Marisa Smith v. Shoma Homes At Nautica Single Family
- Summarized by Jonathan Batiste , Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
- 4 months 3 weeks ago
- Case Type:
- Consumer
- Case Status:
- Affirmed
- Citation:
- No. 24-12183 (11th Circuit, Oct 06,2025) Not Published
- Tag(s):
-
- Ruling:
- The circuit court affirmed the district court’s finding that the bankruptcy court did not err by annulling the automatic stay or denying Debtor's motion for reconsideration. The record supported the finding that Debtor filed her bankruptcy petition in bad faith, using it as a last resort to block the foreclosure sale of her home. Debtor did not articulate any grounds for granting the motion for reconsideration. Debtor did not present previously unavailable arguments or any extraordinary circumstances that would warrant relief.
- Procedural context:
- Debtor filed a third chapter 13 petition after two previous petitions were dismissed. The bankruptcy court found that Debtor filed the petition in bad faith; thus, it annulled the automatic stay and denied her motion for consideration. Debtor appealed the bankruptcy court’s decisions to the district court, but it affirmed the bankruptcy court’s findings. Debtor then appealed the district court’s decision to the circuit court.
- Facts:
- Debtor filed for bankruptcy after a state court entered a judgment of foreclosure for her home after she failed to pay several years of homeowner association fees. She testified that she had no intention to file for bankruptcy until after her other attempts to delay the foreclosure sale failed. She did not comply with pre- and post-filing requirements. She did not complete the pre-filing budget and credit counseling. She did not file a bankruptcy plan, a schedule of assets and liabilities, or other required documents. She failed to appear for the initial meeting of creditors and did not make timely preconfirmation payments. The plan that she did eventually file was unconfirmable, as it did not include the repayment of Debtor’s debt to Creditor. Her motion for reconsideration made the same arguments as her response to Creditor’s motion for relief from the automatic stay. She argued that the sale should be blocked because her equity in the home would be lost. However, she did not make any new arguments, and she did not show that the bankruptcy court’s order was based on a factual or legal error. She did not show that there was excusable neglect or extraordinary circumstances that would warrant relief.
- Judge(s):
- Branch, Grant, and Anderson
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!
