I have been wanting to do this for awhile – writing short briefs on the latest SC bankruptcy courts’ decisions in so I can stay current on the Court’s trends.
This allows me and my clients to have a quick and efficient way to review our Bankruptcy Court’s latest Court Orders. Below is a review of our latest Bankruptcy decisions in South Carolina.
If any of these cases are of interest to you, please go to the SC Bankruptcy Court’s website to review the complete case. My anaylsis below is just a short brief and not meant to provide a complete and thorough holding of the case.
1. In re Dominic Joseph Badalamenti (C/A No. 25-00102-EG)
Synopsis:
Debtor filed for Chapter 13 protection amidst a prolonged family court divorce proceeding. His estranged spouse, Ms. Badalamenti, moved for relief from the automatic stay to resume equitable division proceedings in family court. The court granted conditional relief from the stay, deferring to the family court’s expertise in domestic matters and emphasizing judicial economy.
Key Holdings:
- Relief from stay is granted to allow state court to continue equitable division and related domestic proceedings.
- The bankruptcy court retains jurisdiction to oversee asset liquidation and protect the estate.
- Court highlighted the Family Court’s ability to evaluate marital assets fairly, including adjusting valuation dates.
Brief:
The Bankruptcy Court granted conditional relief from the automatic stay in favor of Ms. Badalamenti to proceed with pending family court litigation. The court recognized that domestic relations, particularly equitable distribution, are best handled by state family courts. The debtor’s attempt to retain jurisdiction in bankruptcy court for valuation and division of marital assets was denied, as state court expertise, judicial economy, and deference under § 362(d)(1) warranted lifting the stay.
2. In re William & Makaela Bishop (C/A No. 24-04005-HB)
Synopsis:
Debtors filed Chapter 13 shortly after the creditor, Sharonview Federal Credit Union, repossessed their vehicle. The creditor refused to return the vehicle despite debtor compliance with documentation and plan proposals. The Court denied the creditor’s motion for relief from stay.
Key Holdings:
- Debtors met all reasonable demands for adequate protection.
- Creditor failed to show lack of adequate protection or urgency.
- Mere possession post-repossession doesn’t constitute cause for stay relief under § 362(d).
Brief:
The Bankruptcy Court denied Sharonview FCU’s motion for relief from the automatic stay. The Court found the debtors had provided adequate protection, filed required documentation, and proposed a confirmable plan. The creditor’s continued possession of the vehicle, despite debtor compliance, was not justified under § 362(d). The court noted the creditor failed to prove the vehicle’s value was declining or that its interests weren’t adequately protected.
3. In re James Eugene Turner, Sr. (C/A No. 24-00811-HB)
Synopsis:
Debtor proposed a Chapter 13 plan intending to delay payments to a mortgage creditor while pursuing loss mitigation. The creditor objected, arguing improper treatment of its claims. The Court denied confirmation.
Key Holdings:
- Plan did not provide for timely payments or adequate protection under § 1325(a).
- Debtor’s strategy to delay payment pending modification efforts was insufficient.
- The proposal failed both statutory and practical confirmation requirements.
Brief:
Confirmation was denied for Debtor Turner’s Chapter 13 plan due to improper treatment of secured claims. The plan proposed no immediate payments to the mortgage creditor and delayed action pending loan modification efforts. The Court held that the plan failed to meet the requirements of 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(5), particularly as it offered no adequate protection or current value distribution. Debtor’s reliance on future negotiations without concrete progress was deemed speculative and insufficient for confirmation.
4. In re Jeffery and Crystal Williams (C/A No. 24-03939-HB)
Synopsis:
Debtors sought to prevent eviction from a mobile home park, where they lease a lot but own the home. After prior bankruptcy dismissals and rental defaults, the debtors filed again and proposed curing the arrearage through a new plan. The creditor moved for relief from stay, which was denied.
Key Holdings:
- Debtors’ modified plan proposed curing arrearages within 24 months.
- Creditor refused post-petition payments and did not object to the plan.
- Court found cause for relief under § 362(d) was not sufficiently established.
Brief:
The Court denied Sun Communities’ motion for relief from stay, finding that the debtors’ proposed plan cured arrears within a reasonable time and provided adequate protection. The creditor’s refusal to accept post-petition payments and lack of a timely plan objection undercut its motion. The Court emphasized that eviction under these facts would not serve reorganization efforts and that the debtors showed financial capacity to perform under their proposed plan.