[00:00:03] Speaker 03:
in Ray Lockhart Johnson is being submitted on the briefs and the next case is in Ray Brown Suzanne Meredith Brown appellant and pro se James W Barrett Council for Appley Thousand Trails Inc DBA Idlewild RV Resort yep

[00:00:33] Speaker 06:
So I'll ask you at the outset, how much time would you like to reserve?

[00:00:38] Speaker 01:
No time.

[00:00:40] Speaker 06:
You don't want to have a rebuttal?

[00:00:44] Speaker 01:
Yeah, okay.

[00:00:45] Speaker 06:
How much time?

[00:00:46] Speaker 02:
Five minutes.

[00:00:46] Speaker 06:
Five minutes it is. Okay, go ahead.

[00:00:50] Speaker 02:
Good afternoon. Good morning. Thank you. You've got to tell us your name for the record. Suzanne Brown. Yeah, thank you. Suzanne Brown, appearing pro se as appellate. There are three appeals, as you are aware. They're interconnected.

[00:01:04] Speaker 06:
Well, there are three issues.

[00:01:05] Speaker 02:
Excuse me?

[00:01:05] Speaker 06:
There's three issues.

[00:01:06] Speaker 02:
Three issues, yeah.

[00:01:08] Speaker 02:
The stay relief order, the dismissal of Chapter 13 case, and the order overruling my claim objection as moot.

[00:01:19] Speaker 02:
My principal submission is that the bankruptcy court granted dispositive relief without resolving factual disputes and without making findings required under Sections 362D1, cause, and 1307C.

[00:01:36] Speaker 02:
So the, I don't know if you want to do these one at a time. Up to you. Okay.

[00:01:41] Speaker 07:
Up to you.

[00:01:42] Speaker 02:
Let's do that. I'm going to focus first on the stay relief ruling.

[00:01:48] Speaker 02:
My position is that the bankruptcy court was required to resolve a threshold factual disputes that were necessary to determine whether statutory cause existed under Section 362D1.

[00:02:03] Speaker 02:
The record reflects that the court repeatedly discussed perceived fairness between forums and expressed the view that the disputes belonged elsewhere. But the court did not make any findings regarding cause, adequate protection, feasibility, prejudice to the movement.

[00:02:22] Speaker 06:
Let me stop you right there.

[00:02:23] Speaker 02:
Yes, sir.

[00:02:23] Speaker 06:
Okay.

[00:02:25] Speaker 06:
An analysis under D1 for cause doesn't have to necessarily take into account most of what you're arguing here, okay? It doesn't turn on whether there's an effective reorganization, that's D2. It doesn't turn on assets or other bankruptcy management questions, that's D2. D1 cause is not defined in the code, which is kind of maddening, but what What the bankruptcy judge determined was this was a dispute that was ongoing elsewhere, and that was the best place for it.

[00:02:58] Speaker 06:
And there's about 50 bazillion bankruptcy cases that say that. So that's what you've got to tell us. Why was that a mistake? Because I think you're right. He was limited to that. But you've got to tell us why that piece of this was an error.

[00:03:12] Speaker 02:
Yeah. So going specifically to that, there were many things I submitted.

[00:03:21] Speaker 02:
in response to the order, the stay order being lifted.

[00:03:25] Speaker 02:
Lots of factual disputes, and none of those were resolved.

[00:03:29] Speaker 06:
Well, let me... I'll go ahead. Most of them aren't going to matter. Most of them what? Are not going to matter at Relief from Stay. Relief from Stay is a summary proceeding. The only question is, should the automatic stay prevent somebody from exercising some kind of state law right they have? And here... should the automatic stay prevent somebody from continuing on with a trial concerning rights to possess the property and related issues, which are things bankruptcy courts don't do, as Judge Yun said several times.

[00:04:04] Speaker 06:
So all the other factual stuff might have been relevant to some other concern you have, but for relief from stay, I'm struggling to know why that mattered, OK?

[00:04:14] Speaker 02:
Because there was no cause. There you go.

[00:04:18] Speaker 06:
Why not? Why wasn't there cause?

[00:04:20] Speaker 02:
The movement did not satisfy any cause for lifting that stay.

[00:04:25] Speaker 05:
The cause was that there was some litigation that had been commenced by them in state court. They wanted to continue to pursue. And you had asserted claims that arose out of that action against them. And rather than resolving it in the bankruptcy court, he believed that the state court would be the most logical and efficient place for those claims to be heard. And it would be unfair for you to be able to pursue your claims if they weren't unable to pursue their claims at the same time.

[00:04:59] Speaker 05:
So why was that a mistake? Not based on whether you could reorganize. not based on what the value of the property was, not based upon what you were doing. But why was that issue, why was that decision erroneous?

[00:05:12] Speaker 02:
The motion itself to lift the stay had many problems with it, and I raised those problems. Such as? Such as a proof of claim that there was a written secured lease when there was no written secured lease. This was a bad faith creditor trying to lift the stay. And...

[00:05:33] Speaker 05:
But that's, I'm sorry. No, please go ahead. I've been talking too much. No, I understand that. But that's why he lifted the stay, was if you wanted to exercise your rights about the lease, there was a place where that could occur. It's state court. You stopped it by filing the bankruptcy. He was saying, but that's not really fair if you were going to pursue claims against them but they can't pursue claims at the same time against you. So it makes a logical sense for me to lift the stay and let that proceed.

[00:06:05] Speaker 05:
So you're right. You wanted to fight that battle. All he did was give you another place to go. He didn't take away any of your rights by doing that.

[00:06:14] Speaker 02:
I was just focused on the motion itself to lift the stay. It also falsely indicated that there was no income tied to that property. And yet there was, all of it, that there was no business operating concern.

[00:06:29] Speaker 06:
Again, not relevant to cost. All right. Or tell me why it is.

[00:06:34] Speaker 02:
So are you saying, Your Honor, that it's okay for a landlord to just say anything they want on a motion to lift the stay, even inaccurate statements?

[00:06:43] Speaker 06:
No, what I'm saying is it may not matter to the judge's decision, and it didn't here.

[00:06:49] Speaker 02:
The motion to lift the state also falsely indicated that a trial had already occurred.

[00:06:55] Speaker 06:
And did Judge Yoon rely on that?

[00:06:58] Speaker 02:
Excuse me?

[00:06:58] Speaker 06:
Did Judge Yoon rely on that?

[00:07:01] Speaker 06:
Let me help you with the answer. No, he didn't. Okay.

[00:07:04] Speaker 02:
All right. So we can move on. I'm hearing that a landlord can file.

[00:07:09] Speaker 06:
Now, what you're hearing is you haven't told us why there wasn't cause to lift the state, to let something that happens every day in the state court happen there.

[00:07:16] Speaker 02:
Well, how about this?

[00:07:18] Speaker 02:
The motion to lift the stay was factually incorrect. It had many errors in it, and I tried to raise those.

[00:07:30] Speaker 00:
But you're not getting to the cause. Right. What you're hearing is that, yes, you may disagree with that, but what Judge Yoon did, which was that the state court is set up to handle this, it's going both ways, it should go both. Both matters should proceed in state court. That's the material point. Why is that wrong? That's what we're trying to get at, Ms. Brown. Okay. So all the other things that may be wrong may have been false. If it doesn't go to that, we're not hearing why the state court, which traditionally hears these matters, should not have heard these matters.

[00:08:01] Speaker 00:
Because you seem to admit they had to be heard.

[00:08:04] Speaker 02:
But we weren't in a state court. We were in bankruptcy.

[00:08:07] Speaker 00:
You weren't in a state court because you had filed bankruptcy and imposed a stay.

[00:08:11] Speaker 02:
Right.

[00:08:12] Speaker 00:
So the question was, does the stay continue to allow, to stop what was going on?

[00:08:19] Speaker 02:
Made to reorganize, yes.

[00:08:20] Speaker 00:
No, no.

[00:08:22] Speaker 02:
Isn't that what the relief is for?

[00:08:24] Speaker 00:
No. The relief is to allow something to proceed and to terminate the stay. That is the only question before the court on the relief from stay.

[00:08:34] Speaker 02:
All right. Given the time, I don't want to waste your time, so we should probably move on. Sure. Moving on to the second one. Excuse me.

[00:08:49] Speaker 02:
The dismissal itself. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

[00:08:55] Speaker 02:
The case involved did not involve any noncompliance or concealment. The record reflected ongoing payment plans, we completed document production to the trustee.

[00:09:08] Speaker 02:
The deficiencies identified were administrative and easily curable.

[00:09:13] Speaker 02:
And I requested a brief continuance to amend those schedules and address those issues, but the court basically did not let me, even though I explained that with the stay being lifted, I was exposed to immediate unlawful detainer trial and emergency proceedings. I was being harassed by the landlord.

[00:09:39] Speaker 02:
And I had to call the police. I was unstable at that time. My business, my income, everything had been disrupted once the stay was lifted. So on the day before the hearing, The landlord filed this proof of claim stating that there was a written secured lease. When there wasn't, it was an oral employee housing agreement.

[00:10:05] Speaker 06:
Did Judge Yoon rely on that in dismissing your case?

[00:10:09] Speaker 02:
Um...

[00:10:10] Speaker 02:
I don't know, you know, he did not rely, he didn't, there isn't anything in the dismissal. Okay. The court did not find any findings of bad faith, incurability, or inability to propose.

[00:10:23] Speaker 06:
Well, I mean, he didn't have to, to dismiss the case.

[00:10:25] Speaker 02:
He just dismissed it, even though I had an attorney in the room ready to step forward to, you know, help these administrative matters it was just very confusing to have it uh dismissed okay at the very first hearing okay when they were administrative they were curable they were easy i had an attorney ready to step in in the room you don't have to agree with this but the trustee clearly didn't think they were administrative and judge you and might have believed the trustee more than you on that point but you can tell us why that was a mistake okay It's a mistake because they were administrative, and were it not for the claim that we're going to get to next being filed the day before, and without the stay being lifted, I would have easily been able to address the deficiencies that the trustee had brought to my attention.

[00:11:20] Speaker 02:
My application was complete. My payments were all done. There was nothing materially wrong with my case. And so my position is that the court abused its discretion with Section 1307C.

[00:11:36] Speaker 06:
Well, you're into your time now. So if you want to pause now, you can and come back up because I'll have a question for you then. Okay.

[00:11:44] Speaker 02:
All right. Should I just move on to the third one?

[00:11:46] Speaker 06:
Well, up to you if you want. If you want to reserve some time so you hear what the other side says, you can do it right now.

[00:11:53] Speaker 02:
Up to you. Well, I think I'm afraid I'm running out of time. So this third one is very important to me. The proof of claim ruling flowed directly from the prior orders. Right. The stay relief order being lifted. Right.

[00:12:09] Speaker 02:
The landlord filed a proof of claim that alleged the tenancy arose from a written secured lease. Whereas in the unlawful detainer case, it was clearly an oral agreement, not in writing, was not a lease. It was employee housing. So it was just really, I mean, I'm suing them because this is not acceptable to file a make-believe proof of claim.

[00:12:35] Speaker 06:
Can I give you a little bit of perspective on that from a judge's perspective? The point of filing a proof of claim in a bankruptcy is to tell the court and the debtor and other parties what that creditor thinks they're owed, and it establishes their right to get paid if there's going to be a payment from the estate. If the case is dismissed, that's not a relevant concept. That seems to be what Judge Yoon was saying. So tell us why that was a mistake.

[00:13:01] Speaker 05:
Since he dismissed the case.

[00:13:03] Speaker 06:
Since he dismissed the case.

[00:13:05] Speaker 06:
I mean, he wasn't saying you were wrong or right. He was just saying it doesn't matter anymore.

[00:13:09] Speaker 05:
And you still have the right and you still are pursuing your claims against the landlord based upon whether it's the proof of claim or the theories under the proof of claim. You still have those. He hasn't taken that away. He just doesn't say you can do it in the bankruptcy court because there won't be any estate to distribute any money. It doesn't matter.

[00:13:29] Speaker 02:
So I guess at this point, we should give them some time, yeah?

[00:13:33] Speaker 06:
Totally up to you. You want to reserve two minutes or so? You got it. Okay, thank you.

[00:13:36] Speaker 04:
Good morning, Your Honor. It's James Barrett on behalf of the Appellee, Thousand Trails, Inc.

[00:13:45] Speaker 06:
Why don't I begin with something I've never had to ask before? Did you read your appellee's brief?

[00:13:51] Speaker 04:
I did, Your Honor.

[00:13:52] Speaker 06:
And you want to comment on it?

[00:13:54] Speaker 04:
Yes. The references to the stay pending appeal in the appellant's motion, she references that there was an abuse of discretion.

[00:14:06] Speaker 06:
Let me ask you a more fundamental question. To what extent, if any, did the appellee's brief address the issues that we have to decide on this appeal? And if the answer is not at all, I think that might be the right answer.

[00:14:24] Speaker 06:
Your brief was directed to stay issues, correct?

[00:14:27] Speaker 04:
Yes, at the relief from stay.

[00:14:29] Speaker 06:
Well, no, no, your appellate brief was directed to stay issues and nothing else. Now, maybe we didn't read the right brief, but what we had seemed to be addressing stay issues. It didn't address anything else.

[00:14:41] Speaker 04:
Oh, I see.

[00:14:43] Speaker 05:
The stay of the appeal.

[00:14:45] Speaker 06:
I'm sorry. Thank you, Judge Gant. Yes, the stay of the appeal.

[00:14:47] Speaker 04:
The stay of the appeal.

[00:14:50] Speaker 04:
I was a little confused in that because there was references to in the appellant's brief, there was references to an abuse of discretion because her stay pending appeal was denied.

[00:15:03] Speaker 04:
I didn't clarify enough in the brief that those references were a response to that argument.

[00:15:13] Speaker 04:
I didn't separate my argument to where I was arguing abuse of discretion.

[00:15:17] Speaker 06:
What I didn't get out of your brief was why Judge Jung was correct in finding cause to grant relief from stay, or why he was correct in finding that dismissal was appropriate under 1307, or why he was correct in determining that having done those things, there really wasn't any argument about the proof of claim it was moot. I didn't get anything out of your brief about that. Now, if address it any way you want. I mean, the appellant still has a burden here, but I don't think we got a whole lot of help from you, okay?

[00:15:49] Speaker 04:
Absolutely, I understand. I was under the impression that... The only thing being appealed was the stay? Yes, absolutely.

[00:15:58] Speaker 06:
Oh, okay.

[00:16:00] Speaker 04:
I wasn't at the proof of claim hearing or all of it.

[00:16:06] Speaker 06:
Well, did you read the appellant's briefs?

[00:16:09] Speaker 04:
I did read the appellant's briefs, yes.

[00:16:10] Speaker 06:
Okay, including the reply brief?

[00:16:12] Speaker 06:
Yeah. Which commented on the fact that your brief didn't seem to address the issues? Did you read that part?

[00:16:18] Speaker 04:
I did see that, yeah.

[00:16:19] Speaker 06:
Okay, did you do anything to correct that?

[00:16:21] Speaker 04:
I did not submit anything to correct that.

[00:16:24] Speaker 06:
Okay, thanks.

[00:16:26] Speaker 06:
I've taken enough of your time. Go ahead.

[00:16:28] Speaker 04:
Absolutely. I just wanted to note a few points from the court that the respondent is correct that the abuse of discretion is the right standard. Under that standard, the panel reviews to see whether the bankruptcy court reached an improper conclusion outside its permissible discretion.

[00:16:52] Speaker 04:
Here, We're of the position that the relief from stay order should be granted as there was a substantial basis for the bankruptcy court to conclude that there was cause under bankruptcy code section 362 D1. The statute was designed to, not designed, one of the exceptions to the stay from relief is inadequate legal protection and it doesn't, the statute doesn't define what for cause is.

[00:17:23] Speaker 04:
So the court looks to factors such as judicial economy, prejudice, and whether the issues are within the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court. As the court noted, Judge Yoon made the decision based off judicial economy, prejudice, and whether there was an underlying action, the unlawful detainer action. Okay. In conclusion, I just want to say I apologize for the confusion that my response brief may have caused.

[00:17:58] Speaker 06:
Well, you kind of left us on our own, which is a bad thing to do. Absolutely. I understand. I apologize. You didn't move to dismiss the case, right? So to the extent the appellant's appealing that. You don't have a dog in that fight. I take it.

[00:18:11] Speaker 04:
Okay. Yeah. I'm an unlawful detainer. That's what our firm specializes in.

[00:18:16] Speaker 06:
Okay.

[00:18:17] Speaker 04:
Yeah.

[00:18:18] Speaker 05:
Okay. Well, maybe the thing is in the record, if you see something like this occur and you realize at some point maybe it's important to let the court know that you made a mistake, ask for additional opportunity to address the problem and address it. Don't just leave it because then you're going to come in and we're going to be – coming at you like this. Absolutely, I understand. In the future, it would be helpful. If you would acknowledge there's a problem, you didn't realize it initially, you now understand what the problem is, and you ask for assistance from us, an order.

[00:18:54] Speaker 04:
Absolutely. And then I just want to note that we were late in filing our brief due to some sort of admin error, and it's still neglect on my part, but I forgot to correct.

[00:19:07] Speaker 06:
Okay. Well, we'll look forward to seeing you again.

[00:19:11] Speaker 06:
In the future. I'm sorry. I don't mean you could judge. Okay. Okay. I think we're good. Thank you. Thank you. Okay.

[00:19:20] Speaker 06:
Okay.

[00:19:20] Speaker 02:
Thank you for bringing that up. Yeah. Because I did reply. I know you did.

[00:19:26] Speaker 06:
I know you did. Yeah.

[00:19:28] Speaker 02:
And I was surprised as well.

[00:19:30] Speaker 06:
See, we read your briefs.

[00:19:31] Speaker 02:
Excuse me? We read your briefs. Okay, I love that. Thank you so much. You bet. So I'm just going to do a little closing here, and then if you have any final questions.

[00:19:44] Speaker 02:
The bankruptcy court granted the stay relief, in my opinion, without resolving the factual disputes and without making findings required under 362D1, such as cause, adequate protection, feasibility, prejudice—he didn't even see prejudice to the movement—necessity to reorganize, or comparative harm. I didn't see any of that discussed orally nor in the written ruling. So I didn't see it. If you did, maybe you can enlighten me.

[00:20:14] Speaker 02:
And then the dismissal was made without meaningful opportunity to cure conceitedly administrative deficiencies.

[00:20:26] Speaker 02:
I was ready to cure, and I only need a few days, and he wouldn't even continue the case. And then thirdly, the proof of claim objection, which the appellee admitted they did not even respond to in my appeal, this proof of claim objection was treated as moot just because the case was dismissed a few days prior.

[00:20:55] Speaker 02:
It still has a duty, I believe, to adjudicate the underlying legal objections. There was a real problem with that proof of claim.

[00:21:04] Speaker 02:
And, you know, that's why I appealed it to not have it swept under the rug. So for all of these reasons, I respectfully request reversal on all three of the orders and remand.

[00:21:19] Speaker 06:
Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you.

[00:21:22] Speaker 06:
Matters submitted and we'll get you a written decision as soon as we can.

[00:21:25] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:21:26] Speaker 06:
Thank you. Okay.