Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
No. 92-1795
SHERYL L. VIZVARY,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
GREATER PROVIDENCE DEPOSIT CORPORATION, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
__________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
[Hon. Ronald R. Lagueux, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
___________________
Before
Breyer, Chief Judge,
___________
Selya and Cyr, Circuit Judges.
______________
___________________
Sheryl L. Vizvary on brief pro se.
_________________
Patricia K. Rocha and Adler Pollack & Sheehan on
_________________
_______________________
appellees.
brief for
__________________
__________________
Per Curiam.
Per Curiam.
__________
district judge.
We
requesting
a judicial
of Rhode Island
declaration that
certain
in July, 1990,
loan documents
executed by her, her husband, and the appellee bank were null and
void.
The
appellees'
complaint
efforts
also demanded
to recover
their
damages
mortgage
and alleged
that
loan and
other
Appellees
moved
to
dismiss
for
lack
of
subject
matter
October 5, 1990,
order permanently
residence,
latter
a motion
for an
on her
which was
part of
bankruptcy.1
appellant filed
denied on
October 18,
1990, appellant
filed a
1990.
During the
voluntary petition
in
an adversary proceeding
bank
and
challenging
its mortgage
lien
on
her
residence.
On April 29,
1992, the
bankruptcy judge
conducted an
____________________
1992,
the
validity
challenged
bankruptcy
of
various
court
loan
entered its
documents
order
and
the
upholding
the
mortgage
lien
Meanwhile,
bankruptcy
court
judge's order
on
May 21,
hearing and
rejecting her
1992,
one
three
week
weeks
before the
after the
bankruptcy
document challenges,
court action.
denied.
Upon
late
the filing of
pending
district court
action became
property of
before the
district
court acted
tions to the
in the
541; 11 U.S.C.
bank's proof
became final.
pending
of claim and
on appellant's
lien
the bankrupt
litigated
weeks
recusal
appellant's objec-
upholding its
mortgage
district
court
action were
barred
under
the
As
court
action
on
the recusal
motion,
the
order