              United States Court of Appeals
                         For the Eighth Circuit
                     ___________________________

                             No. 13-2684
                     ___________________________

               In re: G. Yvonne Stephens; Larry K. Alexander

                           lllllllllllllllllllllDebtors

                          ------------------------------

                          Andrew Will Alexander

                          lllllllllllllllllllllAppellant

            Larry Kenneth Alexander; Georgina Yvonne Stephens

                                       v.

                John A. Hedback; Mary Jo. A. Jensen-Carter

                          lllllllllllllllllllllAppellees
                                 ____________

                  Appeal from United States District Court
                 for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis
                                ____________

                       Submitted: February 10, 2014
                           Filed: April 2, 2014
                             [Unpublished]
                             ____________

Before SMITH, BEAM, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
                           ____________
PER CURIAM.

       Over the past 15 years, Andrew W. Alexander and his parents have made
numerous frivolous claims to ownership and a homestead exemption in real property
in St. Paul, Minnesota.1 In 2011, the bankruptcy trustees evicted them and tried to
sell the property. The bankruptcy court2 authorized the sale free and clear of any
encumbrances. Alexander filed a lis pendens, delaying the sale. The trustees moved
for $25,000 in damages, plus attorney’s fees and expenses. The bankruptcy court
scheduled a hearing and discovery on the motion, but Alexander and his attorney,
Daniel L.M. Kennedy, refused to cooperate. The bankruptcy court imposed
sanctions, including (1) a default judgment of $25,000 against Alexander and
Kennedy, jointly and severally; (2) $10,184.70 in attorney’s fees and expenses against
Alexander and Kennedy, jointly and severally; and (3) $10,000 against Kennedy
individually. Alexander appealed to the district court,3 which affirmed. In re
Stephens, No. 12-2775/12-2785, 2013 WL 3465281 (D. Minn. July 10, 2013)




      1
       See, e.g., In re Alexander, 239 B.R. 911 (8th Cir. BAP 1999), aff’d, 236 F.3d
431 (8th Cir. 2001); In re Alexander, 242 F.3d 373 (8th Cir. 2000) (unpublished); In
re Alexander, 270 B.R. 281 (8th Cir. BAP 2001), aff’d, 44 Fed. Appx. 32 (8th Cir.
2002) (unpublished); In re Stephens, 276 B.R. 610 (8th Cir. BAP 2002), aff’d, 53
Fed. Appx. 392 (8th Cir. 2002) (unpublished); In re Alexander, 288 B.R. 127 (8th
Cir. BAP 2003); In re Alexander, 289 B.R. 711 (8th Cir. BAP 2003), aff’d, 80 Fed.
Appx. 540 (8th Cir. 2003) (unpublished); Stephens v. Hedback, 321 Fed. Appx. 536
(8th Cir. 2009) (unpublished); In re Stephens, 425 B.R. 529 (8th Cir. BAP 2010),
aff’d sub nom. Alexander v. Hedback, 395 Fed. Appx. 314 (8th Cir. 2010)
(unpublished); Alexander v. Jensen-Carter, 711 F.3d 905 (8th Cir. 2013).
      2
       The Honorable Dennis D. O’Brien, United States Bankruptcy Judge for the
District of Minnesota.
      3
      The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the District
of Minnesota.

                                         -2-
(unpublished). He now appeals to this court, attacking the bankruptcy court’s
jurisdiction and sanctions.

       Upon careful review of the record and the arguments on appeal, we agree with
the findings and conclusions of the district court and the bankruptcy court. See Nick
v. Morgan’s Foods, Inc., 270 F.3d 590, 594 (8th Cir. 2001) (“We review sanction
orders under the abuse of discretion standard.”); Moog World Trade Corp. v.
Bancomer, S.A., 90 F.3d 1382, 1384 (8th Cir. 1996) (questions of law, including
personal jurisdiction, are reviewed de novo). See also Yeldell v. Tutt, 913 F.2d 533,
539 (8th Cir. 1990) (personal jurisdiction may be obtained through “formal
submission in a cause, or by submission through conduct”), quoting Neirbo Co. v.
Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 308 U.S. 165, 168 (1939). The judgment is affirmed.
See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
                        ______________________________




                                         -3-
