In Re Jose

D. Massachusetts

In Re Jose

140 B.R. 307, 1992 Bankr. LEXIS 714, 22 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 1514, 1992 WL 96189

CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts

DecidedApril 28, 1992

Docket19-10494

StatusPublished

This text of 140 B.R. 307 (In Re Jose) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re Jose, 140 B.R. 307, 1992 Bankr. LEXIS 714, 22 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 1514, 1992 WL 96189 (Mass. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

DECISION ON MOTION TO REOPEN AND FOR SANCTIONS

WILLIAM C. HILLMAN, Bankruptcy Judge.

The Court has considered the motion filed by attorneys for a creditor herein seeking to reopen the case for the sole purpose of imposing sanctions upon counsel for the debtors under FRBP 9011.

The essence of the motion is that debtors’ counsel, in filing his own motion for *308 contempt against the creditor, was taking a position directly contrary to that adopted by Judge Gabriel in 1984. In re Stern, 44 B.R. 15 (Bankr.D.Mass.1984).

The Court does not believe that it is contemptuous for a member of the bar to file a motion which takes a position contrary to that adopted by a single member of this Court. It is a matter of common knowledge that the judges of this court do not always agree with each other on all matters, compare In re Milford Common J.C. Trust, 117 B.R. 15 (Bankr.D.Mass.1990); In re Ashford Apartments L.P., 132 B.R. 217 (Bankr.D.Mass.1991) (Judge Hillman); and In re Concord Mill L.P., 136 B.R. 896 (Bankr.D.Mass.1992) (Judge Kenner) with In re Prichard Plaza Associates L.P., 84 B.R. 289 (Bankr.D.Mass.1988), and In re Ledgemere Land Corp., 116 B.R. 338 (Bankr.D.Mass.1990) (both Chief Judge Queenan) and decisions of one judge are not binding on the others. See, in parallel, First of America Bank v. Gaylor (In re Gaylor), 123 B.R. 236 (Bankr.E.D.Mich.1991); In Re Rheuban, 128 B.R. 551 (Bankr.C.D.Cal.1991); Starbuck v. San Francisco, 556 F.2d 450, 457 n. 13 (9th Cir.1977).

While the actions of counsel for the debt- or might be regarded by some as inappropriate, they are not contemptuous.

The Motion to Reopen is denied.

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

DECISION ON MOTION TO REOPEN AND FOR SANCTIONS

WILLIAM C. HILLMAN, Bankruptcy Judge.

The Court has considered the motion filed by attorneys for a creditor herein seeking to reopen the case for the sole purpose of imposing sanctions upon counsel for the debtors under FRBP 9011.

The essence of the motion is that debtors’ counsel, in filing his own motion for *308 contempt against the creditor, was taking a position directly contrary to that adopted by Judge Gabriel in 1984. In re Stern, 44 B.R. 15 (Bankr.D.Mass.1984).

The Court does not believe that it is contemptuous for a member of the bar to file a motion which takes a position contrary to that adopted by a single member of this Court. It is a matter of common knowledge that the judges of this court do not always agree with each other on all matters, compare In re Milford Common J.C. Trust, 117 B.R. 15 (Bankr.D.Mass.1990); In re Ashford Apartments L.P., 132 B.R. 217 (Bankr.D.Mass.1991) (Judge Hillman); and In re Concord Mill L.P., 136 B.R. 896 (Bankr.D.Mass.1992) (Judge Kenner) with In re Prichard Plaza Associates L.P., 84 B.R. 289 (Bankr.D.Mass.1988), and In re Ledgemere Land Corp., 116 B.R. 338 (Bankr.D.Mass.1990) (both Chief Judge Queenan) and decisions of one judge are not binding on the others. See, in parallel, First of America Bank v. Gaylor (In re Gaylor), 123 B.R. 236 (Bankr.E.D.Mich.1991); In Re Rheuban, 128 B.R. 551 (Bankr.C.D.Cal.1991); Starbuck v. San Francisco, 556 F.2d 450, 457 n. 13 (9th Cir.1977).

While the actions of counsel for the debt- or might be regarded by some as inappropriate, they are not contemptuous.

The Motion to Reopen is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 B.R. 307, 1992 Bankr. LEXIS 714, 22 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 1514, 1992 WL 96189, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-jose-mab-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack