Velasquez v. Bank of America (In re Velasquez)

NC-14-1237-TaPaJu (9th Cir. BAP February 24, 2015) Unpublished
The dismissal of the administrative bankruptcy case did not automatically divest the bankruptcy court of jurisdiction. The bankruptcy court applied to correct legal standard to determine whether to retain jurisdiction by considering the economy, convenience, fairness, and equity. Therefore the bankruptcy court's decision was affirmed.
Procedural context:
The bankruptcy court determined that the interests of economy, convenience, fairness, and equity weighed in favor of declining to exercise jurisdiction over the adversary proceeding. Debtor appeals order dismissing adversary.
The Debtor filed for relief under Chapter 13; however, the Debtor did not file his B22 Form stating his Current Monthly Income and Means Test. The bankruptcy court set a date certain for the Debtor to complete his B22 Form. Instead of filing the B22 Form, the Debtor commenced an adversary against Bank of America ("BOFA") pursuant to various California state law. BOFA file a Motion to Dismiss the adversary. Based on the Debtor's failure to file the B22 Form and/or comply with the court order to file the B22 Form, the bankruptcy court dismissed the administrative case, and dismissed the Debtor's adversary against BOFA sua sponte. During the pending appeal of the order dismissing the adversary, the Debtor successfully reinstated his Chapter 13 case. However, the Debtor never sought reconsideration of the order dismissing the adversary.
TAYLOR, PAPPAS, and JURY, Bankruptcy Judges

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

3335 in the system

3214 Summarized

1 Being Processed