When is Enough, Enough? Pro Se Dismissed with Extended Prejudice (and Violates Bar)

When do the facts justify a long bar to refiling over the 180-day period in § 109(g)? Sometimes it is Justice Stewart’s infamous words from Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 187 (1964)–“I know it when I see it.” Even so, a Trustee must provide evidence and authority to the Court for a long prejudice period.

In In re Parson 2021 WL 4483124 (September 20, 2021), Chapter 13 Standing Trustee Thomas D. Powers, Northern District of Texas (Dallas Division) did just that. Judge Michelle V. Larson’s opinion provides a . . .

It looks like you are not signed in or registered! This content is only available to members.

Or Sign In Below:

Jeff LeForce

Staff Attorney to Carey D. Ebert, Standing Chapter 13 Trustee for the Eastern District of Texas (Sherman and Texarkana Divisions)

Jeff LeForce is the Staff Attorney to Carey D. Ebert, Standing Chapter 13 Trustee, Eastern District of Texas in Plano. Before becoming a Staff Attorney, Jeff was a solo practitioner and a partner in an AmLaw 100 law firm with a practice focused on commercial bankruptcy, corporate workouts and restructuring, and complex business transactions. He also clerked for the Hon. Massie Tillman, United States Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of Texas (Fort Worth Division).Jeff received a B.B.A. in Finance and Economics from Baylor University in 1991 and a J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center in 1994. He is admitted to the State Bar of Texas, all Federal District Courts in Texas, and the Fourth and Fifth Circuits of the U.S. Courts of Appeal.

From the Editor – Dismissal

August 2, 2020

By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired) Chapter 13 debtor had absolute right to dismiss. Facing a contested confirmation hearing, the debtor moved to dismiss the case, and his estranged spouse objected. Concluding that § 1307(b) provides an absolute right to dismiss a case that had not been previously converted, the court posed questions about whether there should be limits...

Members

From the Editor – Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

February 2, 2020

By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired) Limitations period for actions under FDCPA. Construing the statute of limitations for actions against debt collectors under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), the Supreme Court held that “absent the application of an equitable doctrine, the statute of limitations in § 1692k(d) begins to run on the date on which the alleged...

Members

It Takes a Village

September 29, 2019

By Katherine B. Brewer, Esq. (Westerville, OH) One of the first things we focus on in law school (other than the Rule Against Perpetuities, which always brings back fond memories), is that our clients come first. We learn the complexities of the law, memorize rule statements, and read thousands of pages of case law in order to learn how best...

Members

Think Beyond the Means Test

Cathy Moran

July 31, 2022

It started as a means test question: could emergency medical expenses be deemed non consumer debt. It ended up as a step back to get the bigger picture. Well seasoned bankruptcy counsel brought the fact pattern to a list serve of colleagues. The prospective debtors’ income in a small consulting corporation is declining, his health crisis raises not only income...

Members

From the Editor – Plan Modification

March 21, 2021

By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired) For modification purposes, best interests test remains at petition date. In an examination of post-confirmation sale of the debtor’s home that yielded excess of homestead exemption, the Court concluded that the best-interests of creditors’ calculation was performed as of the petition date, rather than time of modification. Section 1329 does not provide a...

Members

2022 Bankruptcy Procedure Year in Review: Revised Statute and Rules and Selected Cases Part 10 Once Again: The Supreme Court Hands Down a Procedure Rule in Dupree v. Younger

Lawrence R. Ahern, III

June 11, 2023

Introduction This series reviews developments in bankruptcy procedure during the past year. One new rule and amendments to 16 rules took effect December 1, 2022. Many reflected changes necessitated by the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (SBRA), and had been in place in the same or similar form on an interim basis since that legislation took effect.

Members

Ask Ms. Ps & Qs

December 13, 2020

By Professor Nancy Rapoport Dear Readers: The ConsiderChapter13.org staff has, once again, raised an important ethics issue: how far does the attorney-client privilege go? In Taylor Lohmeyer Law Firm v. United States,1 the Fifth Circuit had to wrestle with that issue after the law firm (Taylor Lohmeyer) claimed a blanket attorney-client privilege for all documents that were subject to the...

2022 Bankruptcy Procedure Year in Review: Revised Statute and Rules and Selected Cases Part 6 Finality Versus a Residential Mortgagee: Espinosa and Nobelman Clash in the Eleventh Circuit

Lawrence R. Ahern, III

February 26, 2023

This Part 6 continues1 an analysis of judicial developments with a significant decision on finality of a Chapter 13 confirmation order. In re Bozeman Section 1327 of the Bankruptcy Code provides that a confirmed Chapter 13 plan binds the debtor and creditors to its terms.2 In In re Bozeman,3 the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit looked at a...

Members

When the Trustee Gets Subpoenaed

August 15, 2021

By Karin N. Amyx, Staff Attorney to Chapter 13 Trustee Carl Davis (Wichita, KS) Trustees possess a variety of sensitive information that could be useful to litigants in contract disputes, divorce and child custody matters, insurance litigation or criminal prosecution. Additionally, debtors, creditors or third parties may be interested in the trustee’s internal operating procedures or legal position on disputes...

Members

For Shame

The Academy

June 25, 2023

Litigation Practice Group Lawsuits: 4 Cases to Know (This is the only free article we could find on Litigation Practice Group a/k/a Phoenix Law and disbarred Tony Diab. He has been disbarred from both Nevada and California.)