Opinion
19-10052
01-27-2023
In Re RODNEY THOMAS RIDDLE Debtor(s)
Chapter 7
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DEBTOR'S MOTIONS FOR CONTEMPT, MOTION FOR AN EMERGENCY FEDERAL INJUNCTION, MOTION TO MOVE BACK HOME AND RELATED FILINGS [Docket Numbers 124, 125, 126, 127, 129 and 130]
[This opinion is not intended for publication or citation.]
This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(a) and 1334, and the standing General Order of Reference in this District.
The matters before this Court include Debtor Rodney Thomas Riddle ("Mr. Riddle")'s two Motions for Contempt filed against Hamilton County Ohio Common Pleas Court Judge Megan Shanahan, certain magistrate judges, the Hamilton County Ohio Sheriff's Department and Sergeant Rick Snow of that department, and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Trustee [Docket Number 124 and 126] and supplements to the Motions for Contempt [Docket Numbers 127 and 130]. Also before this Court are Mr. Riddle's Motion for an Emergency Federal Injunction [Docket Number 125] and Motion to Move Back Into Home or For a Hearing [Docket Number 129]. Collectively, this Court refers to the listed filings as the "Motions." All of the Motions relate to actions taken by the referenced entities in a Hamilton County foreclosure proceeding that included the eventual removal of Mr. Riddle and his personal belongings from the real property at which he was residing in the summer of 2022.
II. BACKGROUND
The background of this case is significant. Mr. Riddle filed this Chapter 7 bankruptcy case on January 8, 2019. In April of 2019, both the Chapter 7 Trustee ("Trustee") and the United States Trustee ("UST") filed motions to dismiss this case based on Mr. Riddle's lack of cooperation with the Trustee's requests for documents and failure to correct known inaccuracies in his schedules and statement of financial affairs. In addition, the UST requested that a three-year bar to refiling be imposed against Mr. Riddle based on his lack of cooperation in the current case and his history of repetitive bankruptcy filings that were often dismissed for abuse. Following a hearing, this Court concluded that Mr. Riddle's history along with his current failure to provide the Trustee with required documents and amend inaccuracies in his schedules and statement of financial affairs supported bad faith. Accordingly, on July 19, 2019, this Court granted the Trustee and UST's motions to dismiss this case and imposed a three-year bar to Mr. Riddle re-filing a bankruptcy case [Docket Numbers 60 and 61].
Mr. Riddle appealed the dismissal of his case to the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, and when the Panel affirmed the dismissal [Docket Numbers 101 and 102], he appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. On November 16, 2022 the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this Court's order dismissing Mr. Riddle's bankruptcy case with a three-year bar to re-filing. [See Docket Number 132 (Order from Riddle v. Greenberger (In re Riddle), Case No. 20-3901, Docket Number 90-2 (6th Cir. Nov. 16, 2022))].
II. LEGAL ANALYSIS
In the Motions, Mr. Riddle complains of actions taken by a judge, magistrates, a sheriff's department and sergeant in that department, and a foreclosing mortgage holder against him or his property that occurred after his case was dismissed by this Court on July 19, 2019. He argues that the continuing actions of these entities violate the automatic stay. However, no automatic stay existed in this case post-dismissal. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(c). Furthermore, a dismissal order remains in effect during an appeal absent the issuance of a stay pending appeal. See Webb Mtn, LLC v. Exec. Realty P'ship, L.P. (In re Webb Mtn, LLC), 414 B.R. 308, 335-336 (Bankr.E.D.Tenn. 2009); First Inter-State Bank v. Weathersfield Farms, Inc. (In re Weathersfield Farms, Inc.) 34 B.R. 435, 439 (Bankr. D. Vt. 1983) (even though the debtor appealed the dismissal order, without a stay pending appeal, the dismissal remained in effect and the automatic stay was terminated restoring creditors to their pre-petition rights). No stay pending appeal was issued during Mr. Riddle's unsuccessful appeal of the order dismissing his case.
Because no automatic stay existed at the time of the actions complained of in Mr. Riddle's Motions, this Court concludes that the Motions are without merit. Accordingly the Motions [Docket Numbers 124, 125, 126, 127, 129 and 130] are DENIED.
SO ORDERED