Now Updating
In re Edwin Earl Elliott

Summarizing by Bradley Pearce

In re Donald and Jane Nichols

Summarizing by Lars Fuller

Chesley v. RWW Properties, LLC (In re Chesley)

Citation:
Chesley v. RWW Properties, LLC (In re Chesley), BAP No. NC-14-1070-JuTaPa (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Feb. 26, 2015) (NOT FOR PUBLICATION)
Tag(s):
Ruling:
AFFIRMING the bankruptcy court's order denying debtor's motion for reconsideration, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit held that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by (a) granting purchaser's motion to annul the automatic stay and (b) denying debtor’s motion for reconsideration. The bankruptcy court properly considered the twelve non-exclusive factors for evaluating the equities associated with a request for retroactive annulment of the automatic stay under Fjeldsted v. Lien (In re Fjeldsted), 293 B.R. 12, 24 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2003) and did not abuse its discretion in finding that cause existed to annul the stay under section 362(d) of the Bankruptcy Code. The record did not support debtor's contentions that newly discovered evidence, fraud or misconduct, and other factors "weighed" in favor of granting her motion for reconsideration.
Procedural context:
Purchaser filed a motion to retroactively annul the automatic stay in order to obtain clear title to real property. After the bankruptcy court granted purchaser's motion, debtor filed a motion for reconsideration. Debtor's motion was denied. Debtor appealed from the bankruptcy court’s order denying her motion for reconsideration of the order annulling the automatic stay.
Facts:
Debtor filed a skeletal chapter 13 petition on the eve of a foreclosure sale of her residence. Later that day, the property was sold at the foreclosure sale to purchaser. Following the sale, purchaser filed a motion to retroactively annul the automatic stay, explaining that it was not aware of the bankruptcy filing and that the equities of the case gave rise to cause for retroactive annulment of the stay in its favor. The bankruptcy court granted purchaser's motion and denied debtor's motion for reconsideration of the order granting purchaser's motion. This appeal ensued.
Judge(s):
JURY, TAYLOR, and PAPPAS

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!

About us in numbers

3123 in the system

3003 Summarized

2 Being Processed