Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
In Re Teresa Jean Moore v. Bayview Loan Servicing
February 9, 2012
IN RE TERESA JEAN MOORE, DEBTOR,
TERESA JEAN MOORE, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE, AND RICHARD A. YANAGI; AND OFFICE OF THE U.S. TRUSTEE, DEFENDANTS-TRUSTEES.
(Bankruptcy Case No. 10-00771)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: David Alan Ezra United States District Judge
ORDER: (1) DENYING APPELLANT'S EX PARTE MOTION TO PAY FUNDS IN INSTALLMENTS IN LIEU OF SUPERSEDEAS BOND AND (2) LIFTING PREVIOUSLY IMPOSED STAY
Appellant Teresa Moore has appealed the Bankruptcy Court's Order Granting Secured Creditor Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC's ("Appellee") Motion for Relief from Automatic Stay. (Doc. # 1.) On January 17, 2012, Appellant filed an Ex Parte Emergency Motion for a Stay of the Order Granting Relief from Automatic Stay during the pendency of the instant appeal before this Court. (Doc. # 11.) In her Motion, Appellant asked this Court to stay the foreclosure of certain real property situated at 3792 Greenbriar Drive, Pittsburg, CA 94565 ("Subject Property"). Appellee opposed the Motion to Stay and, in the alternative, requested that the Court require Appellant to post a supersedeas bond that includes the principal balance on the mortgage loan at issue.
On January 20, 2012, the Court heard Appellant's Motion to Stay. Appellant represented to the Court at the hearing that she was unable to post a bond for the principal balance on the loan but would be able to secure the funds for a lesser amount. On January 27, 2012, the Court issued an Order granting Appellant's Motion for Stay Pending Appeal conditioned upon Appellant posting and filing with the Court a supersedeas bond in the amount of $9,676.92 by no later than February 7, 2012. This figure was based on the interest, late charges, and attorneys' fees that would accrue during the pendency of this appeal. Although a supersedeas bond ordinarily includes the whole amount of the judgment remaining unsatisfied, the Court exercised its discretion to reduce the amount of the bond significantly in light of Appellant's representation regarding her ability to pay. The Court warned Appellant that "failure to comply with this condition shall result in the automatic lifting of the stay otherwise granted in this Order."
On February 8, 2012, one day after the bond was due, Appellant filed the instant Ex Parte Motion to Pay Funds in Installments In Lieu of a Supersedeas Bond.*fn1 The Court concludes that the six monthly installments proposed by Appellant would not adequately protect Appellee's interest in light of the fact that only a small amount of the funds would be deposited in each installment and the Court would have no assurance that all of the funds would eventually be deposited. Moreover, based on the current briefing schedule, the instant appeal before this Court is not expected to last six months.*fn2 Appellee would therefore incur all the costs associated with the instant appeal well before Appellant posts all the funds and there would be no guarantee that Appellant would continue to make the required payments. In short, the installment plan proposed by Appellant would defeat the entire purpose of the supersedeas bond, which is to secure the Appellee against any loss resulting from the stay.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Appellant's Ex Parte Motion to Pay Funds in Installments. (Doc. # 22.) The Court's stay as previously imposed is therefore lifted.
Buy This Entire Record For