Opinion
22-11891
05-22-2023
In Re SANDRA ARLENE SHEAR Debtor(s)
Adam Bradley Hall, Esq. Justin W. Ristau, Esq.
[Not intended for publication]
Chapter 13
Adam Bradley Hall, Esq.
Justin W. Ristau, Esq.
MEMORANDUM OPINION GRANTING WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.: (I) IN REM RELIEF FROM THE AUTOMATIC STAY PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. § 362(D)(4) WITH RESPECT TO THE REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 539 CHASWIL DRIVE, CINCINNATI, OHIO 45255, AND (II) RELIEF FROM THE CO-DEBTOR STAY AS TO PATRICK CHARLES SHEAR PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. § 1301(C) [DOCKET NUMBER 30]
BETH A. BUCHANAN, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE
On December 8, 2022, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Wells Fargo") filed its Motion of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Successor by Merger to Wachovia Bank, N.A. for In Rem Relief from the Automatic Stay and Codebtor Stay as to Patrick Charles Shear on First Mortgage for Real Property Located at 539 Chaswil Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio 45255 [Docket Number 30] ("Motion"); Debtor Sandra Arlene Shear's Response [Docket Number 35]; and, Wells Fargo's Reply [Docket Number 51]. In the Motion, Wells Fargo states that it is the holder of a promissory note executed by Debtor Sandra Arlene Shear ("Debtor") and her non-filing spouse and co-debtor on the note, Patrick Charles Shear ("Mr. Shear" and collectively the "Shears"), as well as a mortgage against the Shears' residential property. Wells Fargo asserts that the Shears are in default under the note and mortgage and have further engaged in a scheme to thwart Wells Fargo's attempts to sell the property by filing five bankruptcy cases since 2019, all within a week of scheduled foreclosure sales. Accordingly, Wells Fargo requests in rem relief against the property under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(4) as well as relief from the co-debtor stay against Mr. Shear.
On February 8, 2023, a joint evidentiary hearing was held to consider Wells Fargo's Motion as well as other matters, including the chapter 13 Trustee ("Trustee")'s motion to dismiss the Debtor's bankruptcy case and a separate motion filed by Wells Fargo to dismiss the Debtor's adversary complaint in a related adversary proceeding.
At the evidentiary hearing, this Court granted the Trustee's request to hold her motion to dismiss in abeyance pending the resolution of Wells Fargo's motions. The Trustee's motion to dismiss will be rescheduled for hearing upon request.
After review of the testimony of the Debtor and Mr. Shear and exhibits admitted at the hearing, this Court concludes that Wells Fargo is entitled to in rem relief from the automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(4) and relief from the co-debtor stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1301(c) to allow it to pursue its state law remedies against the Shears' residential property.
Prior to the evidentiary hearing, Mr. Shear filed a motion for standing [Docket Number 49]. His standing to testify or otherwise be heard on his own behalf as co-debtor on the note and mortgage debt was recognized at the hearing.
Wells Fargo filed identical sets of exhibits in the main bankruptcy case and in the adversary proceeding [Case No. 22-11891, Docket Number 59; Adv. Proc. No. 22-1087, Docket Number 15]. The parties agreed to the admission of Wells Fargo's exhibits for the matters scheduled for the joint hearing in the main bankruptcy case and the adversary proceeding. Wells Fargo's exhibits will be referred to in this opinion as "Def. Ex. ___." The Debtor similarly filed identical sets of exhibits in the main bankruptcy case and in the adversary proceeding [Case No. 22-11891, Docket Number 61; Adv. Proc. No. 22-1087, Docket Number 17]. Except as excluded based on objections sustained during the joint hearing, the Debtor's exhibits were likewise admitted for purposes of the matters scheduled for the joint hearing.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. The Note, Mortgage, and Pre-petition Foreclosure Action
The Shears executed a promissory note to borrow $483,000 from Washington Mutual Bank in February of 2004. To secure the debt, the Shears signed a mortgage agreement granting Washington Mutual Bank a mortgage lien against their residential property at 539 Chaswil Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio 45255 (the "Property").
