Now Updating

Summarizing by Amir Shachmurove

Marino v. Seeley (In re Marino)

Marino v. Seeley (In re Marino), 8th Cir. 2010
The commencement or continuation of a proceeding regarding domestic violence is not subject to the automatic stay. The court deferred to the plain meaning of the term "domestic violence" to determine the scope of this limitation of the automatic stay. The court held that the plain meaning encompassed the statutory definition of domestic abuse set forth in the Minnesota Domestic Abuse Act. The court did not evaluate the remaining elements of debtor's claim under section 362(k) as it already held that the action for a protection order was not subject to the stay. However, the court noteed that the cause of action would still fail as no damages stemming from the protection order were proven even though the bankruptcy court had found that debtor had been injured.
Procedural context:
Bankruptcy court issued a written decision after conducting a trial in debtor's adversary proceeding for damages for stay relief violations. It ruled that debtor did not meet his burden of proof and judgment was entered dismissing the adversary with prejudice. Debtor appealed.
The same day of the bankruptcy filing, debtor was involved in altercation that resulted in threats being exchanged and police involvement. The next day, the other party involved in the altercation sought and obtained an ex parte order for protection under the Minnesota Domestic Abuse Act. The order prevented the debtor from having any contact, commiting any acts of domestic abuse, or entering the other party's home. Debtor commenced an adversary proceeding against the individual who obtained the domestic abuse order for stay violation damages.
Nail, Venters, Saladino

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

3360 in the system

3238 Summarized

2 Being Processed