Nadya Suleman, now 36, who gave birth to ‘octuplets’ back in January 2009, widely dubbed as ‘OctoMom’ was given so much publicity by the media since she is the second person in the whole of the US to give birth to octuplets, all babies alive. Severe criticisms followed her publicity since after the birth she then had 14 children in total and was jobless as well as single – which raised questions nationwide of her ability to raise the children. One of her hairdressers reported to the cops showing photographs complaining that her children were living under a dangerous condition. Following the complaint, people from the Child Protective Services paid a visit to her home and later dismissed the complaint stating that the children were not in danger. ‘OctoMom’ made headlines again last month when on the 30th of April she filed for a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Orange County Superior Court. She said she had $500,000 to $1 million in unpaid debt while she had only $50,000 in assets. She listed 21 creditors which included Kaiser Permanante, her dad, mortgage and even a Christian School which her kids attended. She said she was not even able to pay for water or food for the children. Nadya had earlier been supporting her children with the aid of food stamps and Social Security Disability payments. Earlier today, it was found that Nadya had failed to file with her Bankruptcy certain key financial documents necessary to complete the Bankruptcy case. She had apparently filed the Bankruptcy to prevent her house in La Habra, California from foreclosure. The judge had found that there were a dozen paperwork missing and gave her an extension of a week to file the paperwork with the court. The judge had apparently dismissed the case today since she had missed the deadline today failing to file with the court the paperwork required for the case. Dismissal of the Chapter 7 Bankruptcy means that her creditors can now move to collect what they say they are owed and a pending foreclosure can now go against her house in La Habra, California in which she lives along with her 14 children. Neither Nadya nor her representative has commented on the dismissal of the case so far. See 11 USC 707
Source: actionadvocacy.com
Video: Albany NY Bankruptcy Dismissal Attorney – Saratoga Debt Relief Lawyer – Chapter 7 – Chapter 13
Bankruptcy Judge Throws Out Marijuana Dispensary’s Chapter 11 Case
The Wall Street Journal also reports that both the dispensary and the U.S. trustee supported the dismissal. The dispensary supported the dismissal because it was unable to propose a reorganization plan – due to the difficulties described above. The U.S. trustee supported the dismissal, but demanded that the dispensary pay its trustee fees, which the judge confirmed.
Source: azbusinesslitigation.com
Grounds for Dismissal of a Bankruptcy Case : Los Angeles Bankruptcy Law Monitor
(3) Dismissal by the court on grounds of lack of cooperation, abuse of process or bad faith: Earlier this year, Nadya Suleman aka "Octomom’s" bankruptcy case was dismissed because she had failed to file the remainder of her bankruptcy schedules as required under 11 U.S.C. 521. Failing to comply with the court’s requirements and filing a complete petition, will be grounds for dismissal. Also important is that you take a prefiling credit counseling course before your case is filed, as this too, is grounds for dismissal. Your case could be dismissed for abuse of the bankruptcy process. Perhaps you make too much money to file under Chapter 7. The court will evaluated many factors, including whether the case should be brought under another chapter and will look at all the circumstances of the case in deciding whether a debtor has filed in bad faith.
Source: losangelesbankruptcylawmonitor.com
Voluntary Bankruptcy Dismissals
First, when your case is dismissed the automatic stay order is lifted, leaving you unprotected from credit collections. Any of your creditors may resume collection efforts against you at this time. Second, you may be required to wait 6 or more months before being eligible to file for bankruptcy again. If you are going to voluntarily dismiss your case, be sure you will not need bankruptcy protection again in the immediate future.
Source: leebankruptcy.com
Fifth Circuit Finds no Judicial Estoppel under Section 349(b)
Contrary to the finding of the Oparaji panel, the lower courts accurately followed Fifth Circuit law on judicial estoppel applying that doctrine in cases where “a party took a clearly inconsistent position in earlier litigation, the court accepted the position, and the inconsistency was not inadvertent.” Jethroe v. Omnova Solutions, Inc., 412 F.3d 598, 600 (5th Cir. 2005). The bankruptcy court correctly held that although under 1305, a creditor has no affirmative obligation to file a proof of claim, if it does choose to file it must do so accurately. The trigger for estoppel was the reliance of the court in confirming a plan in presumed resolution of the claim. In re Burford, 231 B.R. 913 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 1999). As Wells Fargo was always in possession of the facts relating to arrearages, its failure to include the new claimed amounts, was not inadvertent.
Source: ncbrc.org
Loan modification and bankruptcy
Nothing in this mortgagee letter requires that mortgagees make direct contact with any borrower under bankruptcy protection. However, the information required to file a bankruptcy petition (now a matter of public record) will often include sufficient financial information for the mortgagee to properly evaluate the borrower’s eligibility for loss mitigation. Using this financial information, many mortgagees have been able to complete the loss mitigation evaluation before the bankruptcy plan is confirmed and have offered a pre-approved loan modification agreement. For those mortgagors that sought bankruptcy protection solely to avoid foreclosure of their homes, this solution allowed the mortgagor to have the bankruptcy dismissed and begin fresh with a mortgage obligation that is both current and with payments that the mortgagor can afford. For those mortgagors with other financial problems, the resolution of the mortgage problem will put them in a better position to resolve the remaining financial issues.”
Source: balita.com
Actress Eva Longoria’s Business Seeks Dismissal, Opposes Chapter 7 Conversion
LAS VEGAS – Bankrupt Beso LLC, a restaurant and nightclub owned by actress Eva Longoria, on Sept. 25 filed a brief in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada opposing a move by the acting trustee who wants to convert the case from Chapter 11 to Chapter 7 (In Re: Beso LLC, No. 11-10202, Chapter 11, D. Nev. Bkcy.).Full story on lexis.com
Source: lexisnexis.com
Reinstate Dismissed Bankruptcy
When a bankruptcy case is dismissed, the debtor loses the protection of the bankruptcy court against creditor lawsuits in addition to losing the ability to discharge or reasonably repay his debts. An individual can file a motion with the court to reopen a dismissed bankruptcy in most circumstances by closely following court procedure and adhering to his district’s time frame for bankruptcy reinstatement–regardless of whether the bankruptcy case was filed under Chapter 7 or Chapter 13.
Source: suite101.com
The “Absolute” Right to Dismiss a Bankruptcy Case : Texas Bankruptcy Blog
An example of a “bad faith” situation can be found the case of In Re Kotche, filed in the US Bankruptcy Court in Maryland. The trustee in that case objected the confirmation of the debtor’s Chapter 13 plan and asked the court bankruptcy judge to convert the case to Chapter 7. In response the debtor asked the court to dismiss the case. The issue in the case was the value of the debtor’s jewelry, which she listed at $50. However, the debtor’s ex-husband testified included a diamond wedding ring set with a separately purchased center-diamond stone of 3.64 karats, a tennis bracelet, two diamond bracelets, a diamond necklace, a watch, and a cocktail ring. Kotche also failed to list a baby grand piano. Oops!
Source: txbankruptcyblog.com