BANKRUPTCY NO.: 5-01-04254, ADVERSARY NO.: 5-02-00008AUnited States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Pennsylvania.
March 25, 2003
Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Reconsideration of Order dated August 20, 2002, filed August 30, 2002 OPINION[1]
JOHN THOMAS, Bankruptcy Judge
The Trustee filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration concerning this Court’s earlier Order dated August 20, 2002. The Motion is denied for the following reasons.
The Trustee filed a Complaint based on Section 506 of the Bankruptcy Code to determine secured status of property owned by Mrs. Gipe and located at 218 Pine Boulevard, Deer Lake, Pennsylvania. A mortgage was filed by Defendant’s predecessor with the Recorder of Deeds’ Office of Schuylkill County on December 3, 1997. This mortgage was recorded in Book 205, Page 148 and included a legal description for property located at 218 Lake Front, which Debtors jointly owned. An additional mortgage was recorded on March 10, 1999 in Book 558, Page 190 listing the same mortgagee with a legal description for the 218 Pine property. A satisfaction piece was later recorded on March 23, 1999 concerning “Mortgage Premises: 218 Lake Front . . . ” and the “Mortgage recorded on December 3, 1997 . . . in Book 205, page 148.” A trial was held on August 20, 2002 wherein the Trustee argued that the March 10, 1999 recording sought to correct the address on the original mortgage and it merely re-recorded the first mortgage. He maintained that the satisfaction piece extinguished Defendant’s lien on the 218 Pine property, as a result. This Court issued a judgment against the Trustee for the reasons set forth on the record and granted Defendant relief from the automatic stay.
When confronted with a Motion for Reconsideration, this Court finds the following in In Re Fidelity State Bank, 130 B.R. 578 (D. Kansas 1991):
A motion to reconsider is appropriate when the court has obviously misapprehended a party’s position or the facts or applicable law, or when the party produces new evidence that could not have been obtained through the exercise of due diligence. Anderson v. United Auto Workers, 738 F. Supp. 441, 442 (D. Kan. 1990); Taliaferro v. City of Kansas City, 128 F.R.D. 675, 677 (D. Kan. 1989). An improper use of the motion to reconsider “can waste judicial resources and obstruct the efficient administration of justice.” United States ex rel. Houck v. Folding Carton Administration Committee, 121 F.R.D. 69, 71 (N.D. Ill. 1988). Thus, a party who fails to present his strongest case in the first instance generally has no right to raise new theories or arguments in a motion to reconsider. Renfro v. City of Emporia, 732 F. Supp. 1116, 1117 (D. Kan. 1990); Butler v. Sentry Insurance, 640 F. Supp. 806, 812 (N.D. Ill. 1986).
Additionally, “[a] Rule 59(e) motion is available to correct a broad range of alleged errors, including a `relitigat[ion] [of] the original issue,’ Smith, 853 F.2d at 158 or a correction of `judicial errors,’ otherwise confined to appeals. Campfire Shop, 71 B.R. at 524.” In Re TuanTan Dinh, 90 B.R. 742, 745 (Bkrtcy.E.D.Pa. 1988) (citing Smith v. Evans,853 F.2d 155 (3rd Cir. 1988), In re Campfire Shop, Inc., 71 B.R. 521,523-24 (Bankr.E.D. Pa. 1987)).
After reviewing the post-trial Motion together with Briefs in support and in opposition and the entire transcript of this matter, this Court has decided to deny the Motion in its entirety. The Court finds upon review of the Motion and accompanying Brief and case law that there is nothing contained therein that would lead this Court to find that it has misapprehended the law, the facts, or his position in this case. Nothing new was submitted to this Court which would compel it to reconsider its earlier decision.
For all the foregoing reasons, the Trustee’s Motion for Reconsideration is hereby denied.
My Order will follow.
ORDER
For the reasons stated in the foregoing Opinion, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that the Trustee’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.