Filed: Jun. 02, 2020
Latest Update: Jun. 02, 2020
Summary: FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT June 2, 2020 _ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court LNV CORPORATION, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. No. 19-1131 (D.C. No. 1:14-CV-00955-RM-SKC) JULIA HOOK, (D. Colo.) Defendant - Appellant, and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee, and DAVID L. SMITH; PRUDENTIAL HOME MORTAGAGE COMPANY, INC.; SAINT LUKES LOFTS HOMEOWNER ASSOCATION, INC.; DEBRA JOHNSON, in her official capacity as the Publi
Summary: FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT June 2, 2020 _ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court LNV CORPORATION, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. No. 19-1131 (D.C. No. 1:14-CV-00955-RM-SKC) JULIA HOOK, (D. Colo.) Defendant - Appellant, and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee, and DAVID L. SMITH; PRUDENTIAL HOME MORTAGAGE COMPANY, INC.; SAINT LUKES LOFTS HOMEOWNER ASSOCATION, INC.; DEBRA JOHNSON, in her official capacity as the Public..
More
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT June 2, 2020
_________________________________
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
LNV CORPORATION,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 19-1131
(D.C. No. 1:14-CV-00955-RM-SKC)
JULIA HOOK, (D. Colo.)
Defendant - Appellant,
and
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
DAVID L. SMITH; PRUDENTIAL
HOME MORTAGAGE COMPANY,
INC.; SAINT LUKES LOFTS
HOMEOWNER ASSOCATION, INC.;
DEBRA JOHNSON, in her official
capacity as the Public Trustee of the City
and County of Denver, Colorado,
Defendants.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
_________________________________
Before BRISCOE, LUCERO, and HARTZ, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Julia Hook, an attorney representing herself, appeals from the district court’s
final judgment in a foreclosure action. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, we dismiss this appeal as frivolous and deny Hook’s Motion to Proceed
In Forma Pauperis On Appeal.
LNV Corporation brought an action against Hook in the District Court for the
City and County of Denver, Colorado, seeking to foreclose a deed of trust on a piece
of real property she owned—a home. In addition to Hook, LNV named as defendants
several other parties potentially holding interests in the property, including the
Internal Revenue Service. LNV asked the court to determine the priorities of those
interests and to order a foreclosure sale of the property.
The United States (on behalf of the IRS) removed the action to the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado. LNV filed an amended complaint,
and in its answer the United States asserted a claim asking the district court to
consider its tax liens against the property when determining the priority of all liens
and to distribute any proceeds of the foreclosure sale in accordance with those
relative priorities. Hook and her husband, co-defendant David Smith, filed
counterclaims against LNV contesting, in relevant part, LNV’s right to foreclose on
the home. They also advanced claims against the United States, contesting their tax
liability and the tax liens.
2
The district court ultimately dismissed all of Hook’s claims and ruled in favor
of LNV on its claims against Hook and Smith, leaving to be decided only the manner
of judicial foreclosure and the amount of the judgment.
Although Hook and Smith filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition, requiring the
district court to administratively close this case, the bankruptcy court granted LNV
relief from the automatic bankruptcy stay so the district court could proceed, and it
denied Hook and Smith’s motion to vacate the relief order. On the same day it
denied the motion to vacate, the bankruptcy court entered a discharge order relieving
Hook and Smith of their personal liability for certain debt but allowing “a creditor
with a lien [to] enforce a claim against [Hook and Smith’s] property subject to that
lien unless the lien was avoided or eliminated.” U.S. Supp. App. at 254.1
After reopening the case the district court eventually entered a final judgment
in favor of LNV and the United States and against Hook and Smith. The court also
ordered foreclosure and judicial sale of Hook and Smith’s home. Only Hook appeals.
Hook’s arguments on appeal, which for the most part contend that the district
court lacked jurisdiction and denied her due process, are wholly frivolous. As an
attorney, she should have known that they lacked any merit before she argued them;
and in large part, the appellees’ briefs make that perfectly clear. We see no need to
further educate Hook.
1
The discharge order did not end the bankruptcy case, but that case was
eventually closed.
3
We add only a word about Hook’s suggestion that the district judge was
hostile to and biased against her, in violation of her due-process rights. “To
demonstrate a violation of due process because of judicial bias, a claimant must show
either actual bias or an appearance of bias.” Bixler v. Foster,
596 F.3d 751, 762
(10th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). But “[a]dverse rulings alone do
not demonstrate judicial bias.”
Id. Hook’s bias argument relies solely on the district
court’s adverse rulings and therefore is devoid of merit.
Because this appeal is frivolous, see Ford v. Pryor,
552 F.3d 1174, 1180
(10th Cir. 2008) (“An appeal is frivolous when the result is obvious, or the
appellant’s arguments of error are wholly without merit.” (internal quotation marks
omitted)), we dismiss the appeal and deny Ms. Hook’s Motion to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis On Appeal, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (requiring dismissal of
frivolous appeal filed by party seeking to proceed IFP); DeBardeleben v. Quinlan,
937 F.2d 502, 505 (10th Cir. 1991) (grant of IFP requires “a reasoned, nonfrivolous
argument on the law and facts in support of the issues raised on appeal”).
Consequently, Ms. Hook must pay all appellate filing and docketing fees ($505.00)
immediately to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.
Entered for the Court
Harris L Hartz
Circuit Judge
4