.jpg)
Continuing MSJ Hearing - Stay violation?
Thank you for this.
On Nov 2, 2017 9:28 PM, "Giovanni Orantes" wrote:
> I found the following, but it's from Massachusetts:
>
> I have previously recognized the *limited* right of a mortgagee to
> continue a pending foreclosure sale: a single continuance of a foreclosure
> sale following the filing of a petition is not a violation of the automatic
> stay if, before the continued sale date, the creditor filed an appropriate
> motion for relief from stay. *In re Heron Pond, LLC,* 258 B.R. 529, 530
> (Bankr.D.Mass.2001). In so holding, and with guidance from the Supreme
> Court's decision in *Strumpf,*3 I emphasized that this departure from
> strict compliance with 362(a)(1) was temporary, a place-holding measure
> intended only to secure the status quo for a brief time until a motion for
> relief from stay could be filed. Here, the mortgagee and its counsel did
> not move for relief from the automatic stay before the date to which they
> initially postponed the sale. It follows that the initial continuance was a
> violation of the automatic stay. No relief from the stay having been
> obtained for the subsequent continuances, they too were violations of the
> stay. A mortgagee's right to continue a foreclosure sale notwithstanding
> the automatic stay is a limited exception. To permit an indefinite number
> of continuances without judicial review of a prompt motion for relief from
> the stay is, in essence, to rewrite the statute, to expand a minor judicial
> accommodation for the extraordinary cases in which it was born into a
> loophole large enough to accommodate the proverbial Mack truck. On the
> undisputed and uncontroverted *12 facts, the Defendant's five continuances
> were, as a matter of law, violations of the automatic stay.
>
> *In re Lynn-Weaver*, 385 B.R. 7, 1112 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2008).
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 8:39 PM, Raymond H. Aver wrote:
>
>> Gio:
>>
>> I dont see a continuance as a violation. Not an action to pursue a
>> prepetition claim. Heck, foreclosure trustees routinely continue sales
>> after a bankruptcy filing.
>>
>>
>> Raymond H. Aver, Esquire
>>
>> LAW OFFICES OF RAYMOND H. AVER
>> A Professional Corporation
>> 10801 National Boulevard, Suite 100
>>
>> Los Angeles, California 90064
>>
>> Tel.: (310) 571-3511
>> email: ray@averlaw.com
>> Web: www.averlaw.com
>>
>> Certified Bankruptcy Specialist
>> State Bar of California
>> Board of Legal Specialization
>>
>> On Nov 2, 2017, at 8:34 PM, Giovanni Orantes wrote:
>>
>> Is it a violation to continue a hearing on a motion for summary judgment
>> if a notice of stay is given to the Court before the hearing on the motion
>> for summary judgment? I need some case law on this.
>>
>> --
>> WE DO NOT ACCEPT SERVICE BY EMAIL UNLESS WE HAVE AGREED TO ACCEPT IT IN
>> WRITING.
>>
>> Giovanni Orantes, Esq.*
>> Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
>> 3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 2920
>>
>> Los Angeles, CA 90010
>> Tel: (213) 389-4362
>> Fax: (877) 789-5776
>> e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
>> website: www.gobklaw.com
>>
>> **Certified Bankruptcy Specialist, State Bar of California, Board of
>> Legal Specialization*
>> *Board Certified - Business Bankruptcy Law - American Board of
>> Certification
>> *Board Certified - Consumer Bankruptcy Law - American Board of
>> Certification
>> Commercial Litigation
>> Estate Planning
>> Outside General Counsel
>>
>>
>>
>> WE ARE A "DEBT RELIEF AGENCY" AS DEFINED BY FEDERAL LAW.
>>
>> SERVING BAKERSFIELD, LOS ANGELES, ORANGE COUNTY, RIVERSIDE, SAN
>> BERNARDINO AND SANTA BARBARA AND THE WORLD FOR CHAPTER 11 AND 15 CASES.
