order for relief from automatic stay

[storybookjim]

Thanks for that Cornell reference, edantes. Great site. Actually I'm pretty familiar with it already. I've gone over 362 pretty thoroughly. I'm sure you have too. You've been following my posts. I've been following yours too. Take another look at at 362(e) , would ya? What do you think?

 

[edantes]

You might have a chance...

Looked it ...it does say 30 days...but it also sends you back to subsection d
Subsection (e) says
Thirty days after a request under subsection (d) of this section for relief from the stay of any act against property of the estate under subsection (a) of this section, such stay is terminated with respect to the party in interest making such request, unless the court, after notice and a hearing, orders such stay continued in effect pending the conclusion of, or as a result of, a final hearing and determination under subsection (d) of this section.

and (d) says
(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—


So (d) seems to mandate the hearing...I have two suggestions for you

1. did you establish you had standing ? because your crew sounds a lot
like mine... and they can't be left any options to escape or you will
just be sitting there while they laugh at you behind the stay...

2. Have you got your Pacer account yet ? If it has been more than
30 days...you might find out there if the order has been granted..

Good luck

 

[storybookjim]

Yeah I do have PACER and I have been following it. Since my motion was filed on April 29, the thirty-day aspect is a moot point until the end of this week. Action could still be taken by either the judge or opposing counsel or any other creditor, I suppose.

And then there's the (d) part. Says there needs to be a hearing. Does not say I need to request it. I filed ex parte. If a hearing is indeed required, and it's my responsibility to request one, Judge should have tossed it immediately, don't you think? But like I said, it's unopposed so far and hasn't been tossed either. Just an odd situation...

Anyway, thanks for your imput.

 

[storybookjim]

Got a letter from judge's chambers today. Anabanana, you're so right. They make up the roles as they go.

 

[storybookjim]

5 months hence, It's time hire a lawyer to try to get this thing tossed from bankruptcy court altogether. As it turns out, these folks entered into a contract with me while they were still in a chapter 13 and concealed that from the trustee. After that was dismissed, a chapter 7 was filed and they concealed it again. Then they were allowed to file two 13's after that.

Neither the trustee nor the judge seem to give a rip and I'm convinced that this is standard consideration for the rights of pro se creditors. Fair? No. This is reality.