Quintana v. Amer Gen Home Equi

1 Per 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has decided that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under
those limited circumstances set forth by 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
September 14, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-11192
In The Matter Of: JORGE L. QUINTANA, SR.,
Debtor,
-----------------------------------------
JORGE L. QUINTANA, SR.,
Appellant,
versus
AMERICAN GENERAL HOME EQUITY, INC.,
Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(06-CV-699)
Before GARWOOD, JOLLY, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
In a prior proceeding, Jorge Quintana (Quintana) moved to
vacate American General Home Equity, Inc.’s (AGHE) judgment lien
against his property. That motion was adjudicated and denied,

-- 1 of 2 --

explicitly with prejudice, by the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern
District of Texas on January 9, 2006. In the subsequent bankruptcy
court proceedings that form the basis for this appeal, Quintana
renewed his claim that AGHE’s lien should be vacated because it had
been extinguished by a prior New York state court ruling;
additionally, he claimed that the lien was void because AGHE failed
to file a proof of claim. The bankruptcy court correctly denied
Quintana’s renewed claim because it was res judicata due to the
January 9, 2006 judgment, then currently pending appeal. Matter of
West Tex. Mktg. Corp., 12 F.2d 497, (5th Cir. 1994) (holding that
a dismissal with prejudice is a decision on the merits); Fidelity
Standard Life Ins. Co., v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust Co. of Vidalia
Ga., 510 F.2d 272, 273 (5th Cir. 1975) (holding that a judgment
pending appeal is res judicata unless and until reversed on
appeal). The bankruptcy court also correctly dismissed Quintana’s
second argument because a creditor need not file a proof of claim
in order to maintain his lien. 11 U.S.C. § 506(d); Matter of
Taylor, 132 F.3d 256, 260–61 (5th Cir. 1998).
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court
is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --