CASH v. OCWEN SERVICING, LLC, JFM-15-1099. (2016)
Court: District Court, D. Maryland
Number: infdco20160318701
Visitors: 16
Filed: Mar. 11, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 11, 2016
Summary: MEMORANDUM J. FREDERICK MOTZ , District Judge . The sole issue presented on this bankruptcy appeal is whether Bankruptcy Judge Wendelin I. Lipp abused her discretion in denying a motion filed by plaintiff seeking additional time to amend or make additional findings, move for a new trial or amend judgment, and/or note an appeal ("motion for extension"). It is clear that Judge Lipp did not abuse her discretion, and the Bankruptcy Court's order is therefore affirmed. The motion for extension
Summary: MEMORANDUM J. FREDERICK MOTZ , District Judge . The sole issue presented on this bankruptcy appeal is whether Bankruptcy Judge Wendelin I. Lipp abused her discretion in denying a motion filed by plaintiff seeking additional time to amend or make additional findings, move for a new trial or amend judgment, and/or note an appeal ("motion for extension"). It is clear that Judge Lipp did not abuse her discretion, and the Bankruptcy Court's order is therefore affirmed. The motion for extension ..
More
MEMORANDUM
J. FREDERICK MOTZ, District Judge.
The sole issue presented on this bankruptcy appeal is whether Bankruptcy Judge Wendelin I. Lipp abused her discretion in denying a motion filed by plaintiff seeking additional time to amend or make additional findings, move for a new trial or amend judgment, and/or note an appeal ("motion for extension"). It is clear that Judge Lipp did not abuse her discretion, and the Bankruptcy Court's order is therefore affirmed.
The motion for extension filed by appellant related to a finding made by Judge Lipp that although appellee Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC violated the automatic stay order by contacting appellant, Appellant suffered no cognizable damages as a result. As appellant admits, the motion was untimely, having been filed seven days late. Although appellant had been advised to obtain the assistance of legal counsel, she did not do so until she filed the motion for extension. Further, nothing in the motion for extension suggests that Judge Lipp's finding made in the first instance was erroneous.
For these reasons, Judge Lipp's ruling denying the motion for extension will be affirmed.
Source: Leagle
