Stokes v. Drummond

D. Montana

Stokes v. Drummond

DecidedOctober 18, 2021

Docket9:21-cv-00121

StatusUnknown

This text of Stokes v. Drummond (Stokes v. Drummond) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Montana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stokes v. Drummond, (D. Mont. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION

In re: CV 21-121-M—-DWM PAMELA J. STOKES, Debtor. ORDER

On September 28, 2021, United States Bankruptcy Judge Whitman L. Holt dismissed the debtor’s chapter 13 bankruptcy petition and barred her from refiling any further bankruptcy petitions until September 29, 2023. (See Bankr. Case No. 9:21-bk-90126-WLH, Doc. 64.) He also denied her request for a stay pending appeal of that decision. (/d. at Doc. 69.) The debtor now seeks a stay from this Court. (Doc. 3); see Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8007(b). That request is denied. As explained by Judge Holt, this case arises out of “the debtor’s and her husband’s serial, abusive, and bad-faith filings used as a delay and litigation tactic in a two-party dispute about a parcel of real property already resolved in Montana state-court.” (Bankr. Case No. 9:21-bk-90126-WLH, Doc. 69 at 1.) The Court adopts Judge Holt’s analysis of the four relevant stay factors. See Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009). The only changed circumstance at this point is the debtor’s allegation that an eviction has now been scheduled for October 23, 2021. (See Doc. 3 at 2.) The debtor provides no documentation, however, regarding the

pending eviction. And, more importantly, even if she did, a stay pending appeal “is not a matter of right, even if irreparable injury might otherwise result to the appellant.” Nken, 556 U.S. at 427. As detailed in numerous court orders, the debtor and her husband have used and abused the bankruptcy system for years to avoid the unfavorable outcome of a state law real property decision. (See also Bankr. Case No. 9:21-bk-90013.) A stay is not warranted based on these facts. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the debtor’s motion for stay (Doc. 3) is DENIED. he DATED this (¢ day of October, 2021. we

x \ Ly Mu 132285 PM. Donald W. Molloy, District Judge United Ste istrict Court

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION

In re: CV 21-121-M—-DWM PAMELA J. STOKES, Debtor. ORDER

On September 28, 2021, United States Bankruptcy Judge Whitman L. Holt dismissed the debtor’s chapter 13 bankruptcy petition and barred her from refiling any further bankruptcy petitions until September 29, 2023. (See Bankr. Case No. 9:21-bk-90126-WLH, Doc. 64.) He also denied her request for a stay pending appeal of that decision. (/d. at Doc. 69.) The debtor now seeks a stay from this Court. (Doc. 3); see Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8007(b). That request is denied. As explained by Judge Holt, this case arises out of “the debtor’s and her husband’s serial, abusive, and bad-faith filings used as a delay and litigation tactic in a two-party dispute about a parcel of real property already resolved in Montana state-court.” (Bankr. Case No. 9:21-bk-90126-WLH, Doc. 69 at 1.) The Court adopts Judge Holt’s analysis of the four relevant stay factors. See Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009). The only changed circumstance at this point is the debtor’s allegation that an eviction has now been scheduled for October 23, 2021. (See Doc. 3 at 2.) The debtor provides no documentation, however, regarding the

pending eviction. And, more importantly, even if she did, a stay pending appeal “is not a matter of right, even if irreparable injury might otherwise result to the appellant.” Nken, 556 U.S. at 427. As detailed in numerous court orders, the debtor and her husband have used and abused the bankruptcy system for years to avoid the unfavorable outcome of a state law real property decision. (See also Bankr. Case No. 9:21-bk-90013.) A stay is not warranted based on these facts. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the debtor’s motion for stay (Doc. 3) is DENIED. he DATED this (¢ day of October, 2021. we

x \ Ly Mu 132285 PM. Donald W. Molloy, District Judge United Ste istrict Court

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Stokes v. Drummond, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stokes-v-drummond-mtd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack