Filed: Apr. 05, 2019
Latest Update: Apr. 05, 2019
Summary: MEMORANDUM REGARDING INTERESTED PARTY TRECINE LANKFORD'S REQUEST TO RESCHEDULE HEARING WILLIAM J. LAFFERTY, III , Bankruptcy Judge . On February 15, Debtor filed a Motion to Approve Document (the "Motion") (doc. 70) in the above captioned case. The Motion sought to re-impose the automatic stay and provide adequate protection payment and plan treatment as to the first lien secured by real property at 2 Peroly Court (the "Property"), held by Creditor U.S. Bank, N.A. On March 6, 2019 Interes
Summary: MEMORANDUM REGARDING INTERESTED PARTY TRECINE LANKFORD'S REQUEST TO RESCHEDULE HEARING WILLIAM J. LAFFERTY, III , Bankruptcy Judge . On February 15, Debtor filed a Motion to Approve Document (the "Motion") (doc. 70) in the above captioned case. The Motion sought to re-impose the automatic stay and provide adequate protection payment and plan treatment as to the first lien secured by real property at 2 Peroly Court (the "Property"), held by Creditor U.S. Bank, N.A. On March 6, 2019 Interest..
More
MEMORANDUM REGARDING INTERESTED PARTY TRECINE LANKFORD'S REQUEST TO RESCHEDULE HEARING
WILLIAM J. LAFFERTY, III, Bankruptcy Judge.
On February 15, Debtor filed a Motion to Approve Document (the "Motion") (doc. 70) in the above captioned case. The Motion sought to re-impose the automatic stay and provide adequate protection payment and plan treatment as to the first lien secured by real property at 2 Peroly Court (the "Property"), held by Creditor U.S. Bank, N.A. On March 6, 2019 Interested Party Trecine Lankford filed an Objection to Motion (the "Objection) (doc. 75). The Objection did not provide any basis for Mr. Lankford's opposition to the Motion, and only requested a hearing on the Motion be held.
On March 20, 2019 a hearing on the Motion and Mr. Lankford's Objection was held. Attorneys for Debtor and Creditor appeared, Mr. Lankford did not appear. The Court was informed by Creditor received an email early that morning that stated Mr. Lankford went to the emergency room the night prior and that Mr. Lankford wanted to reschedule the hearing.
The Court noted that there was no basis for Mr. Lankford's Objection, and that the Court could not conceive of any rational basis for Mr. Lankford to oppose the Motion. The Court granted the Motion, and an Order reflecting such was entered on March 27, 2019 (doc. 86).
On March 29, 2019 Mr. Lankford filed a document that the Court deems as a request to reschedule the hearing on the Motion (the "Request to Reschedule") (doc. 87). The Request to Reschedule again provides zero basis for Mr. Lankford's Objection and merely demands that a hearing be rescheduled.
As stated above, the Court granted Debtor's Motion on March 20, 2019. There was no basis in front of the Court to deny the request at the hearing, and there is no competent basis, nor request, to reconsider the Motion. The Court further notes that it is unclear how the Court's Order re-imposing an automatic stay and providing for lien payments on the Property by Debtor, has any detrimental effect on Mr. Lankford's purported one-third interest in the Property.
Without a competent basis for doing so, the Court will not reconsider its Order, nor set a hearing on the matter.
