Bankruptcy No. 1-02-00081.United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Pennsylvania.
February 9, 2004
{Nature of Proceeding: Debtor’s Motion to Determine Secured Status of Commerce Bank (Doc. 61)}
JOHN THOMAS, Bankruptcy Judge
ORDER
For the reasons indicated the Opinion filed this date, IT ISHEREBY
ORDERED that Debtor’s request for reconsideration of this Court’s July 22, 2002 Order is denied without prejudice.
OPINION[1]
The Court is once again confronted with the parties’ on-going dispute over Debtor’s assignment to Commerce Bank (“Commerce”) of a life insurance policy that was used to secure his financial obligations to Commerce. A brief recitation of my history with the parties is appropriate.
On July 22, 2002, I jointly addressed Debtor’s Objection to Commerce’s Proof of Claim and Commerce’s Objection to Debtor’s Plan. Specifically, I was asked to determine whether Debtor’s assignment of the life insurance policy secured both of his March 2000 and February 2001 loans with Commerce. I ruled in the affirmative after
Page 2
consideration of the evidence and testimony then before me.
Next, regarding Debtor’s Motion to Determine Secured Status of Commerce Bank, I addressed whether the assignment was an absolute assignment or merely a collateral assignment. After taking the matter under advisement, I held on August 22, 2003 that Debtor’s assignment was given as collateral security for Debtor’s outstanding loans.
During a telephone conference on September 18, 2003, Debtor’s counsel informed the Court of her belief that the August 22, 2003 decision leads into the issue of: “Is there any debt remaining for which the collateral is assigned?” It is Debtor’s position that the March 2000 and February 2001 loans are unsecured based on my August 22, 2003 ruling. Debtor advanced the argument that the facts Commerce advanced during the July 22, 2002 hearing, concerning whether certain assignments were perfected and acknowledged by the insurance company, were incorrect and that fraud was committed upon the Court. Debtor is even prepared to provide additional testimony from the insurance company concerning whether the Commerce `assignment’ or `assignments’ are acknowledged.
Commerce maintains that it never made the alleged misrepresentations to the Court and that res judicata and the “law of the case” doctrine prevent a re-litigation of the July 22, 2002 ruling. It also argues that res judicata bars Debtor from raising issues surrounding the acknowledgment of the assignments which could have been raised on July 22, 2002.
Alleging that fraud occurred during the July 22, 2002 hearing, Debtor claims that
Page 3
the Court must decide whether there is any debt remaining for which the life insurance policy is collaterally assigned. It appears that Debtor is actually asking me for relief from my July 22, 2002 Order. Whether or not res judicata applies, a timely motion based on Rule 9024 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)) is the appropriate vehicle for seeking such relief.
Debtor’s oral request that this Court re-address its July 22, 2002 ruling is denied without prejudice.
An Order will follow.