Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

In re Rogers, 2:10-bk-21060 (2017)

Court: United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. West Virginia Number: inbco20170317863 Visitors: 1
Filed: Mar. 16, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 16, 2017
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER FRANK W. VOLK , Chief Bankruptcy Judge . Pending are Debtors' Philip and Jill Rogers' Motion for Contempt against Selene Finance ("Selene") for Violation of the Automatic Stay [Dckt. No. 93], the Rogers' Motion for Contempt Against Selene for Breach of Court-Ordered Mediated Settlement Agreement [Dckt. No. 94], and Selene's Motion to Dismiss the Adversary Proceeding. [Dckt. No. 111]. Respecting the Rogers' Motion for Contempt Against Selene for Violation of th
More

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Pending are Debtors' Philip and Jill Rogers' Motion for Contempt against Selene Finance ("Selene") for Violation of the Automatic Stay [Dckt. No. 93], the Rogers' Motion for Contempt Against Selene for Breach of Court-Ordered Mediated Settlement Agreement [Dckt. No. 94], and Selene's Motion to Dismiss the Adversary Proceeding. [Dckt. No. 111].

Respecting the Rogers' Motion for Contempt Against Selene for Violation of the Automatic Stay, the Rogers' remedy, if any, is to move for contempt, in violation of the discharge injunction, under 11 U.S.C. § 524, insofar as discharge occurred on February 2, 2011, prior to the material events alleged. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Rogers' Motion for Contempt Against Selene for Violation of the Automatic Stay [Dckt. No. 93] be, and hereby is, restyled as a Petition for Contempt in the main action, which shall be set for evidentiary hearing within two months from the date of entry of this order. It is further ORDERED that Selene's Motion to Dismiss Adversary Proceeding be, and hereby is, GRANTED to this extent and otherwise DENIED as to its residue.

Respecting the Rogers' Motion for Contempt Against Selene for Breach of Court-Ordered Mediated Settlement Agreement, the motion is more properly understood as one seeking to enforce a settlement. The motion, however, contains no dates, no description of the terms allegedly violated, nor any discussion of whether the terms allegedly violated are material in nature. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Rogers' motion to enforce a settlement, mislabeled as a Motion for Contempt Against Selene for Breach of Court-Ordered Mediated Settlement Agreement be, and hereby is, DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to its refiling on or before April 2, 2017, with the missing information included.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer