In re Shields
This text of 82 B.R. 171 (In re Shields) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
A lift-stay motion was filed by Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. (“Federal”) in this case. That motion was filed in disregard of the explicit provisions of paragraph 3 of this Court’s September 29,1986 Order of Confirmation in this case,1 and [172]*172despite the clear language of this Court’s October 3, 1986 cover letter sent to Federal’s counsel enclosing a copy of the Confirmation Order. That letter states:
“PLEASE NOTE CAREFULLY PARAGRAPH 3 OF THE ORDER. That paragraph makes it your responsibility to notify the Court promptly if the Debtor(s) default by more than one regular monthly payment which falls due hereafter. ”
Notwithstanding Federal’s noncompliance, the Chapter 13 Trustee’s office has treated the motion as a notice of default and has already implemented the provisions of paragraph 3 of this Court’s Order of Confirmation, by increasing plan payments from $250 to $790 per month. At approximately the same time as this action by the Trustee, however, a proposed consent order was submitted to this Court, signed by counsel for the Debtor and for Federal. This Court declines to approve the proposed consent order and instead approves and ratifies the Trustee’s increase in plan payments both because the proposed consent order is “the fruit of the poisonous [lift-stay-motion] tree” and because the best interests of this estate will be served by allowing the Debtor to stretch out payments to cure her default over the entire life of the Plan, rather than requiring larger total monthly payments over a shorter time period. The likelihood of the Plan’s ultimate success will thus be increased.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
82 B.R. 171, 1988 Bankr. LEXIS 2713, 1988 WL 9842, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-shields-dcd-1988.