Prior to the bankruptcy filing, the Shears became delinquent under the terms of the note and mortgage and Wells Fargo filed a Complaint for Foreclosure against the Shears in the Hamilton County Ohio Court of Common Pleas on August 1, 2018 [Def. Ex. A] ("State Court Complaint"). Although not the original lender, Wells Fargo asserted its standing to foreclose and, in support, attached exhibits to the State Court Complaint demonstrating its status as the current holder of the note and mortgage. Specifically, Exhibit A to the State Court Complaint was the Shears' promissory note with lender Washington Mutual Bank, which was endorsed in blank. Exhibit B to the State Court Complaint was the mortgage agreement signed by the Shears granting Washington Mutual Bank a mortgage lien against the Property to secure the debt.
In addition, Wells Fargo attached to the State Court Complaint the two mortgage assignments by which Wells Fargo was assigned the Shears' mortgage in June of 2014. Specifically, Exhibit C to the State Court Complaint was the assignment of mortgage in which the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, acting as receiver for Washington Mutual Bank, assigned the Shears' mortgage to JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. Exhibit D to the State Court Complaint was a second assignment of mortgage in which the mortgage was assigned by JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. to Wells Fargo. The mortgage and two assignments were also attached to Wells Fargo's motion for summary judgment filed in the foreclosure action along with an affidavit affirming that Wells Fargo, directly or through its agent, was in possession of the original note prior to and at the time of filing the State Court Complaint [Def. Ex. B].
Wells Fargo's motion for summary judgment against the Shears was granted by Magistrate's Decision [Def. Ex. C] ("Magistrate's Decision"). The Magistrate's Decision includes the determination that Plaintiff Wells Fargo was the real party in interest when it filed the State Court Complaint and maintained the requisite standing at all times material to the action [Id., p. 2]. Hamilton County Common Pleas Court Judge Terry Nestor overruled the Shears' objection to the Magistrate's Decision and adopted the Magistrate's Decision in a final order entered on July 11, 2019 [Def. Ex. D] ("Final Entry").
The Shears filed various post-judgment motions and appeals of the Magistrate Decision and Final Entry in the foreclosure action, including challenges to Wells Fargo's standing to foreclose, which have been unsuccessful [See generally, Def. Exs. E, H, K - R, U - W, Z, AA -BB, DD - FF].
B. Multiple Bankruptcy Filings Following Final Entry in Foreclosure Action
Following the Final Entry entered on July 11, 2019, the Shears filed five consecutive chapter 13 bankruptcy cases affecting the Property all within close proximity to scheduled sales of the Property in the foreclosure action. The relevant history of the bankruptcy cases is as follows:
1. Bankruptcy Case Number 19-13339
Debtor Sandra Arlene Shear filed the first bankruptcy case affecting the Property, Case Number 19-13339, on September 11, 2019, one day prior to a scheduled public auction of the Property in the foreclosure action on September 12, 2019 [Def. Exs. F and G]. On September 26, 2019, the Trustee filed a motion to dismiss the Debtor's bankruptcy case for failure of the Debtor to file documents and the case was dismissed on October 23, 2019 [Def. Ex. G].
2. Bankruptcy Case Number 20-10091
Debtor's husband and co-debtor Mr. Shear filed the second bankruptcy case affecting the Property, Case Number 20-10091, on January 14, 2020, two days prior to a scheduled public auction of the Property on January 16, 2020 [Def. Exs. I and J]. On January 29, 2020, the Trustee filed a motion to dismiss for failure of the debtor to file documents and the case was dismissed on February 25, 2020 [Def. Ex. J].
3. Bankruptcy Case Number 21-12399
Mr. Shear filed the third bankruptcy affecting the Property, Case Number 21-12399, on November 9, 2021, one day prior to a public auction scheduled in the foreclosure action for November 10, 2021 [Def. Exs. S and T]. The Trustee filed a motion to dismiss for the debtor's failure to file documents on November 30, 2021 [Def. Ex. T]. The motion was granted and the case was dismissed on March 2, 2022 [Id.].
4. Bankruptcy Case Number 22-10933
Mr. Shear filed the fourth bankruptcy affecting the Property, Case Number 22-10933, on June 3, 2022, five days prior to a public auction scheduled in the foreclosure action for June 8, 2022 [Def. Exs. X and Y]. On June 21, 2022, the Trustee filed a motion to dismiss for the debtor's failure to file documents and the case was dismissed on July 22, 2022 [Def. Ex. Y].
5. Bankruptcy Case Number 22-11891
The Debtor filed the fifth and current bankruptcy case affecting the Property, Case Number 22-11891, on November 4, 2022 five days prior to a public auction scheduled in the foreclosure action on November 9, 2022 [Def. Ex. CC]. On November 21, 2023, the Trustee filed a motion to dismiss for failure of the Debtor to file documents, including the required schedules and chapter 13 plan [Docket Number 23]. The Debtor subsequently filed a proposed chapter 13 plan on January 5, 2023 [Docket Number 41] (the "Plan"). In Paragraph 8.1 of the Plan, the Debtor sets forth her allegation that Wells Fargo is not the holder of the promissory note and mortgage against the Property and that, instead, Chase Bank holds the note and mortgage. However, the Plan does not propose to pay the mortgage debt to either Wells Fargo or Chase Bank [Id.]. The Plan proposed by the Debtor includes no payment to any creditors [Id.].
This Court takes judicial notice of the filing date of the Debtor's bankruptcy petition as well as the filings of record in the current bankruptcy case. ZMC Pharmacy, LLC v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 307 F.Supp.3d 661, 665 n.1 (E.D. Mich. 2018) (a court may take judicial notice of its own docket); Baccala Realty, Inc. v. Fink (In re Fink), 351 B.R. 511, 517 n.1 (Bankr. N.D.Ill. 2006) (a court may take judicial notice of the record in its own cases).
C. Wells Fargo's Proof of Claim
On January 13, 2023, Wells Fargo filed its proof of claim in the Debtor's bankruptcy case through its servicer, JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.[Def. Ex. GG]. In the proof of claim, Wells Fargo asserts a secured claim totaling $757,927.16 due under the note and mortgage, including itemized interest, fees and expenses [Id.]. The attachments to the proof of claim support that no funds have been received from the Shears and applied towards the debt since 2014 [Id.].
D. The Shears' Testimony
At the hearing, the Debtor read from a document she filed entitled Entry of Oral Argument [Docket Number 65] summarizing the Shears' theory that Wells Fargo does not hold and has never held the note and mortgage against the Property. The Debtor noted that her original lender was Washington Mutual Bank. She stated that Washington Mutual Bank was bought in 2008 by Chase Bank and not Wells Fargo. Instead, Wells Fargo bought Wachovia Bank. Based on this and alleged conversations with Wells Fargo and Chase Bank employees not admitted into evidence, Debtor stated her belief that Chase Bank currently holds the Shears' note and mortgage and is the creditor owed the mortgage debt. However, the Debtor admitted that her proposed Plan does not propose payment of the mortgage debt to Chase Bank. The Debtor stated that this is because Chase Bank is not interacting with the Shears and has not asked the Shears to pay.
The Shears testified to conversations with Chase Bank and Wells Fargo employees who the Shears assert confirmed that Wells Fargo does not hold the note and mortgage. At the hearing, however, the Shears did not call any of the employees as witnesses and, upon a hearsay objection from Wells Fargo's counsel, the conversations were excluded as evidence to establish the truth of the matter asserted.
The Shears argued, as they did in the Response, that their bankruptcy filings were not being used to avoid a sale of the Property. Rather, they needed the protection of the bankruptcy court in order to pursue their investigations of Chase Bank and to prove that Wells Fargo has no financial interest in their home.
II. LEGAL ANALYSIS
Wells Fargo moves for in rem relief from the automatic stay and relief from the co-debtor stay against Mr. Shear. If granted and the order properly recorded, in rem relief from the automatic stay will be binding in any future cases involving the Property for a period of two years. Before analyzing Wells Fargo's requests, this Court addresses the preliminary issue raised by the Shears which is Wells Fargo's standing to request relief from the automatic stay.
A. Standing to Seek Relief from the Automatic Stay
To seek relief from the automatic stay, Wells Fargo must be a "party in interest" who, under substantive law, has the legal right which is sought to be enforced or is the party entitled to bring suit. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(d); In re Lee, 467 B.R. 906, 916 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. 2012). In this case, Wells Fargo's standing was determined in the pre-petition foreclosure action by the Final Entry adopting the Magistrate's Decision.
