Many years prior to filing her bankruptcy case, the Debtor and her husband owned a residence. After they divorced, the second mortgage holder foreclosed and obtained a public trustee’s deed to the property. The mortgage lender later sold the property to the Plaintiff. The Debtor remained in possession of the home and refused to vacate it. She filed a chapter 13 bankruptcy to stop Plaintiff’s state court eviction proceedings. Plaintiff then brought an adversary proceeding to obtain a declaration of his rights in the property.
On Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, the Court determined that the second mortgage holder’s foreclosure extinguished the Debtor’s and her ex-husband’s legal interest in the property. Under Colorado law, a purchaser of property is deemed to have inquiry notice of the claims of persons in possession of the property. However, the Court ruled that the Debtor’s claims of an equitable interest in the property had no merit. The Court determined: (1) the Debtor failed to present any evidence of fraud or collusion in the foreclosure sale; (2) her claims of misconduct by the first mortgage holder or errors in the divorce case were irrelevant to Plaintiff’s title; (3) an immaterial defect in the assignment of the deed of trust to the second mortgage holder did not invalidate the foreclosure sale, (4) the Debtor presented no evidence that the second mortgage holder was her ex-husband’s IRA, and even if it was, her ex-husband’s violation of the tax code did not “void” the IRA or the foreclosure sale; (5) the Debtor failed to identify any transfers related to the foreclosure or Plaintiff’s purchase of the property that were avoidable; and (6) the Debtor lacked standing to assert any claims she did not list in a prior chapter 7 case that she filed after the foreclosure sale. The Court also ruled that, because of her repeat chapter 13 filings in 2019, the automatic stay of actions against the Debtor and the Debtor’s property terminated thirty days after she filed her current case. As such, the automatic stay did not prevent Plaintiff from bringing an eviction proceeding against the Debtor in state court.