In Re: Rita Emannuel

Opinion

In Re: Rita Emannuel CV-95-250-B 09/08/95 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In Re: Rita C. Emanuel Civil No. 95-250-B

O R D E R

Rita Emanuel appeals the United States Bankruptcy Court's

decision granting Diversified Financial System, Inc.'s

("Diversified") motion to dismiss her petition for bankruptcy

protection. For the following reasons, I affirm.

Diversified moved to dismiss Emanuel's petition for Chapter

13 bankruptcy on the grounds that bankruptcy protection would

cause unreasonable and prejudicial delay to the creditors in

recovering their security through foreclosure sales of the

Emanuel's property. In addition. Diversified alleged that

Emanuel and her husband, Michael Emanuel, had repeatedly filed

bankruptcy petitions to prevent a foreclosure sale of their

property.

On appeal, Emanuel asks for relief from constructive fraud

and attaches a copy purported to be a draft of the first page of

a suit by her husband against the Small Business Administration

and Diversified. Construing her brief broadly, she appears to assert that Diversified sold three of her husband's properties at

unreasonably low prices constituting constructive fraud. She

does not address the grounds for the bankruptcy court's dismissal

of her bankruptcy petition nor does she explain the relevance of

her constructive fraud claims to the dismissal. In addition,

Emanuel has not included the statement of issues referenced in

her table of contents further clouding her claims on appeal.

Conseguently, Emanuel fails to state a basis for challenging the

bankruptcy court's decision.

Diversified raises several procedural defenses to Emanuel's

appeal alleging that her brief was late filed and incomplete in

violation of Bankruptcy Rules 8009 and 8010. Diversified also

alleges that Michael Emanuel, not Rita Emanuel, has signed her

pleadings in violation of Rule 1 1 (a) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. Because Emanuel's appeal is without merit and I

affirm dismissal of the bankruptcy petition on that ground, I

need not address the other issues raised by Diversified.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the bankruptcy court's order

dismissing the case is affirmed. Diversified's motion to dismiss

(document 3), motion to strike motion for extension of time

2 (document 16), motion to strike pleadings (document 17), and

motion for security (document 18) are denied as moot.

SO ORDERED.

Paul Barbadoro United States District Judge

September 8, 1995

cc: Lawrence Sumski, Esg. Patricia Mellor, Esg. George Vannah, USBC