Although the Shears challenged Wells Fargo's standing as the holder of the note and mortgage in the foreclosure action and post-judgment motions and appeals, none of those challenges was successful. As noted in a more detailed analysis in this Court's Memorandum Opinion Granting Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint entered in the related adversary proceeding which opinion is incorporated herein by reference, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review the state court's determination that Wells Fargo is the holder of the note and mortgage under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See In re Smith, 2019 Bankr. LEXIS 3068, at *6-8, 2019 WL 4897030, at *3 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio Sept. 30, 2019) (determining that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine leaves the bankruptcy court "unable to review a state court foreclosure judgment or the decisions refusing to overturn or modify it").
Shear v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (In re Shear), Adv. Proc. No. 22-1087, Docket Number 20.
Accordingly, Wells Fargo has established standing to seek in rem relief from the automatic stay and co-debtor stay to pursue its state law remedies against the Property.
B. In Rem Relief from the Automatic Stay
Wells Fargo requests in rem relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)(4) which provides:
(d) On request of a party in interest and after notice and a hearing, the court shall grant relief from the stay provided under subsection (a) of this section, such as by terminating, annulling, modifying, or conditioning such stay-
. . . .
(4) with respect to a stay of an act against real property under subsection (a), by a creditor whose claim is secured by an interest in such real property, if the court finds that the filing of the petition was part of a scheme to delay, hinder, or defraud creditors that involved either-
(A) the transfer of all or part ownership of, or other interest in, such real property without the consent of the secured creditor or court approval; or
(B) multiple bankruptcy filings affecting such real property.
If recorded in compliance with applicable State laws governing notices of interests or liens in real property, an order entered under paragraph (4) shall be binding in any other case under this title purporting to affect such real property filed not later than 2 years after the date of the entry of such order by the court, except that a debtor in a subsequent case under this title may move for relief from such order
based upon changed circumstances or for good cause shown, after notice and a hearing. Any Federal, State or local governmental unit that accepts notices of interests or liens in real property shall accept any certified copy of an order described in this subsection for indexing and recording.11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(4). The purpose of this statutory provision is to permit a bankruptcy court to grant in rem relief from the automatic stay in order to address schemes using bankruptcy to thwart legitimate foreclosure efforts through transfers of interests in real property or through multiple bankruptcy filings. Baker v. Bank of America, N.A., 837 Fed.Appx. 754, 763 (11th Cir. 2020); In re Montalvo, 416 B.R. 381, 386 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2009). If the court's order granting such relief is recorded in compliance with applicable state law, it will be binding in any subsequent bankruptcy case purporting to affect the same real property for a period of two years. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(20) and (d)(4); Lee, 467 B.R. at 920.
A creditor moving for relief under this provision "bears the initial burden to establish a prima facie case as to the following elements: (1) the debtor engaged in a scheme, (2) to delay, hinder or defraud the creditor, and (3) which involved either the transfer of property without the creditor's consent or court approval or multiple filings." In re Wilson, 2017 Bankr. LEXIS 3781, at *4, 2017 WL 5054314, at *2 (Bankr. W.D. Ky. Nov. 1, 2017) (citing In re Lee, 467 B.R. 906, 920 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. 2012)). A scheme is a plan or design or an "artful plot." Lee, 467 B.R. at 920 (citations omitted). "A court may infer an intent to hinder or delay from serial bankruptcy filings if the debtor sought repeated bankruptcy protection for the sole purpose of stopping foreclosure actions." Id. (citing In re Henderson, 395 B.R. 893, 902 (Bankr. D. S.C. 2008)). See also Montalvo, 416 B.R. at 387 (noting evidence of a scheme to hinder, delay or defraud creditors includes the debtor's multiple strategically timed chapter 13 bankruptcy filings to thwart scheduled foreclosure sales followed by a failure in each case to file the necessary documents to continue on as a chapter 13 debtor).
