmance, the briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we affirm the challenged decision for substant ially the reasons st ated in the BAP's opinion issued June 1, 2012, and the bankruptcy court's me morandum opinion of September 2, 2011. We grant Ms. Kline's motion to proceed in forma pauperis.



We previously supplemented the record on appeal to include Ms. Kline's appendix and amended appendix filed with the BAP.

Affirmed