In Re Smith

245 B.R. 622, 2000 Bankr. LEXIS 175, 2000 WL 245558
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Missouri
DecidedJanuary 13, 2000
Docket18-43181
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 245 B.R. 622 (In Re Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Smith, 245 B.R. 622, 2000 Bankr. LEXIS 175, 2000 WL 245558 (Mo. 2000).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ARTHUR B. FEDERMAN, Chief Judge.

Creditors the Secretary of Veteran Affairs (the VA) and Commercial Federal Mortgage (Commercial) filed their Motion for Retroactive Relief from the Automatic Stay and Ratification of a Posb-Petition Foreclosure Sale Under 11 U.S.C. § 549(c) or in the Alternative Motion for Relief from Automatic Stay to Conduct Foreclosure Sale. This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(G) over which the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b), 157(a), and 157(b)(1). The following constitutes my Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in accordance with Rule 52 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as made applicable to this proceeding by Rule 7052 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.

ISSUE PRESENTED

Debtor Lawrence Smith (Smith) filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition one day before a scheduled foreclosure sale. Tracy L. Robinson, Smith’s counsel, sent notice of the bankruptcy filing to the second mortgage holder, but failed to notify the mortgagee that had scheduled the foreclosure sale. The sale, therefore, was held as scheduled, and the VA purchased the real estate. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit (the BAP) holds that an action taken in violation of the automatic stay is void. Does this Court have the authority to ratify a foreclosure *623 sale held in violation of the automatic stay if said action is void?

DECISION

The BAP has held that an action taken in violation of the automatic stay is void, but this Court can nevertheless validate such an action by finding that the automatic stay should be annulled retroactively. Here, however, cause to annul the stay has not been shown. The Chapter 13 plan has been confirmed, and Smith is current with his plan payments, therefore, the Motion will be denied.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On August 26, 1988, Smith and his former wife executed a Promissory Note in the amount of $60,000.00 secured by a Deed of Trust on real estate described as:

Lot 10, Block 5, GREGORY RIDGE, a subdivision in Kansas City, Jackson County, Missouri, according to the recorded plat thereof. 1

On March 16, 1999, Smith filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition, Case No. 99-40963, and on June 22, 1999, he received a discharge. That case is awaiting final administration by the Chapter 7 trustee. On August 17, 1999, this Court granted relief from the automatic stay to Commercial so that it could commence foreclosure proceedings against the real estate.

Commercial scheduled a foreclosure sale as to the real estate for October 22, 1999, and sent written notice to Smith. On October 21, 1999, Smith filed this Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition. Mr. Robinson failed to notify the VA, Commercial, or the trustee conducting the sale of the bankruptcy filing, nor did he file a copy of the bankruptcy petition in the Recorder of Deeds’ Office for County of Jackson, State of Missouri. The foreclosure sale was conducted, therefore, on October 22, 1999, as scheduled. The VA purchased the real estate for $53,742.00, and on October 29, 1999, the VA recorded a copy of the Successor Trustee’s Deed under Foreclosure. At the time of purchase, the holder of the First Deed of Trust held a hen in the amount of $59,000.00, and the holder of the Second Deed of Trust held a lien in the amount of $13,558.43. Smith scheduled the real estate on his bankruptcy schedules with a fair market value of $60,000.00. On November 22, 1999, after Mr. Robinson notified Commercial of the Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition, Commercial filed this motion for retroactive relief from the automatic stay. On November 23, 1999, the section 341 First Meeting of Creditors was held.

On December 3, 1999, this Court entered an Order confirming Smith’s Chapter 13 plan. 2 The plan proposes to pay the holders of the first and second mortgages directly. 3 It also proposes to pay pre-petition arrearage in the amount of $14,-846.00 from plan payments of $515.00 a month. 4 . No one objected to Smith’s proposed plan and summary.

On December 20, 1999, this Court conducted a hearing on the motion for retroactive relief. At the hearing Mr. Robinson stated that he sent notice of the bankruptcy filing to the holder of the second mortgage, but he neglected to send that same notice to Commercial. He also stated that Smith has made all post-petition payments, that he is making improvements to the real estate, that his income has increased since the filing, and that he will be able to make all payments under the Chapter 13 plan. Further, counsel for Smith offered to reimburse Commercial for the costs of the foreclosure sale.

DISCUSSION

The filing of a bankruptcy petition creates an estate that contains all property in *624 which the debtor has an equitable or legal interest. 5 Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code (the Code), therefore, provides that when a debtor files a bankruptcy petition, creditors are prohibited from completing a foreclosure sale:

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, a petition filed under section 303 ... of this title ... operates as a stay, applicable to all entities, of—
(3) any act to obtain possession of property of the estate or of property from the estate or to exercise control over property of the estate. 6

Since Smith filed his bankruptcy petition on October 21, 1999, and Commercial conducted the foreclosure sale on October 22, 1999, Commercial violated the automatic stay. Commercial does not deny that it violated the automatic stay, but it claims it is entitled to retroactive relief. The Code also provides that a bankruptcy court can annul the automatic stay for cause:

(d) On request of a party in interest and after notice and a hearing, the court shall grant relief from the stay provided under subsection (a) of this section, such as by terminating, annulling, modifying, or conditioning such stay—
(1) for cause, including the lack of adequate protection of an interest in property of such party in interest

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

Related

MARIE A JACKSON
D. Arizona, 2024
Clifton C. Brown, II
E.D. Arkansas, 2019
In Re Campbell
356 B.R. 722 (W.D. Missouri, 2006)
Suggs v. Regency Financial Corp. (In Re Suggs)
354 B.R. 903 (W.D. Missouri, 2006)
In Re Baucom
339 B.R. 504 (W.D. Missouri, 2006)
In Re Batton
308 B.R. 406 (W.D. Missouri, 2004)
In Re Hoskins
266 B.R. 872 (W.D. Missouri, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
245 B.R. 622, 2000 Bankr. LEXIS 175, 2000 WL 245558, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-smith-mowb-2000.