In this case, the Shears filed five strategically timed bankruptcy cases in a four year period, all within one to five days of a scheduled foreclosure sale of the Property. Each of the four prior chapter 13 cases were dismissed because the Shears failed to take the steps necessary to sustain a chapter 13 case, a trend that has carried forward into this fifth bankruptcy case affecting the Property. The Shears maintain that they have a legitimate excuse for the successive bankruptcy filings-to seek the protection of the bankruptcy court so they can continue their investigation and compile evidence to prove that Wells Fargo has no financial interest in their home. This theory formed the basis for each of their bankruptcy filings.
The state court, however, has already determined that Wells Fargo is the party in interest entitled to enforce the note and mortgage and has entered judgment in Wells Fargo's favor. For the reasons previously stated, this Court has no authority to alter the state court's determinations. Accordingly, the Shears' purposeful use of the automatic stay to forestall a foreclosure to investigate a determination that cannot be challenged in this Court is not a "good use" of the chapter 13 bankruptcy process.
The chapter 13 bankruptcy process "attempts to balance the interests of debtors and creditors by allowing debtors with regular income to adjust their debts through [a plan] funded out of future income while retaining existing assets with creditors receiving payment over time from such future income." Smith, 2019 Bankr. LEXIS 3068, at *7, 2019 WL 4897030, at *3 (citations omitted). At the evidentiary hearing, the Shears admitted to owing the mortgage debt secured by the mortgage on the Property but theorized that the proper mortgage creditor was Chase Bank rather than Wells Fargo. The Shears' own belief in this theory is belied by the fact that the Debtor filed a plan in the current case that does not propose to pay either Wells Fargo or Chase Bank the mortgage debt, now totaling in the vicinity of $757,927.16. The Debtor's lack of a genuine effort to reorganize her financial affairs is an abuse of the bankruptcy process and is a further indication of a scheme to delay or hinder Wells Fargo's rights with respect to the Property. Cf. Smith, 2019 Bankr. LEXIS 3068, at *8, 2019 WL 4897030, at *3 (finding separate grounds both to grant relief from the automatic stay, the co-debtor stay and to impose in rem relief where the debtor's actions were "consistently inconsistent with the purposes of the Bankruptcy Code" (citations omitted)).
The timing of the Debtor and Mr. Shear's five consecutive bankruptcy filings on the eve of foreclosure sales of the Property and failure to file legitimate chapter 13 plans and other documents necessary to sustain each of the bankruptcy cases leads this Court to one conclusion- the bankruptcy filings are part of the Shears' scheme to hinder or delay Wells Fargo by thwarting its lawful foreclosure of the Property. Accordingly, this Court grants Wells Fargo in rem relief from the automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(4).
C. Relief from the Co-Debtor Stay
Wells Fargo further requests relief from the co-debtor stay that extends to Mr. Shear pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1301. Section 1301(a) prohibits a creditor from commencing or continuing any civil action to collect a consumer debt of the debtor from an individual liable on the debt with the debtor. See 11 U.S.C. § 1301(a). Section 1301(c) provides three alternative grounds for a creditor to obtain relief from the co-debtor stay:
(c) On request of a party in interest and after notice and a hearing, the court shall grant relief from the stay provided by subsection (a) of this section with respect to a creditor, to the extent that-
(1) as between the debtor and the individual protected under subsection (a) of this section, such individual received the consideration for the claim held by such creditor;
(2) the plan filed by the debtor proposes not to pay such claim; or
(3) such creditor's interest would be irreparably harmed by continuation of such stay.11 U.S.C. § 1301(c). In this case, relief from the co-debtor stay is warranted under § 1301(c)(2) and (c)(3).
Relief from the co-debtor stay is mandatory under § 1301(c)(2) where a debtor's plan does not propose to pay the entire claim of the creditor. In re Schaffrath, 214 B.R. 153, 155 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. 1997). Lack of payment may also amount to irreparable harm such as to support relief from the co-debtor stay under § 1301(c)(3). See In re Smith, 2019 Bankr. LEXIS 3068, at *4, 2019 WL 4897030, at *2 (finding that a creditor's interest is subject to irreparable harm where no payments are being made and the real estate is valued far below the amount owed, entitling creditor to relief under 11 U.S.C. § 1301(c)(3)). As previously noted, the Plan filed by the Debtor does not propose to pay any portion of Wells Fargo's secured mortgage claim, which warrants relief from the co-debtor stay on this basis alone.
