Cook v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (In re Cook)

Cook v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al., Case No. 12-2100 (10th Cir. April 2, 2013) (unpublished)
Failure to follow the procedural requirements of § 554 and Rule 6007 renders abandonment ineffective resulting in Appellant lack of standing to pursue sanctions motion and § 102(1) is not applicable in this case. Also, § 362(k) creates a private right of action for violations of the stay but does not confer standing. Thus, the denial of Appellant’s motions for sanctions and reconsideration were properly denied.
Procedural context:
Pro se Appellant appealed the 10th Circuit’s BAP’s decision affirming the Bankruptcy Court’s refusal to reconsider the Bankruptcy Court’s order dismissing his motion for sanctions. If a motion for reconsideration is treated as a Rule 59(e) motion, an appeal from the denial of reconsideration permits consideration of the merits of the underlying Bankruptcy Court judgment. The 10th Circuit affirmed the BAP’s decision.
The Bankruptcy Court abstained from hearing an adversary proceeding commenced by the Appellant in favor of pending state court litigation. Summary judgment was entered against non-debtor entities in that litigation and Appellant’s claims were dismissed. Appellant moved for sanctions for violation of the automatic stay but lost because the Bankruptcy Court ruled that the Appellant lacked standing. Appellant’s Chapter 11 case was converted to Chapter 7 and the Trustee filed a notice of abandonment of assets, including claims, to the Appellant but failed to follow the procedural requirements of § 554 and Rule 6007. Appellant moved again for sanctions after conversion arguing that he had standing because of the abandonment.
Lucero, Porfilio, Matheson

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

3082 in the system

2975 Summarized

0 Being Processed