The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary L. Sharpe U.S. District Judge
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
Appellant-debtor, Robert Harris, seeks review of the Bankruptcy Court's (1) dismissal with prejudice of debtor's bankruptcy petition (Case No. 04-15335); and (2) dismissal of debtor's adversary proceeding (Adv. Pro. No. 04-90287). Harris also seeks the court's reconsideration of it's denial to reopen Case No. 1:03-CV-1404. For the reasons that follow: (1) The Bankruptcy Court's decisions are AFFIRMED; (2) Harris' appeal is DISMISSED; and (3) the court declines to revisit its decision in Case No. 1:03-CV-1404.*fn2
Harris purchased rental income property at 323 State Street, Albany, New York, in 1976 and at 38 South Main Avenue, Albany, New York in 1979.*fn3 Harris fell behind on property taxes on both properties, and in 1997, the County of Albany initiated a tax foreclosure action. On January 5, 2001, appellee County took deed title to properties located at 38 South Main Avenue and 323 State Street in Albany. On January 24, 2001, Harris filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition and plan.*fn4 Consistent with that plan, Harris sought to avoid the two deeds conveying the properties to the County. The Bankruptcy Court dismissed the case without confirming any of Harris' proposed plans because Harris failed to provide copies of his tax returns and pay post-petition real property taxes. Harris refiled for Chapter 13 on November 6, 2003, and the court dismissed his case for a second time. On June 2, 2004, the County commenced another in rem proceeding against a third parcel, 24 Spring Street, claiming a $25,000.00 debt.*fn5 On August 13, Harris filed a third Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition, and on November 16, he filed an adversary proceeding.
Harris refers to a court-approved Stipulation agreed to by the parties on November 18. The Stipulation states: (1) that the preferential transfer issue of the first two parcels would be added to and decided in the new adversarial proceeding along with the preferential transfer issue of the third parcel; (2) that the debtor would withdraw his claim to the properties in favor of a claim to the proceeds of the sales; (3) that the sales by the County would be confirmed by the court; and (4) that the proceeds from the sales would be invested in three separate escrow accounts, with the proceeds to go to the successful party on the preferential transfer issue. The Bankruptcy Court dismissed both the substantive bankruptcy petition and the adversary proceeding. On March 11, 2005, Harris filed a notice of appeal for the adversary proceeding, and on March 18, he filed a notice of appeal of the Chapter 13 case.
Harris challenges as legal error: (1) the Bankruptcy Court's dismissal with prejudice of his Chapter 13 petition due to his failure to formulate a feasible plan, file federal and state income tax returns, and pay post-petition real property taxes, and (2) the Court's dismissal with prejudice of his adversary proceeding as moot after the dismissal of his Chapter 13 petition. The County maintains that the Bankruptcy Court properly dismissed with prejudice Harris' Chapter 13 petition and the related adversary proceeding.
The court has appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(a). In regard to findings of law, the court may "affirm, modify or reverse a bankruptcy judge's judgment, order or decree or remand with instructions for further proceedings." FED. R. BANKR. P. 8013. The court reviews the bankruptcy court's findings of fact under a "clearly erroneous" standard, and its legal conclusions de novo. See FED. R. BANKR. P. 8013; In re U.S. Lines, Inc., 318 F.3d 432, 435-36 (2d Cir. 2003). In applying the "clearly erroneous" standard of review, a district court may reverse the bankruptcy court only where it is "left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948). Mixed questions of law and fact are reviewed de novo. See In re Vebeliunas, 332 F.3d 85, 90 (2d Cir. 2003) (citations omitted). A court's interpretation of the text of court orders is considered a conclusion of law, and is subject to de novo review. See In Re Duplan Corp., 212 F.3d 144, 151 (2d Cir. 2000). In matters committed to the discretion of the bankruptcy judge, the legal and factual findings are reviewed for abuse of discretion. See In re Blaise, 219 B.R. 946, 949-950 (B.A.P. 2d Cir. 1998). "The bankruptcy court abuses its discretion if it bases its decision on an erroneous view of the law or upon clearly erroneous factual findings." Id.
1. One-year Look Back Period
Harris claims that the property transfers by Albany County are avoidable under 11 U.S.C. § 548.*fn6 In support of this theory, he claims that the County waived the one-year look back period in a ...