In addition, where a court grants in rem relief under § 362(d)(4), relief from the co-debtor stay under § 1301(c)(3) is necessary to fully effectuate the relief given under § 362(d)(4). Failure to grant relief from the co-debtor stay in such circumstances would cause irreparable harm to the creditor since the creditor would be prevented from pursuing its state law foreclosure rights with respect to the property at issue. See In re Mori, 2022 Bankr. LEXIS 3285, at *19, 2022 WL 17096644, at *6 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. Nov. 21, 2022) (finding that a mortgage creditor's interest in property would be irreparably harmed by continuation of the co-debtor stay to prevent the sale of the property at foreclosure). Likewise in this case, failure to grant relief from the co-debtor stay would prevent Wells Fargo from fully exercising the relief granted under § 362(d)(4) resulting in irreparable harm.
For the foregoing reasons, relief from the co-debtor stay as pertains to Mr. Shear is warranted and hereby granted under §§ 1301(c)(2) and (c)(3).
D. Waiver of Compliance with Rules 4001(a)(3) and 3002.1
Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure ("Rule") 4001(a)(3) provides that an order granting relief from an automatic stay is stayed for 14 days after entry of the order unless the court orders otherwise. Fed.R.Bankr.P. 4001(a)(3). The purpose of Rule 4001(a)(3) "is to permit a short period of time for the debtor or the party opposing relief to seek a stay pending an appeal of the order." In re Sternitzky, 635 B.R. 353, 361 (Bankr. Wis. 2021) (citations omitted). Rule 4001(a)(3) waivers are not liberally granted, especially if an appeal may become moot without a stay. Id.
Wells Fargo requests a waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3)'s 14-day stay in order to immediately pursue its state law remedies against the Property. In this case, the Court finds it appropriate to grant the relief requested. The Shears have shown a lack of effort in their respective bankruptcy proceedings and have instead engaged in serial filings aimed at frustrating Wells Fargo's efforts to exercise its rights under state law. Courts have found that these circumstances demonstrate bad faith and abuse of the bankruptcy process sufficient to warrant a waiver of the 14-day stay of Rule 4001(a)(3). See Sternitzky, 635 B.R. at 361; In re Kearns, 616 B.R. 458, 466 (Bankr. W.D.N.Y. 2020) (finding cause to waive the stay under Rule 4001(a)(3) based on egregious conduct by the debtor). Moreover, waiving the stay will not prejudice the Shears. It will merely allow Wells Fargo to immediately reinstitute the state court foreclosure sale proceedings, which will most likely take longer than the 14-day stay period. Sternitzky, 635 B.R. at 361.
Wells Fargo's additional request to be relieved of further compliance with Rule 3002.1 is also granted. Rule 3002.1 provides:
(a) In General. This rule applies in a chapter 13 case to claims (1) that are secured by a security interest in the debtor's principal residence, and (2) for which the plan provides that either the trustee or the debtor will make contractual installment payments. Unless the court orders otherwise, the notice requirements of this rule cease to apply when an order terminating or annulling the automatic stay
becomes effective with respect to the residence that secures the claim.
Arguably, Rule 3002.1 does not apply in this case at all since the Debtor's Plan does not provide for any contractual payments to be made to any creditor on the Property. Regardless, Rule 3002.1 provides that a creditor's reporting requirements cease upon relief from stay unless the court orders otherwise. Neither the Debtor nor the chapter 13 trustee specifically responded to this request. Accordingly, this Court grants Wells Fargo's request to waive further compliance with Rule 3002.1.
III. CONCLUSION
This Court determines that Wells Fargo is entitled to in rem relief from the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(4) and relief from the co-debtor stay as to Mr. Shear under 11 U.S.C. § 1301(c) to permit Wells Fargo to pursue its state law remedies against the Property. This Court further deems it appropriate to waive Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 4001(a)(3)'s fourteen (14) day stay and further compliance with Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3002.1. This Court will enter a separate order memorializing the relief granted.
SO ORDERED.