In re Burrell

289 B.R. 109, 2002 Bankr. LEXIS 1679, 2002 WL 31966455
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. Illinois
DecidedFebruary 1, 2002
DocketNo. 89-91427
StatusPublished

This text of 289 B.R. 109 (In re Burrell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re Burrell, 289 B.R. 109, 2002 Bankr. LEXIS 1679, 2002 WL 31966455 (Ill. 2002).

Opinion

[110]*110 OPINION

GERALD D. FINES, Chief Judge.

This matter having come before the Court on a Motion for Leave to Withdraw Attorney Appearance filed by Attorney Richard F. Kurth, Petition for Attorney Fees filed by Richard F. Kurth, Debtors’ objection thereto, and Motion to Reinstate Motion for Civil Contempt; the Court, having heard arguments of the parties and reviewed the record of Debtors’ bankruptcy proceeding and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Rule 7052 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.

Findings of Fact

In considering the matters presently before it, the Court finds it helpful to first set out a complete chronology of the Debtors’ bankruptcy proceeding from its inception to the present time. That chronology, in pertinent part, is as follows:

1. The Debtors filed for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code on December 4, 1989. The Debtors were initially represented by Attorney Larry Serene. In their original bankruptcy schedules, the Debtors scheduled Kankakee County as a Creditor holding claims for unpaid real estate taxes for the years 1984 though 1988, in the approximate amount of $71,450.15. The majority of the Debtors’ assets included numerous parcels of rental real estate located in and around the City of Kankakee, Illinois.

2. The first meeting of creditors in Debtors’ bankruptcy was scheduled and held on February 12,1990, at which time it was noted that the Court was having difficulty in getting the Debtors to file all required schedules, including the schedule of salary which was not filed until March 19,1990.

3. Apparently, difficulties developed between the Debtors and their then-attorney, Larry Serene, as indicated by the fact that the Debtors began to file pro se documents following their first meeting of creditors. On March 5, 1990, Attorney Larry Serene withdrew his representation of the Debtors, and Attorney Richard F. Kurth entered his appearance.

4. The Debtors’ Chapter 11 plan of reorganization and disclosure statement were originally due to be filed on or before April 4, 1990. However, the Debtors were unable to meet the filing deadline, and an extension was granted until June 4, 1990.

5. On June 4, 1990, it was apparent that the Debtors were going to be again unable to file a plan and disclosure statement, and a final extension was granted until July 5,1990.

6. On June 11, 1990, the Office of the United States Trustee moved to dismiss the Debtors’ case for their failure to formulate a plan of reorganization. This Motion was later withdrawn upon the Debtors’ filing of their Plan and Disclosure Statement.

7. On July 5, 1990, the Debtors’ filed a Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization and Disclosure Statement. In their Chapter 11 Plan, the Debtors, at Class Five, indicated that they would pay the sum of $75,000 to Kankakee County, for real estate taxes due for the years 1984 through 1988, over a period of five years, plus nine percent interest. Numerous objections were filed to the Debtors’ Disclosure Statement indicating that the information was incomplete, and, as such, the Debtors’ original Disclosure Statement was denied, on October 15, 1990, and the Debtors were given 14 days to file an amended disclosure statement. The Debtors did not meet the 14 day deadline. However, an Amended Disclosure Statement was filed on No[111]*111vember 15,1990, and approved, over objection, on December 14, 1990, a date 10 days after the one year anniversary of Debtors’ Chapter 11 filing.

8. On February 19, 1991, the Office of the United States Trustee filed a Motion to Convert Debtors’ Chapter 11 Case to One Under Chapter 7, indicating that the Debtors had not filed monthly reports as required, nor had they paid the fees to the United States Trustee’s Office. At this time, numerous objections to confirmation were filed setting off several hearings concerning the confirmation of the Debtors’ Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization.

9. On July 8, 1991, the Office of the United States Trustee again filed a Motion to Convert Debtors’ Chapter 11 Case to One Under Chapter 7, stating as cause that once again the Debtors had failed to file required reports and pay required fees.

10. At hearing in May 1991, the Court confirmed the Debtors’ Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization after numerous negotiations between Debtors and creditors, and the Court directed that the Debtors file an order of confirmation on or before May 21, 1991. The Order of Confirmation was not filed until August 21,1991, at which time it was entered. During the three months between the date the Order of Confirmation was due and the date it was filed, numerous motions for relief from the automatic stay were being filed by various mortgage holders of the Debtors, indicating as cause that the Debtors were not paying current mortgage payments as they came due. The majority of these motions for relief from stay were eventually resolved by payments from the Debtors, albeit they were not timely made.

11. On December 18, 1991, the Office of the United States Trustee filed a Motion for Summary Dismissal, indicating that once again the Debtors were failing to file reports as they came due. At this time, it was noted by the Court that the Debtors had developed a pattern of failing to file necessary monthly reports and pay quarterly fees until such time as the Office of the United States Trustee filed either a motion for conversion or a motion for dismissal.

12. On February 28, 1992, Creditor, Security Lumber and Supply Co., filed a Motion to Dismiss Debtors’ bankruptcy proceeding, stating as cause that payments as proposed in the Debtors’ Plan were not being made. This Motion was later resolved by a payment from the Debtors.

13. On April 13, 1992, Creditor, First of America Bank, filed a Motion to Convert or Dismiss Debtors’ bankruptcy proceeding, stating as cause that the Debtors were failing to make payments as proposed in their Plan as they came due. During this time, other mortgage creditors were filing motions for relief from stay based upon non-payment by the Debtors. As had become the case since the inception of Debtors’ bankruptcy filing, the Debtors resolved these matters by payment when faced with the prospect of conversion, dismissal, or relief from the stay.

14. On August 16, 1993, Creditor, Security Lumber and Supply Co., filed a Motion to Dismiss Debtors’ Chapter 11 proceeding based upon the fact that a payment had been made by the Debtors by check, and the check had been returned to the Creditor for non-sufficient funds. Once again, this matter was eventually resolved by a payment from the Debtors in the face of the possibility of dismissal.

15. On October 5, 1994, Debtors filed an Annual Report in which they admitted that, from “time to time” the Debtors fell into arrears on their Plan payments; how[112]*112ever, the Debtors believed that they were current at that time.

16. On January 23, 1995, Creditor, First of America Bank, again filed a Motion to Convert or Dismiss Debtors’ bankruptcy proceeding based upon nonpayment of its debt. This Motion was subsequently resolved by a payment from the Debtors.

17.

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

Related

In Re Wildman
72 B.R. 700 (N.D. Illinois, 1987)
In Re East Peoria Hotel Corp.
145 B.R. 956 (C.D. Illinois, 1991)
In Re Chellino
209 B.R. 106 (C.D. Illinois, 1996)
In Re Wiedau's, Inc.
78 B.R. 904 (S.D. Illinois, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
289 B.R. 109, 2002 Bankr. LEXIS 1679, 2002 WL 31966455, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-burrell-ilcb-2002.