United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER DENYING APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION [DOC. 8]
VICTORIA A. ROBERTS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Marique Sharp (“Sharp”) files a Motion for
Reconsideration of the Court's ruling that upheld the
Bankruptcy Court's denial of her previous motion for
Sharp fails to show a palpable defect by which the Court has
been misled, her motion is DENIED.
and her mother, Yvette Saltmarshall
(“Saltmarshall”) reside together at 4574
6th Street, Ecorse, Michigan (“the
property”). By quit claim deed recorded on July 24,
2015, Sharp conveyed her interest in the property to
Saltmarshall for $1.00.
November 1, 2016, Sharp petitioned for Chapter 7 bankruptcy.
She indicated on her Schedule A/B form that she did not own
or have any interest in any property. Sharp also did not
claim an exemption in the Ecorse property on her Schedule C
form. She disclosed that she lived at the property, but that
she transferred the property to Saltmarshall in July 2015.
March 14, 2017, Trustee Stuart A. Gold (“Gold”)
filed an adversary proceeding to avoid the transfer of the
property to Saltmarshall as a fraudulent transfer under 11
U.S.C. §§ 544(b), 548, 550(a), and the Michigan
Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act.
then filed amendments to the schedules, seeking to claim an
exemption in the property pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §
522(d)(1). Gold objected to Sharp's claimed exemptions;
he contended that Sharp's voluntary transfer of the
property to Saltmarshall before filing for bankruptcy
prevented her from claiming the exemption. The Bankruptcy
Court sustained Gold's objections and denied Sharp's
amendments. Sharp filed a motion for reconsideration, which
the Bankruptcy Court denied.
Bankruptcy Court granted Gold's motion for summary
judgment in the adversary case, concluding that the
bankruptcy estate had 100% interest in the property, and that
it could be liquidated for the benefit of the estate.
appealed the Bankruptcy Court's ruling, arguing,
inter alia, that the Bankruptcy Court erred in
finding that she fraudulently concealed the Ecorse property
and that she could not claim an exemption as a result. This
Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court, holding that the
Bankruptcy Court did not err in disallowing Sharp from
claiming the homestead exemption because Sharp voluntarily
transferred the Ecorse property to her mother.
motion for reconsideration followed. Sharp argues that: 1)
the Court was required to find both a voluntary transfer and
a concealment in order to apply the § 522(g) exception
to exemptions, which it did not do; 2) the property was not
concealed because Sharp listed it on her schedules; and 3)
Trustee Gold did not “recover” the property in a
manner that triggered the application of the § 522(g)
Rule 7.1(h)(3) provides the Court's standard of review on
a motion for reconsideration:
“Generally, and without restricting the court's
discretion, the court will not grant motions for ...
reconsideration that merely present the same issues ruled
upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable
implication. The movant must not only demonstrate a palpable
defect by which the court and the parties and other persons
entitled to be heard on the motion have been misled but ...