Arroyo v. Scotiabank de Puerto Rico (In re Arroyo)
- Summarized by William Amann , Amann Burnett, PLLC
- 11 years 9 months ago
- Citation:
- BAP No. PR 12-045
- Tag(s):
-
- Ruling:
- Chapter 7 debtor lacked standing to appeal because he could not demonstrate that either (1) a reasonable possibility existed that a surplus would exist if the order on appeal was denied or (2) the appealed order adversely affected his discharge.
- Procedural context:
- Arroyo, an individual chapter 7 debtor filed four (4) chapter 7 petitions in a nine (9) year period, each on the eve of foreclosure, ostensibly to prevent the foreclosure of his primary residence. During the third (3rd) case, the debtor and the secured creditor (Scotiabank) reached a settlement agreement on Scotiabank's pending motion for relief which granted Scotiabank relief from the stay in exchange for the debtor selling the residence within a certain time, failing which the parties agreed that Scotiabank's relief from stay in the third (3rd) case would be preclusive under the principles of res judicata. Upon reaching the settlement agreement, the debtor's third (3rd) case was dismissed. Subsequently, the debtor failed to sell the house and upon the eve of the fourth (4th) foreclosure, the debtor filed his fourth (4th) petition. Scotiabank conducted the foreclosure sale, in reliance upon the settlement agreement and then sought retroactive relief from stay in the fourth (4th) case.
- Facts:
- Arroyo, an individual chapter 7 debtor filed four (4) chapter 7 petitions in a nine (9) year period, each on the eve of foreclosure, ostensibly to prevent the foreclosure of his primary residence. During the third (3rd) case, the debtor and the secured creditor (Scotiabank) reached a settlement agreement on Scotiabank's pending motion for relief which granted Scotiabank relief from the stay in exchange for the debtor selling the residence within a certain time, failing which the parties agreed that Scotiabank's relief from stay in the third (3rd) case would be preclusive under the principles of res judicata. Upon reaching the settlement agreement, the debtor's third (3rd) case was dismissed. Subsequently, the debtor failed to sell the house and upon the eve of the fourth (4th) foreclosure, the debtor filed his fourth (4th) petition. Scotiabank conducted the foreclosure sale, in reliance upon the settlement agreement and then sought retroactive relief from stay in the fourth (4th) case.
- Judge(s):
- Haines, Feeney and Hoffman
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary. Please Sign In using your ABI Member credentials. Not a Member yet? Join ABI now - it is absolutely worth it!
