Sammie Smith, Jr. v. Jack Gooding
- Case Type:
- Consumer
- Case Status:
- Affirmed in part and Reversed in part
- Citation:
- 24-6009 (8th Circuit, Aug 12,2025) Not Published
- Tag(s):
-
- Ruling:
- The U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit (BAP) affirmed the decision of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas (BC) to dismiss two debtors chapter 13 case, but reversed its decision to bar the duo from filing another bankruptcy case in any jurisdiction for one year, finding the latter but not the former to be an abuse of discretion.
- Procedural context:
- In the third bankruptcy case initiated by Sammie Smith, Jr. and Elizabeth Smith (DRs), the BC issued an order to show cause (SCO) in light of the DRs' failed four-month effort to propose a confirmable plan, another attorney's termination, and objections by the trustee to the DRs' latest amended plan and the DRs' own objections to their attorneys' final pre-termination plan and to claims filed by two creditors, Americas Car-Mart, Inc. and Wells Fargo. It did so at the end of the continued hearing, held on August 15, 2024, on their plan's confirmation and their objections to Wells Fargo's claim. The DRs did not attend this hearing, having filed a motion to continue the hearing on their objections and confirmation on August 14, 2025. The SCO did not apprise the DRs that the BC may consider sanctions, including a bar to refiling., and set a hearing on its terms for September 5, 2024; at the same time, the BC rescheduled the hearings on confirmation and the DRs’ objections to claims for the same date. Two days before the hearing, the DRs moved for continuance so they could retain another attorney, to which the trustee objected. One day before, the DRs filed amended schedules and an amended plan. On the hearing date itself, the trustee petitioned the BC to deny confirmation and dismiss the DRs' case. At the time, not the two relatives but a relative--Sammie Smith--appeared with a slew of explanations and asides. At the hearing itself, the BC rejected the DRs' motion for a continuance and announced its intent to dismiss the DRs' bankruptcy case on the basis of SCO--and to impose a one-year bar to refiling without citing to any statutory basis. The DRs timely appealed.
- Facts:
- The DRs filed three chapter 13 petitions, and retained three different lawyers who either the DRs terminated or withdrew their representation, in roughly two and a half years.
- Judge(s):
- Shon Hastings; Cynthia A. Norton; and Katherine A. Constantine
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!
