In Re Atkins

237 B.R. 816, 1999 Bankr. LEXIS 1011, 1999 WL 636620
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida
DecidedJanuary 21, 1999
DocketBankruptcy 98-8724-6B3
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 237 B.R. 816 (In Re Atkins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Atkins, 237 B.R. 816, 1999 Bankr. LEXIS 1011, 1999 WL 636620 (Fla. 1999).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ARTHUR B. BRISKMAN, Bankruptcy Judge.

This matter came on Movant’s, Winter Park Housing Authority, Motion for Relief from Stay, and Debtors’, Jennifer Regina Atkins and Nathaniel Richard Atkins, Jr., Motion to Assume Lease with Winter Park Housing Authority. Appearing were Robert K. Dwyer, attorney for Debtors; and Bill McCabe, attorney for Winter Park Housing Authority. After reviewing the pleadings, evidence, and exhibits, and hearing live testimony and arguments of counsel, the Court makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Nathaniel Richard Atkins, Jr. and Jennifer Regina Atkins (“Debtors”) entered into a lease agreement with Winter Park Housing Authority (‘WPHA”) on February 28, 1998. WPHA owns an apartment building that offers government-subsidized housing for tenants satisfying income eligibility requirements. Monthly rental payments are established based upon the tenant’s ability to pay. Debtors’ lease with WPHA provided them housing that would be otherwise unavailable to them, thereby freeing other monies from which they could pay their other living expenses and debts.

Debtors owed WPHA $1,188.00 at the time they entered into the lease. Debtors executed a repayment agreement whereby *818 Debtors would repay the entire debt in monthly installments of $100.00. The first monthly payment was due on June 5,1998.

Debtors’ monthly rental payment was adjusted to $845.00 beginning on June 1, 1998. Debtors failed to make their regular monthly payment and the monthly debt repayment. WPHA filed an eviction action against Debtors in County Court, Orange County, Florida.

The parties entered into a Joint Stipulation on August 17, 1998, indicating that Debtors owed to WPHA $1,188.00 representing past due rent. The Joint Stipulation required Debtors to pay WPHA $690.00 upon signing the stipulation, $234.00 the following week, and $100.00 per month beginning on September 18, 1998. The Joint Stipulation also provided that Final Judgment would not be entered so long as the payments were made in accordance with the agreement.

Mrs. Atkins voluntarily reduced her employment to work fewer hours to enable her to return to school. The reduced hours of work resulted in decreased monthly income. Debtors’ monthly rental payment was reduced to $0.00 beginning in September 1998 to adjust for her diminished income. Mrs. Atkins has since returned to full-time employment.

Debtors failed to pay the required repayment amount on September 18, 1998. A Final Judgment for Possession and a Final Judgment in the amount of $1,218.00 were entered by the County Court on September 30, 1998. A Writ of Possession was issued and posted on Debtors’ premises on October 7, 1998. Debtors filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition on October 8, 1998. The Writ of Possession was recalled on October 8, 1998 as a result of the bankruptcy filing. A Writ of Execution was not issued prior to Debtors filing their Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition. WPHA filed this Motion for Relief from Stay on October 13,1998.

The lease termination process had begun at the time when Debtors filed their bankruptcy petition, but could be reversed under Florida’s anti-forfeiture doctrine. The anti-forfeiture doctrine prevented the lease from expiring. Debtors may avoid forfeiture by paying the rental arrearages plus accrued interest. Debtors are entitled to assume the unexpired lease in default with Winter Park Housing Authority, provided certain conditions are satisfied. Debtors must be able to, at the time of assumption of the lease, cure the default and compensate WPHA for losses resulting from the default, or provide adequate assurance that such promptly will occur. Debtors must also be able to provide, at the time of assumption of the lease, adequate assurance of future performance under the lease. Debtors’ Motion to Assume the Lease with Winter Park Housing Authority is due to be granted if the foregoing conditions are satisfied. WPHA’s Motion for Relief from Stay will be denied if Debtors can fulfill the requirements to successfully assume the lease.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The Bankruptcy Code enables a debtor to assume a lease, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 365(a), which provides as follows:

Except as provided in sections 765 and 766 of this title and in subsections (b), (c), and (d) of this section, the trustee, subject to the court’s approval, may assume or reject any executory contract or unexpired lease of the debtor.

11 U.S.C. § 365(a).

An unexpired lease can be assumed or rejected in the debtor’s plan. 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(7). A lease can be assumed only if it is unexpired. In re Williams, 144 F.3d 544, 546 (7th Cir.1998). Nothing remains for the debtor to assume once a lease has expired or is terminated. Bell v. Alden Owners, Inc., 199 B.R. 451, 462 (S.D.N.Y.1996).

The determination of whether a lease may be assumed turns on (1) whether the process for terminating the lease was completed, and (2) if it were complet *819 ed, whether it could be reversed by application -of a state anti-forfeiture doctrine. Ross v. Metropolitan Dade County, 142 B.R. 1013, 1015 (S.D.Fla.1992)(citing Executive Square Office Building v. O’Connor and Associates, Inc., 19 B.R. 143, 146 (Bankr.N.D.Fla.1981)).

Whether the lease has expired or is terminated is based upon applicable state law. Williams, 144 F.3d at 546. Confusion exists regarding the meaning and effect of the word “termination.” If a lease has expired or been terminated, under Florida law, the tenant who does not relinquish the premises becomes a tenant at sufferance. Executive Square, 19 B.R. at 147. The right of immediate possession passes from the tenant to the landlord. Id. This does not mean that the tenant no longer has any right and that an immediate forfeiture and termination has occurred. Id. The lessor must then resort to the statutorily prescribed judicial eviction proceedings for a judgment of possession. Id. It is unclear whether a judgment of possession is merely a stage in the termination process or whether the process may be considered complete without execution of a writ of possession. Ross, 142 B.R. at 1015-16.

WPHA instituted eviction proceedings, and obtained a Writ of Possession. The Writ of Possession was issued and posted on October 7, 1998. Assuming for purposes of this opinion that the entry of the Judgment of Possession terminated Debtors’ lease, the termination of the lease could be reversed by application of a state anti-forfeiture doctrine.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In re 2408 W. Kennedy, LLC
512 B.R. 708 (M.D. Florida, 2014)
In Re Moore
290 B.R. 851 (N.D. Alabama, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
237 B.R. 816, 1999 Bankr. LEXIS 1011, 1999 WL 636620, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-atkins-flmb-1999.