In re: Johnnie Marene Thomas

CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Georgia
DecidedNovember 17, 2025
Docket24-20266
StatusUnknown

This text of In re: Johnnie Marene Thomas (In re: Johnnie Marene Thomas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re: Johnnie Marene Thomas, (Ga. 2025).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA BRUNSWICK DIVISION

IN RE: ) CHAPTER 7 CASE ) No. 24-20266 JOHNNIE MARENE THOMAS, ) ) Debtor. )

OPINION AND ORDER HOLDING DEBTOR JOHNNIE MARENE THOMAS IN CONTEMPT AND DIRECTING U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE TO ACCESS PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4260 BINGHAM COURT, STONE MOUNTAIN, GEORGIA 30083

Pursuant to notice, the Chapter 7 Trustee’s (the “Trustee”) Motion for Contempt (ECF No. 280) (the “Motion”) came on for preliminary hearing on September 11, 2025, and a show cause and final hearing on October 16, 2025. The Trustee appeared at both hearings; Debtor did not. After consideration of the Motion and two hearings, the Motion will be granted as provided below. BACKGROUND Debtor filed her chapter 7 bankruptcy petition pro se on July 24, 2024. She scheduled an ownership interest in real property located at 4260 Bingham Court, Stone Mountain, GA 30083 (the “Property”). (ECF No. 13-1 at 3.) She also scheduled a mortgage against the Property in the amount of $116,000 in favor of Nationstar Mortgage LLC. (Id. at 15.) In connection with the potential sale of the Property, the Trustee applied to employ a real estate agent, Robin Blass (the “Realtor”), for the estate. (ECF Nos. 156, 159.) The Court subsequently appointed Ms. Blass as realtor for the estate on December 16, 2024. (ECF No. 160.) After Debtor did not act to surrender the Property to the Trustee as required by 11 U.S.C. § 521(a)(4), the Trustee moved for an order compelling turnover of the Property

pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 542. (ECF No. 157.) After notice and hearing at which Debtor and the Trustee appeared, the Court granted the Trustee’s Motion for Turnover by order dated July 1, 2025 (ECF No. 265) (the “Turnover Order”). The Court ordered the turnover of the

Property over Debtor’s unfounded objections and prospective refusals to turn over the Property to the Trustee. (ECF Nos. 177, 178.) The Turnover Order provided: Debtor shall NOT remove, destroy, or otherwise damage the Property and/or its fixtures; and . . . Debtor shall, within twenty-eight (28) days of entry of this Order, turn the Property over to the Trustee by (1) removing all personal belongings from the Property; (2) ensuring that any and all occupants have vacated the Property; and (3) providing any and all keys and access or security codes to the Property to the Trustee.

(ECF No. 265 at 4.) Accordingly, Debtor was required to perform under the Turnover Order on or before July 29, 2025. The Trustee filed the instant Motion on August 7, 2025. He states that Debtor has “completely ignored” the Turnover Order and has maintained possession of the Property. (ECF No. 280 at 2.) The Realtor, by sworn affidavit, has indicated that she has had no contact with Debtor since July 29, 2025, when Debtor was due to turn over the Property. (Id. at 7.) The Realtor made two attempts to contact Debtor by phone—on July 31, 2025, and August 5, 2025—but Debtor did not answer or return her calls. (Id.) The Realtor also visited the Property on August 2, 2025, to observe it from the street and reports that it appeared to remain occupied, with a no trespassing sign on the front door and a vehicle

stored in the carport. (Id. at 7-9.) The Trustee requests that this Court hold Debtor in contempt and enter an order directing the U.S. Marshals Service to: (a) assist the Trustee and/or the Realtor in gaining

access to, and taking possession of, the Property, and (b) remove Debtor from the Property to allow the Trustee to market and sell the Property. (Id. at 5.) The Court held a preliminary hearing on the Motion on September 11, 2025, at

which the Trustee showed that Debtor had not complied with the Turnover Order or been in any contact with him or the Realtor. Debtor did not appear at the preliminary hearing or otherwise respond. Following the preliminary hearing, the Court continued the Motion to a final hearing and issued a show cause order (ECF No. 287) requiring Debtor to appear

at the final hearing on October 16, 2025, to present evidence rebutting the Trustee’s Motion and allegations of contempt. Debtor again did not appear. The Trustee confirmed at the final hearing that Debtor had still not complied with the Turnover Order or been in contact

with him or the Realtor. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Chapter 7 trustees have statutory duties under the Bankruptcy Code, including to “collect and reduce to money the property of the estate for which such trustee serves, and close such estate as expeditiously as is compatible with the best interests of parties in

interest.” 11 U.S.C. § 704(a)(1). A debtor, too, is required to perform certain duties under the Bankruptcy Code and the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. Of relevance to the Motion, a debtor must “cooperate with the trustee as necessary to enable the trustee to

perform the trustee’s duties” and “surrender to the trustee all property of the estate.” 11 U.S.C. §§ 521(a)(3), (4). She must also “cooperate with the trustee in preparing an inventory, examining proofs of claim, and administering the estate.” Fed. R. Bankr. P.

4002(a)(4). A bankruptcy court has the inherent power to hold litigants in civil contempt for violation of its orders. Gowdy v. Mitchell (In re Ocean Warrior, Inc.), 835 F.3d 1310, 1316 (11th Cir. 2016); Jove Eng’g, Inc. v. IRS, 92 F.3d 1539, 1553 (11th Cir. 1996). Bankruptcy

courts also enjoy statutory contempt powers under 11 U.S.C. § 105(a), which provides that “[t]he court may issue any order, process, or judgment that is necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this title.” 11 U.S.C. § 105(a); see also Roth v. Nationstar

Mortgage, LLC (In re Roth), 935 F.3d 1270, 1275 (11th Cir. 2019); Alderwoods Grp., Inc. v. Garcia, 682 F.3d 958, 966 n.18 (11th Cir. 2012). A party seeking civil contempt sanctions for another’s violation of a court order must establish by clear and convincing evidence the violation and that “1) the allegedly violated order was valid and lawful; 2) the order was clear, definite and unambiguous; and 3) the alleged violator had the ability to comply with the order.” McGregor v. Chierico, 206

F.3d 1378, 1383 (11th Cir. 2000). “Civil penalties must either be compensatory or designed to coerce compliance.” In re Ocean Warrior, Inc., 835 F.3d at 1317 (quotations omitted). The Court finds that Trustee has shown by his own statements and by the affidavit

of the Realtor that Debtor has failed to comply with the Turnover Order. He has also shown that the Turnover Order was valid, lawful, clear, definite, and unambiguous, and that Debtor has the ability to comply with it as the owner of the Property. Debtor is clearly

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
In re: Johnnie Marene Thomas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-johnnie-marene-thomas-gasb-2025.