Matter of Stuppel

7 B.R. 341, 3 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 262, 1980 Bankr. LEXIS 4261, 6 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 1138
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Florida.
DecidedOctober 21, 1980
Docket18-23595
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 7 B.R. 341 (Matter of Stuppel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Florida. primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Matter of Stuppel, 7 B.R. 341, 3 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 262, 1980 Bankr. LEXIS 4261, 6 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 1138 (Fla. 1980).

Opinion

ORDER

SIDNEY M. WEAVER, Bankruptcy Judge.

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon the Motion of MOIRA R. SCHLEICHER to Dismiss the instant Petition for Ancillary Case Under Section 304.

In November of 1979, the Petitioners filed their original Petition for Ancillary Case, which is still pending before this Court. The original Petition named only SAMUEL PHILLIP STUPPEL (STUP-PEL) as the Debtor. The Petitioners have been unsuccessful in perfecting service upon STUPPEL. On December 6, 1979, and then subsequently on January 28, 1980, Orders to Show Cause were issued by this Court requiring STUPPEL to be served with the Petition. In each instance, the Petitioners were unable to serve STUPPEL or obtain jurisdiction over him. (See this Court’s Orders entered January 8, 1980 and February 7, 1980.) Upon the advice of the Petitioners that they could not perfect service upon STUPPEL, this Court entered its Order of February 7, 1980, discharging and cancelling the Order to Show Cause which required service upon STUPPEL and directed his appearance before this Court for examination on February 14,1980. No subsequent Order to Show Cause .or process has been issued for service upon STUPPEL from this Court.

On July 1, 1980, the Petitioners filed a second Petition for Ancillary Case Under Section 304, joining MOIRA R. STUPPEL a/k/a MOIRA R. SCHLEICHER (SCHLEICHER), STUPPEL’s former wife, along with STUPPEL, as Debtors. This Court now treats the second Petition as an amendment of the original filing.

The amended Petition alleges that STUP-PEL and his former wife, SCHLEICHER, owned a parcel of real estate in Dade County, Florida, which was conveyed by QuitClaim Deed by STUPPEL to SCHLEICHER on September 12, 1979.

The original Petition contained no allegation that STUPPEL was then the owner of any property, real or personal, within this district. The amended Petition alleges only that STUPPEL “... may own other assets which Petitioners will discover only through discovery proceedings.”

In response to the amended Petition, SCHLEICHER has moved the Court to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds and to discharge the Lis Pendens filed of record against her property.

11 U.S.C. Section 304 governs the ancillary administration of foreign bankruptcy proceedings. Section 304(a) requires the filing of a petition in order to commence an ancillary case. Section 304(b) provides for an opportunity to controvert the petition by the party in interest. Should the party in interest fail to controvert the petition, the Court may then grant relief under Section 304(b).

The statute is somewhat vaguely drafted, however, the Legislative History provides a clear insight into the intent of the drafters. In order for Section 304 to be applicable, it must be shown that (1) there is a foreign bankruptcy case pending concerning the Debtor, and (2) that the Debtor *343 has assets in this country. Once the petition is filed, the Debtor must be given an opportunity to controvert it, before relief can be granted.

28 U.S.C. 1474(b) states that a case under Section 304 to require turn over of property may be commenced only in the bankruptcy court for the district in which said property is found.

The Petitioners’ amended Petition makes no allegation that SCHLEICHER is a Debt- or in a foreign bankruptcy case, nor does the amended Petition allege that as of the date, or subsequent thereto, of the filing of the original Petition, STUPPEL owned property within this district or anywhere else within this country.

The Court notes that no order granting relief under Section 304(b) against STUP-PEL or his assets has been entered.

Therefore, it is this Court’s determination that it is without jurisdiction over MOIRA R. STUPPEL a/k/a MOIRA R. SCHLEICHER, or any property owned by her and, therefore, lacks jurisdiction to grant the relief prayed for in the amended Petition filed on July 1, 1980 by the Petitioners. Thereupon, it is CONSIDERED, ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Motion of MOIRA R. SCHLEICHER to dismiss the Petitioners’ Petition filed July 1, 1980 for Ancillary Case Under Section 304, be and the same is hereby granted. Said Petition, be and the same is hereby dismissed. It is further

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Notice of Lis Pendens and Lis Pendens filed in this matter on the following described property, be and the same is hereby discharged and cancelled:

Lot 12, in Block 1, of SKYLAKE MANORS, according to the Plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 84 at Page 13, of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida.

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

Related

In re: Lusine Hakhverdian
C.D. California, 2026
Strelitz v. Stuppel (In Re Stuppel)
17 B.R. 413 (S.D. Florida, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
7 B.R. 341, 3 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 262, 1980 Bankr. LEXIS 4261, 6 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 1138, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-stuppel-flsb-1980.