Not for Publication

MEMORANDUM DECISION DISMISSING REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF COMMON LAW EQUITABLE LIEN IN FAVOR OF ALEXANDRA NICOLE SENYI de NAGY-UNYOM

S. MARTIN TEEL, Jr., Bankruptcy Judge.

The debtor, Stephen Thomas Yelverton, has filed a Request for Judicial Notice of Common Law Equitable Lien in Favor of Alexandra Nicole Senyi de Nagy Unyom (Dkt. No. 883), in which he:

(Emphasis in the original.) Yelverton bases this on his execution on April 2, 2008, of a promissory note in favor of Ms. Senyi to pay her the first $100,000, from the sale of his 1,333.3 shares of stock in Yelverton Farms, Ltd. The Request addresses an alleged equitable lien on the shares but also inconsistently refers to an alleged equitable lien on the proceeds from a future sale of the share. Regardless of whether Yelverton's argument relates to an equitable lien on the shares or the proceeds of the shares, I will dismiss the Request.

I

Yelverton identifies no contested matter or adversary proceeding pending in this Court in which he seeks to have the court take judicial notice of Senyi holding such equitable lien. In addition, the matter of which it is requested to take judicial notice (Senyi's holding an equitable lien) is not a fact of which it is appropriate to take judicial notice under Fed. R. Evid. 201 but is a legal issue that is subject to dispute.

If Yelverton is seeking a determination that Senyi holds an equitable lien on the shares, and if he has standing to seek such a determination (which is doubtful), he must file a complaint commencing an adversary proceeding because Rule 7001(2) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure provides, with an exception of no relevance here, that "a proceeding to determine the validity, priority, or extent of a lien or other interest in property" is an adversary proceeding. Moreover, pursuant to a prior order of the District Court, Yelverton v. Webster (In re Yelverton), Case No. 1:13-cv-1544 (CRC), 526 B.R. 429, 435 (D.D.C. Aug. 6, 2014) the District Court barred Yelverton from filing any further civil action in the District Court without having first obtained leave of the District Court to file the civil action. Yelverton must obtain permission before pursuing such an adversary proceeding complaint in this court as a unit of the District Court exercising the District Court's bankruptcy subject matter jurisdiction by way of a referral of such civil actions to this court. For the reasons that follow, it is unlikely that he would be granted such permission.

II

Yelverton lacks standing to assert Senyi's alleged equitable lien. See In re Yelverton, Case No. 09-00414, 2014 WL 36585, at *2 (Bankr. D.D.C. Jan. 6, 2014).

III

To the extent that Yelverton's Request is one to declare that an equitable lien exists on the shares themselves and not on any existing or eventual proceeds of the shares, and if the shares have become non-estate property pursuant to the settlement calling for the trustee to transfer the shares to others, Yelverton has not shown how a proceeding to determine whether an equitable lien exists on the shares falls within this court's subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b). Any lien on such non-estate property would not have any apparent impact on the administration of the estate.

IV

On the merits, Yelverton's contentions are frivolous. Yelverton is mistaken in arguing that this court "has never made any rulings with respect to this Promissory Note and the Common Law `equitable lien' in favor of Ms. Senyi, where it is a matter of state law and where the Bankruptcy Court has no Constitutional authority under Article III to make such a ruling." (Request, p. 2; emphasis in original.) Yelverton fails to take account of prior rulings of this court concerning Senyi's rights relating to the shares. This court already decided that Senyi has no ownership interest in the shares themselves based on the promissory note. See In re Yelverton, 477 B.R. 282, 287 (Bankr. D.D.C. 2012). The promissory note promised to pay Senyi the proceeds of a sale of the shares, not to convey to her the shares themselves. Accordingly, even if an equitable lien existed, it would be on the proceeds of the shares.1 However, in that regard, in In re Yelverton, Case No. 09-00414, 2014 WL 36585, at *2-3 (Bankr. D.D.C. Jan. 6, 2014), I previously rejected the argument by Yelverton that an equitable lien existed on the proceeds of the shares by observing:

V

A separate order follows dismissing Yelverton's Request for Judicial Notice of Common Law Equitable Lien in Favor of Alexandra Nicole Senyi de Nagy Unyom (Dkt. No. 883).