>>
>> Note: The information in this e-mail message is not intended to be legal
>> advice and should not be relied upon as legal advice unless counsel
>> expressly contracted in writing to provide such advice. Furthermore, the
>> information contained in this e-mail message is confidential information
>> intended only for the use of the individual or entity named. If the reader
>> of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for
>> delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
>> dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication is strictly
>> prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
>> immediately notify us by telephone or e-mail and delete the original e-mail
>> at (213) 389-4362 or (888) 619-8222.
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Bankruptcy Specialists" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to bankruptcy-specialists+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to bankruptcy-specialists@googleg
>> roups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ms
>> gid/bankruptcy-specialists/CAG815AFG%2BHDKqQwrrfxJsb%3D_%2Bc
>> FD5L2pkDopYfBNVd1kvZpJbg%40mail.gmail.com
>>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
I found the following, but it's from Massachusetts:
I have previously recognized the *limited* right of a mortgagee to continue
a pending foreclosure sale: a single continuance of a foreclosure sale
following the filing of a petition is not a violation of the automatic stay
if, before the continued sale date, the creditor filed an appropriate
motion for relief from stay. *In re Heron Pond, LLC,* 258 B.R. 529, 530
(Bankr.D.Mass.2001). In so holding, and with guidance from the Supreme
Court's decision in *Strumpf,*3 I emphasized that this departure from
strict compliance with 362(a)(1) was temporary, a place-holding measure
intended only to secure the status quo for a brief time until a motion for
relief from stay could be filed. Here, the mortgagee and its counsel did
not move for relief from the automatic stay before the date to which they
initially postponed the sale. It follows that the initial continuance was a
violation of the automatic stay. No relief from the stay having been
obtained for the subsequent continuances, they too were violations of the
stay. A mortgagee's right to continue a foreclosure sale notwithstanding
the automatic stay is a limited exception. To permit an indefinite number
of continuances without judicial review of a prompt motion for relief from
the stay is, in essence, to rewrite the statute, to expand a minor judicial
accommodation for the extraordinary cases in which it was born into a
loophole large enough to accommodate the proverbial Mack truck. On the
undisputed and uncontroverted *12 facts, the Defendant's five continuances
were, as a matter of law, violations of the automatic stay.
*In re Lynn-Weaver*, 385 B.R. 7, 1112 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2008).
On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 8:39 PM, Raymond H. Aver wrote:
> Gio:
>
> I dont see a continuance as a violation. Not an action to pursue a
> prepetition claim. Heck, foreclosure trustees routinely continue sales
> after a bankruptcy filing.
>
>
> Raymond H. Aver, Esquire
>
> LAW OFFICES OF RAYMOND H. AVER
> A Professional Corporation
> 10801 National Boulevard, Suite 100
>
> Los Angeles, California 90064
>
> Tel.: (310) 571-3511
> email: ray@averlaw.com
> Web: www.averlaw.com
>
> Certified Bankruptcy Specialist
> State Bar of California
> Board of Legal Specialization
>
> On Nov 2, 2017, at 8:34 PM, Giovanni Orantes wrote:
>
> Is it a violation to continue a hearing on a motion for summary judgment
> if a notice of stay is given to the Court before the hearing on the motion
> for summary judgment? I need some case law on this.
>
> --
> WE DO NOT ACCEPT SERVICE BY EMAIL UNLESS WE HAVE AGREED TO ACCEPT IT IN
> WRITING.
>
> Giovanni Orantes, Esq.*
> Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
> 3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 2920
>
> Los Angeles, CA 90010
> Tel: (213) 389-4362
> Fax: (877) 789-5776
> e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
> website: www.gobklaw.com
>
> **Certified Bankruptcy Specialist, State Bar of California, Board of Legal
> Specialization*
> *Board Certified - Business Bankruptcy Law - American Board of
> Certification
> *Board Certified - Consumer Bankruptcy Law - American Board of
> Certification
> Commercial Litigation
> Estate Planning
> Outside General Counsel
>
>
>
> WE ARE A "DEBT RELIEF AGENCY" AS DEFINED BY FEDERAL LAW.
>
> SERVING BAKERSFIELD, LOS ANGELES, ORANGE COUNTY, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO
> AND SANTA BARBARA AND THE WORLD FOR CHAPTER 11 AND 15 CASES.
>
> Note: The information in this e-mail message is not intended to be legal
> advice and should not be relied upon as legal advice unless counsel
> expressly contracted in writing to provide such advice. Furthermore, the
> information contained in this e-mail message is confidential information
> intended only for the use of the individual or entity named. If the reader
> of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for
> delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
> dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication is strictly
> prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
> immediately notify us by telephone or e-mail and delete the original e-mail
> at (213) 389-4362 or (888) 619-8222.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Bankruptcy Specialists" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to bankruptcy-specialists+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to bankruptcy-specialists@
> googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/
> msgid/bankruptcy-specialists/CAG815AFG%2BHDKqQwrrfxJsb%3D_%
> 2BcFD5L2pkDopYfBNVd1kvZpJbg%40mail.gmail.com
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Gio:
I dont see a continuance as a violation. Not an action to pursue a prepetition claim. Heck, foreclosure trustees routinely continue sales after a bankruptcy filing.
Raymond H. Aver, Esquire
LAW OFFICES OF RAYMOND H. AVER
A Professional Corporation
10801 National Boulevard, Suite 100
Los Angeles, California 90064
Tel.: (310) 571-3511
email: ray@averlaw.com
Web: www.averlaw.com
Certified Bankruptcy Specialist
State Bar of California
Board of Legal Specialization
On Nov 2, 2017, at 8:34 PM, Giovanni Orantes wrote:
Is it a violation to continue a hearing on a motion for summary judgment if a notice of stay is given to the Court before the hearing on the motion for summary judgment? I need some case law on this.
WE DO NOT ACCEPT SERVICE BY EMAIL UNLESS WE HAVE AGREED TO ACCEPT IT IN WRITING.
Giovanni Orantes, Esq.*
Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 2920
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Tel: (213) 389-4362
Fax: (877) 789-5776
e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
website: www.gobklaw.com
*Certified Bankruptcy Specialist, State Bar of California, Board of Legal Specialization
*Board Certified - Business Bankruptcy Law - American Board of Certification
*Board Certified - Consumer Bankruptcy Law - American Board of Certification
Commercial Litigation
Estate Planning
Outside General Counsel
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Is it a violation to continue a hearing on a motion for summary judgment if
a notice of stay is given to the Court before the hearing on the motion for
summary judgment? I need some case law on this.
WE DO NOT ACCEPT SERVICE BY EMAIL UNLESS WE HAVE AGREED TO ACCEPT IT IN
WRITING.
Giovanni Orantes, Esq.*
Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 2920
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Tel: (213) 389-4362
Fax: (877) 789-5776
e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
website: www.gobklaw.com
**Certified Bankruptcy Specialist, State Bar of California, Board of Legal
Specialization*
*Board Certified - Business Bankruptcy Law - American Board of Certification
*Board Certified - Consumer Bankruptcy Law - American Board of Certification
Commercial Litigation
Estate Planning
Outside General Counsel
WE ARE A "DEBT RELIEF AGENCY" AS DEFINED BY FEDERAL LAW.
SERVING BAKERSFIELD, LOS ANGELES, ORANGE COUNTY, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO
AND SANTA BARBARA AND THE WORLD FOR CHAPTER 11 AND 15 CASES.
Note: The information in this e-mail message is not intended to be legal
advice and should not be relied upon as legal advice unless counsel
expressly contracted in writing to provide such advice. Furthermore, the
information contained in this e-mail message is confidential information
intended only for the use of the individual or entity named. If the reader
of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for
delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
immediately notify us by telephone or e-mail and delete the original e-mail
Is it a violation to continue a hearing on a motion for summary judgment if a notice of stay is given to the Court before the hearing on the motion for summary judgment? I need some case law on this.--
The post was migrated from Yahoo.