In re Sweetenburg, No. 12-31023, 2012 WL 1835517, at *2–*4 (Bankr. W.D.N.C. May 18, 2012) (Beyer)

Landlord entitled to stay exception in § 362(b)(22), to in rem stay relief and to damages and attorney fees when debtor failed to list landlord with prepetition judgment for possession and failed to certify that lease defaults could be cured. “Section 362(l), read in conjunction with section 362(b)(22), keeps the stay in place for thirty days if the debtor meets very specific conditions. . . . With the filing of the petition, (1) the debtor must certify that there are circumstances under which the debtor would be permitted to cure the entire monetary default . . . (2) a deposit is to be made with the filing of the petition with the clerk for the rent that would become due within the 30-day period after the filing of the petition. . . . The proper steps for a debtor are not very difficult or cumbersome. . . . Subsections 362(b)(22) and (l) give special protections for landlords who were in the process of eviction and taking possession of the property prior to filing. The provisions of subsections 362(b) and (l) are unusual and other creditors are not provided with the same automatic, swift, and immediate mechanism that is meant to provide a quick and easy remedy for landlords who are entitled to possession of leased property. The remedy does not require a hearing or an order of the court unless all of the conditions are met by the debtor. . . . [I]t does not address the situation where a debtor subject to a judgment for possession does not reveal the judgment, which is the context in which this matter came before the court. . . . Had the Debtor made the mandatory disclosure of the lessor with a prior judgment and not included the required certification, the clerk would have immediately sent a certified copy of the absence of the certification and the applicability of the exception to the stay under subsection (b)(22) and, presumably, the Landlord would have been able to proceed . . . . Alternatively, if the Debtor had made the disclosure, certified a right to cure, and served it as required, then the Landlord would have been entitled to object and have a hearing held within 10 days of his objection. . . . The Debtor should not be entitled to more protection for her failure to make the disclosure or otherwise comply with the duties of certification and deposit of rent, yet that is what occurred in this case. . . . The lease has terminated and a final Writ of Possession was granted. There is no right to cure the monetary default pursuant to state law and no certification of right to cure was made by the Debtor. The Debtor made no deposit of the rent due to the clerk when the petition was filed. . . . Debtor’s failure to comply with section 362 on the date of the filing of the petition resulted in a delay of remedy that is contrary to the simple and swift protections anticipated and intended by section 362. . . . The exception to the stay is effective immediately. The Landlord is entitled to possession of the Property, the stay exception shall apply in rem as to enforcement against the Property for eviction of the Debtor and any other occupants of the Property, and eviction from this Property is not stayed by any future bankruptcy proceedings. The Landlord may file a claim in the case for damages under the lease in accordance with bankruptcy law. Furthermore, the attorney for the Landlord is approved and entitled to fees for the bringing of this action to be paid by the Debtor as shall be submitted by proof of claim or application to the court.”

No Author Biography has been linked to this Article.

Related Articles

Hale-Andrew-Antico
September 10, 2023
The Ninth Circuit BAP held that the chapter 13 debtors converted their case to Chapter 7 in good faith and therefore a post-petition inheritance was not property of the chapter 7 estate.
Members
March 15, 2020
By Professor Nancy Rapoport, University of Nevada Dear Readers: The marvelous, indefatigable Regina Logsdon just forwarded me this hypothetical: Post-confirmation, debtor/client gets upset with attorney. Let’s assume for this scenario that the attorney hasn’t done anything wrong – perhaps just a difference of opinion on a plan modification (or not). Debtor/client says ugly things to attorney – name-calling, etc. THEN...
Members
June 9, 2019
By Jan Hamilton, Chapter 13 Trustee (Topeka, KS) Introduction Preliminarily, I recognize that many of those reading this do not need to. There are many fine trial attorneys in the bankruptcy bar. Those folks could well be writing this article. By way of defending myself in advance, this little piece does not consist of a series of war stories or...
Members
July 12, 2020
By Daryl J. Smith, Senior Staff Attorney to Sylvia Ford Brown, Chapter 13 Trustee (Memphis, TN) and Katherine L. Rea, Staff Attorney to Pamela Simmons-Beasley, Chapter 13 Trustee (Columbia, SC) Is there ever a reason to oppose a voluntary dismissal of a chapter 13 that has not been converted from a chapter 7? Maybe. But will you be successful? Probably...
Members
moran_cathy
August 21, 2022
If all the children in Lake Woebegon are above average, all the small businesses our clients run are quite valuable.If the Chapter 13 trustee is asking the question, anyway. I rail when the Chapter 13 trustee’s business questionnaire asks, “how much would you sell your business for.” Phrased that way, the question implicates all kinds of facts that aren’t in...
Members
March 24, 2019
By Lawrence R. Ahern III, Brown & Ahern (Nashville, TN) PART IV: What's an Attorney to Do? Considerations for Counsel on all Sides of the Arbitration Question Click here for Part I Click here for Part II
Members
gendron-1
April 2, 2023
Section in 109(g)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code bars a debtor from filing a new case for 180 days if the Debtor voluntarily dismisses a case “following” a motion for relief. Not surprisingly, courts are split on how they interpret the word “following” as used in § 109(g)(2). After all, the word “following” is not limited to one definition, or even...
Members
October 27, 2019
By Lawrence R. Ahern, III, Brown & Ahern (Nashville, TN) Part IV Two More Things Trustees Should Know About the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 Introduction Four bankruptcy-related bills were enacted during the 116th Congress and signed into law on August 23, 2019.1 The legislation affected both business and consumer cases. One bill, the Small Business Reorganization Act of...
Members
June 7, 2020
By Lawrence R. Ahern III, Brown & Ahern (Nashville, TN) Introduction Chapter 13 practitioners certainly do not need to be told that a lender with a mortgage1 on the debtor's principal residence has a special position in a Chapter 13 case. A chapter 13 plan may "modify the rights of holders of secured claims, other than a claim secured only...
Members
January 26, 2020
By Henry E. Hildebrand, III, Chapter 13 Standing Trustee for the Middle District of Tennessee (Nashville) When a case converts from Chapter 13 to Chapter 7 prior to the confirmation of a plan, the Chapter 13 Trustee is not permitted to divert funds from the debtor to the debtor’s attorney. In re Lettie, 597 B.R. 637 (Bankr. E.D Wis. 2019)...
Members

Looking to Become a Member?

ConsiderChapter13.org offers a forum to advance continuing education of consumer bankruptcy via access to insightful articles, informative webinars, and the latest industry news. Join now to benefit from expert resources and stay informed.

Webinars

These informative sessions are led by industry experts and cover a range of consumer bankruptcy topics.

Member Articles

Written by industry experts, these articles provide in-depth analysis and practical guidance on consumer bankruptcy topics.

Industry News

The Academy is the go-to source for the latest news and analysis in the Chapter 13 bankruptcy industry.

To get started, please let us know which of these best fits your current position: