You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Samson v. Western Capital Partners, LLC (In re Blixseth)

Citations: 684 F.3d 865; 67 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 1318; 2012 WL 2354449; 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 12667Docket: No. 11-60042; BAP No. 10-1334

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; June 21, 2012; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The case involves a debtor in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy who failed to file a statement of intention regarding personal property securing a substantial loan, as required under 11 U.S.C. § 521(a)(2). This failure led to the automatic stay's termination under 11 U.S.C. § 362(h), allowing the creditor, Western Capital Partners, LLC, to initiate the sale of the collateral without objection from the bankruptcy trustee. The bankruptcy court affirmed the termination of the stay, noting the debtor's non-compliance with statutory requirements. The trustee's appeal, arguing that the automatic stay should only terminate for scheduled property, was considered timely but ultimately dismissed. The court held that § 362(h) applies broadly to all collateral securing a scheduled debt, regardless of listing in the debtor's schedules, thereby supporting the creditor's actions. The ruling underscores the strict adherence required by debtors to the procedural mandates of the Bankruptcy Code, emphasizing the statutory language over potential equitable concerns. The outcome favored the creditor, reinforcing creditors' rights to relief from the automatic stay when debtors fail to meet statutory obligations.

Legal Issues Addressed

Automatic Stay Termination under 11 U.S.C. § 362(h)

Application: In the case, the automatic stay was terminated because the debtor failed to file a timely statement of intention regarding personal property securing a debt, as required by § 362(h).

Reasoning: The court ruled that § 362(h) provided mandatory relief to Western Capital.

Interpretation of Bankruptcy Code Sections

Application: The combined interpretation of §§ 362(h) and 521(a)(2) results in the lifting of the stay on personal property when no timely statement is filed, irrespective of the property's listing status.

Reasoning: The combined effect of Sections 362(h) and 521(a)(2) is to lift the stay on personal property when no timely statement of intention is filed, even if this outcome may be harsh.

Jurisdiction and Timeliness of Appeal

Application: The trustee's appeal was deemed timely as it was filed within the required period following the relevant court order.

Reasoning: The Trustee's notice of appeal was filed within 14 days of this order, thus making the appeal timely and within jurisdiction.

Scope of Automatic Stay under Bankruptcy Code

Application: The automatic stay coverage extends to all personal property securing a scheduled debt, not limited to assets listed in the bankruptcy schedules.

Reasoning: The analysis begins with the statutory language, which states that § 362(h) terminates the automatic stay for personal property securing a claim if the debtor fails to file a timely statement of intention.

Statement of Intention Requirement under 11 U.S.C. § 521(a)(2)

Application: The debtor did not comply with the requirement to file a statement of intention concerning property pledged as collateral, leading to the termination of the automatic stay.

Reasoning: The debtor must file a statement of intention regarding the retention or surrender of such property and must act on this intention within a specified timeframe.