.jpg)
Reimposing stay for single-repeat filer where former lawyer did not
Listmates,
Prospective Client, who was ineligible for 13 due to debt limits, had a
viable chapter 11 with 6 underwater properties that could be crammed down.
On the eve of a foreclosure, he filed a 13 in pro per, later hired a
lawyer, and finally was dismissed with a 6 month bar for failure to make
payments or file papers. The issue of eligibility was not reached.
Six months later he still had his real estate portfolio. On the eve of a
foreclosure, he went to to the same lawyer, who was vehemently opposed to
filing an 11 and filed a 13 for the client without informing him about the
issue of ineligibility. In case you are not counting, this was a second
case this client filed in 12 month, but the lawyer did not file the motion
to extend the stay.
Predictably the trustee raised the issue of eligibility. The lawyer was
again vehemently opposed to converting to 11 and convinced client to
convert to 7, promising to "reopen the 7 later if foreclosures restart."
The client wants to change lawyers and convert to 11. What is the best way
now to reimpose the stay?
1. I am thinking that the statutory path under 362c3 is now time barred.
2. I have seen some cases, where a single repeat filer could still use the
provisions of 362(c)(4) (which generally cover multiple repeat filers) to
reimpose the stay after they stay had expired.
3. What about 105? Could it be used to reimpose a stay on the facts of
this case?
Does anyone have recent experience with this in the 9th circuit, CD Cal?
Any suggestions or samples would be appreciated.
Alik Segal
Alik.Segal@gmail.com
310-362-6157
California Central District
Listmates,Prospective Client, who was ineligible for 13 due to debt limits, had a viable chapter 11 with 6 underwater properties that could be crammed down. On the eve of a foreclosure, he filed a 13 in pro per, later hired a lawyer, and finally was dismissedwith a 6 month barfor failure to make payments or file papers. The issue ofeligibilitywas not reached.
Six months later he still had his real estate portfolio. On the eve of a foreclosure, he went to to the same lawyer, who was vehemently opposed to filing an 11 and filed a 13 for the client without informing him about the issue of ineligibility. In case you are not counting, this was a second case this client filed in 12 month, but the lawyer did not file the motion to extend the stay.
Predictably the trustee raised the issue of eligibility. The lawyer was again vehemently opposed to converting to 11 and convinced client to convert to 7, promising to "reopen the 7 later if foreclosures restart."
The client wants to change lawyers and convert to 11. king that the statutory path under 362c3 is now time barred.2. e provisions of 362(c)(4) (which
generally cover multiple repeat filers) to reimpose the stay after they
stay had expired.3. What about 105? Could it be used to reimpose a stay on the facts of this case?Does anyone have recent experience with this in the 9th circuit, CD Cal? Any suggestions or samples would be appreciated.
-- Alik SegalAlik.Segal@gmail.com310-362-6157California Central District
The post was migrated from Yahoo.