Matter of Pickett

39 B.R. 1018, 1984 Bankr. LEXIS 5508
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Georgia
DecidedJune 12, 1984
Docket19-20184
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 39 B.R. 1018 (Matter of Pickett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Matter of Pickett, 39 B.R. 1018, 1984 Bankr. LEXIS 5508 (Ga. 1984).

Opinion

*1019 ORDER

WILLIAM L. NORTON, Jr., Bankruptcy Judge.

Before this court is a motion for a mutual dismissal upon stipulation by petitioning creditor and debtor where petitioning creditor Cameron-Brown Company had brought an involuntary Chapter 7 petition against debtor Roscoe Pickett. No order for relief was ever entered. Title 11 U.S.C. § 303 of the Bankruptcy Code authorizes a creditor to file an involuntary petition under certain circumstances. The statutory section also authorizes a dismissal of the case by the court once the order for relief has been entered only upon notice to all creditors and a hearing. The statute is silent, however, regarding dismissal in those instances where no order for relief has been entered. There is no provision for the Bankruptcy Court’s Clerk’s Office by administrative action to permit the dismissal of the petition without court approval. Where the setting is as potentially adversarial as that of an involuntary bankruptcy petition, the better practice would appear to require judicial review of such stipulated dismissal and an order. In the instant circumstances the mutual dismissal agreed to by the petitioning creditor and the involuntary putative debtor does not appear to offend any rights of the parties before the court or those of other potential parties. No notice of this petition has been issued to other creditors; no stay has been issued. Whatever agreement may have persuaded the dismissal does not offend any rights of other creditors to file a similar petition and acquire the creditor rights of Title 11 U.S.C.

The mutual dismissal is hereby granted.

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

Related

In Re Taub
150 B.R. 96 (D. Connecticut, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
39 B.R. 1018, 1984 Bankr. LEXIS 5508, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-pickett-ganb-1984.