In Re: Bruce J. Paswall
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:20-cv-05624
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Re: Bruce J. Paswall, Judge Karas denied Grant and Reid Paswall’s reconsideration motion, leaving the bankruptcy court’s default judgment and deed ruling undisturbed.
Grant and Reid Paswall’s motion was denied; the ruling left in place the bankruptcy court’s default judgment in favor of Chapter 7 Trustee Mark S. Tulis and its authorization concerning the deed involving Bruce J. Paswall’s estate.
What happened
In Re: Bruce J. Paswall concerns Grant and Reid Paswall’s appeal of a bankruptcy court order. That order entered default judgment for Chapter 7 Trustee Mark S. Tulis and authorized him to avoid, set aside, and strike a deed transferring Bruce J. Paswall’s interest in real property.
Grant and Reid Paswall asked the district court to reconsider its ruling. The court said reconsideration is allowed only for reasons such as a change in controlling law, new evidence, or a clear error or injustice. It found that the appellants had repeated arguments already considered and had identified no overlooked law or facts.
Judge Karas denied the motion for reconsideration and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate it. The opinion did not change the bankruptcy court’s default judgment or its authorization concerning the deed.
The detailed version
- In Re: Bruce J. Paswall · No. 7:20-cv-05624
- Kenneth Karas
- Sept. 15, 2021
Background
Grant and Reid Paswall appealed a June 29, 2020 order issued by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, acting through Judge Robert D. Drain. That order entered default judgment in favor of Mark S. Tulis, the Chapter 7 trustee of Bruce J. Paswall’s estate, against Grant and Reid Paswall. It also authorized the trustee to avoid, set aside, and strike a deed dated October 3, 2014, and recorded January 27, 2017. The deed concerned Bruce J. Paswall’s interest in real property identified in the opinion as 13 Logging Road, Katonah, New York 10536.
The district court had previously ruled on the appellants’ appeal. The matter addressed in this opinion was the appellants’ motion asking the district court to reconsider that ruling.
Reconsideration standard
The court explained that motions for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3 are subject to a strict standard. Reconsideration is appropriate only when the movant identifies an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a clear error or need to prevent manifest injustice. It is not a way to present new material, raise arguments that were previously available but omitted, or relitigate issues already decided. A movant must instead show that the court overlooked controlling law or factual matters previously presented that might have changed the result.
Court’s analysis
The court found that Grant and Reid Paswall identified none of the required grounds for reconsideration. According to the opinion, they repeated arguments that the court had expressly considered and rejected. They did not point to any issue the court had failed to consider or to any law or fact it had overlooked.
Disposition
Judge Kenneth M. Karas denied the Appellants’ Motion for Reconsideration. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the pending motion. The opinion did not otherwise alter the bankruptcy court’s default judgment or its authorization to address the deed.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.