Debtor's motion for extension of time to file documents

[refiler]

I'm posting this in the f/c section as my Ch 13 has much to do with pre and post f/c securitization issues.
I filed a Ch 13 bare bones last year followed with a motion for extension of time to file the schedules which was granted. I refiled a few days ago-- again barebones-- and am wanting to file the same motion for extension of time. I have concerns that the barebones followed by a motion for extension of time could be frowned upon and denied.
My initial filing was dismissed based on Trustee's objection to plan.
Any comments?
Thanks!

[justbroke]

You are a serial filer. Please bear with me as I lay this out. If I were the Judge and Trustee, I would not grant an extension of the automatic stay and I may be inclined to dismiss or seek dismissal (respectively) as a frivolous filing. What are you trying to do? Chapter 13s are not that easy to do pro se; I say that even though I did file pro se Chapter 13, was in it for 20 months and made it through confirmation.

Since you post this in a foreclosure sub-forum, I'm guessing that you're using the automatic stay as a crutch to keep the a foreclosure at bay. This is specifically why the anti-serial filing provisions are in the code. You are going to need a REALLY good reason as to why circumstances have changed and that you will actually get a plan confirmed and that this is not a frivolous filing.

If you are trying to old "show me the note" or other issues over securitization of the mortgage and the entire mortgage-backed-securities (MBS) practices... don't be shocked if they receive a relief from stay (RFS) and the Judge kicks it back to State court where it likely should be. Did the lender have an RFS granted in the prior filing? Are you just spacing these out 180 days to avoid other serial-filing issues? Was the prior dismissal with or without prejudice?

Being completely honest... if I were the Judge or Trustee... I would see that you're just a serial filer with no intention of seeing a plan confirmed.

[frogger]

Being completely honest... if I were the Judge or Trustee... I would see that you're just a serial filer with no intention of seeing a plan confirmed.

You're going to have those flags flying on Pacer. The Trustees see this all the time, when a filer uses a bankruptcy filing as a financial planning tool.

I doubt that you will see any leniency from your Trustee.

[refiler]

Thanks very much for insights. To make a correction, justbroke made an assumption that I'm a serial filer. This is false. Although it is my 2nd filing, I have an additional income source I did not have last year which I know is important.
As I mentioned in my post above, I posted this in f/c section as my filing does contain sec. issues.
I hope to have my plan approved for actual secured creditors only ... as it should be!

[justbroke]

Thanks very much for insights. To make a correction, justbroke made an assumption that I'm a serial filer. This is false. Although it is my 2nd filing, I have an additional income source I did not have last year which I know is important.

It is still a serial filing by definition. If you file a case within 1-year of having a case dismissed (with the LIMITED circumstance of going from Chapter 13 and refiling under Chapter 7)... you are a serial filer. This is specifically and absolutely an area where the court takes notice. You will need to take steps to make sure the automatic stay sticks.

As I mentioned in my post above, I posted this in f/c section as my filing does contain sec. issues.
I hope to have my plan approved for actual secured creditors only ... as it should be!

Your plan is approved for both secured and unsecured creditors. Depending on your District, you may be required to pay adequate assurance payments to the mortgage lender ("note holder") which you deem as unsecured. This means paying them until the plan is confirmed and/or they are actually designated, after a hearing, as non-secured.

I'm trying to help you. You really need to read and understand 11 USC 362(c)(3)(A). You need to know what "first day motions" are and you need to do them.

11 USC 362(c)
(3) if a single or joint case is filed by or against a debtor who is an individual in a case under chapter 7, 11, or 13, and if a single or joint case of the debtor was pending within the preceding 1-year period but was dismissed, other than a case refiled under a chapter other than chapter 7 after dismissal under section 707 (b)—

(A) the stay under subsection (a) with respect to any action taken with respect to a debt or property securing such debt or with respect to any lease shall terminate with respect to the debtor on the 30th day after the filing of the later case;

I highly suggest that you post to the Pro Se forum, since this isn't a foreclosure case. This is a Pro Se case in which you're trying to avoid a foreclosure action. The reason there are only 2 people posting on this topic is probably because of the location of the post.

I will say again, that the argument to use a Chapter 13 to deal with "securitization" issues is not going to sit well with any judge. It is so easy for them to prove locus standi (standing) in Bankruptcy court. They only need to produce an indorsed Promissory Note. This will earn them a relief from stay (RFS) and it will go back to local State court, where it belongs. The only thing you might do in an Adversary Proceeding (AP) in Bankruptcy court is to prove that the movant (moving party) doesn't have locus standi to proceed and avoid them getting an RFS.

But what does that do? Nothing in a Chapter 13. This is because as soon as the plan is confirmed, the stay is lifted as to that secured property. Remember, in a Chapter 13, you can't modify the rights of a secured party who has a security interest in your homestead, under 11 USC 1322(c). So, you can't just make them "unsecured". If you just want to frustrate them, which the absolute overhwhelming super-majority of these tactics do, is to litigate. You would challenge their claim after it is submitted. You would attack the validity of either their standing or that the claim is unsecured; the former being easier than the latter hypothetically speaking.

(If you like, I will move it to the Pro Se section.)

[frogger]

Listen to the man above! He just gave you some great advice.

[justbroke]

After a little more reading of the original posting, I still see problems with this case. First day motions should have already been done, and that should have included a motion to extend the automatic stay. Additionally, filing a motion for extension of time to file required documents (schedules and/or plan), will certainly make a rational judge angry.

You appear to be following the same pattern as the last time, only delaying things to take advantage of the automatic stay. There's nothing wrong with taking advantage of the stay, but you should have been beyond ready to file this second time around. When you filed this 2nd time within a year, you should have had all your schedules done along with your proposed Chapter 13 Plan of Reorganization. That should have all been filed contemporaneously with your petition. Such action would have proved to the court that you have corrected any past behavior and are truly seeking to get a confirmed plan.

On the other hand, other than the required first day motions, the Judge may take sympathy on you at the hearing requesting an extension of time to file the documents (as required by 11 USC 521) and for an extension of the automatic stay.

Additionally, if I were the Chapter 13 Standing Trustee in this case, I'd file a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Good Faith. You will need to deal with these issues by showing that you mean it tihs time.

[refiler]

Thanks very much for your comments. And yes, please move this to the Pro se section.

[justbroke]

Moderator Note: I moved this thread to the Pro Se forum to foster additional comments for this pro se filer.

[ttg1]

I did not reply to this post initially because I thought it would just die away. Why did I think it would just die away? Because I thought that what the OP wanted to do was so OBVIOUSLY abusive. I'd hasten to add that this judgment is not a moral or ethical one about the OP personally. His actions may just stem from naivety. The OP needs to understand that stopping this type of behavior was one of the impetuses behind revising the BK law in 2005.

Of course, anything is possible and you might find a judge who plays along for his own reasons. I'm not optimistic. I think most judges will kick you to the curb.