1. 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA 

Alexandria Division 

In re: 

BOBBIE U. VARDAN, 

Debtor. Case No. 17-13848-KHK 

(Chapter 11) 

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. AS 

SERVICING AGENT FOR BANK 

OF AMERICA, N.A., 

Movant Contested Matter 

 

vs.

BOBBIE UPASNA VARDAN, 

 Respondent 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

The matter to be decided by this Court is whether Wells Fargo Bank, NA as Servicing 

Agent for Bank of America, N.A. should be granted in rem relief from the automatic stay with 

respect to real property of the debtor, Bobbie U. Vardan. The request for relief in rem is based 

on the allegation that the debtor and her husband, Sandeep Vardan, have filed successive 

bankruptcies, which have repeatedly delayed and hindered this secured creditor’s efforts to 

foreclose on the property. The debtor alleges the in rem relief the bank is seeking is not justified 

and asks that her husband’s prior cases not be viewed as evidence of a lack of good faith in filing 

this case. An evidentiary hearing to determine the rights of the parties was conducted on 

November 19, 2018. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court took the matter under 

advisement. For the reasons explained below, the Court finds in favor of Wells Fargo and grants 

its request for in rem relief from the automatic stay. 

Case 17-13848-KHK Doc 144 Filed 11/30/18 Entered 11/30/18 16:13:50 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 17
2. 

Parties and Procedural History 

Bobbie Vardan (“Mrs. Vardan”), an attorney who practices before this Court filed a 

voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code on November 13, 2017. 

She and her husband, Dr. Vardan are co-owners of property located at 3409 Meyer Woods Lane, 

Fairfax, VA 22033 (“the Property”). Dr. Sandeep Vardan (“Dr. Vardan”) is a cardiologist and 

the husband of Bobbie Vardan. His father, Dr. Suman Vardan is also a cardiologist (“Dr. Suman 

Vardan”) and both doctors have had bankruptcy cases in this Court.

 Soon after the case was filed, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as servicing agent for Bank of 

America, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”) filed a Motion for in rem Relief from Stay in order to enforce its 

rights to foreclose on the Property. As grounds for relief the creditor alleged that the debtor and 

her husband owed $123,632.07 in arrears on their mortgage loan and that they were abusing the 

bankruptcy process by filing successive cases to avoid foreclosure. Wells Fargo (“WF”) Exh. 16 

(Case No. 17-13848, filed on November 13, 2017) (See also Docket No. 12). 

On March 30, 2018, the U.S. Trustee filed a Motion to Convert or Dismiss Mrs. Vardan’s 

case. Id. at Docket No. 60. (“Motion for Relief from Stay”). One week later, she filed her 

Disclosure Statement and Plan. At the conclusion of the hearing on approval of the Disclosure 

Statement, the Court ruled that the Statement could not be approved because of numerous 

deficiencies. The Court also found that a feasible plan could not be proposed in this case and 

dismissed the bankruptcy sua sponte.

Final hearings on the motions for relief from stay filed in the case were conducted on 

May 23, 2018. The debtor failed to appear at the hearings. Therefore, based on the pleadings and 

arguments of Counsel who appeared on behalf Wells Fargo and Wilmington Savings Fund 

Society, FSB, d/b/a Christiana Trust, not individually but as trustee for Hilldale Trust 

Case 17-13848-KHK Doc 144 Filed 11/30/18 Entered 11/30/18 16:13:50 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 17
3. 

(“Wilmington”), the Court granted in rem relief to both creditors. Thereafter, the debtor filed a 

Motion to Reconsider the Order granting relief; however, after proper notice, the motion was 

dismissed for failure to prosecute the matter. Id. at Docket Nos. 95, 116 and 118 (See “Motion 

to Reconsider”; “Notice of Failure to Prosecute”; See also “Order Dismissing Pleading for 

Failure to Prosecute”). 

Mrs. Vardan never filed a Motion to Stay the Order for relief pending an appeal; 

however, she appealed both Orders granting in rem relief. On November 5, 2018, the District 

Court entered an Order vacating the Orders granting relief, consolidated the matters and 

remanded the case to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings. Subsequent to entry of the 

Order remanding the case, Wilmington withdrew its motion for relief, thus obviating the need for 

further proceedings on that matter. A hearing on the motion filed by Wells Fargo was conducted 

on November 19, 2018. Present at the hearing were Jeffrey L. Tarkenton and Johnie R. Muncy, 

Counsel for Wells Fargo, Timothy J. McGary, Counsel for GREI, LLC and Bobbie Vardan, pro

se.

Findings of Facts 

 The Property at the center of this controversy has been affected by four bankruptcies filed 

by the debtor or members of her family since March 2016. The Court examined the events 

occurring before, during and after each case to determine whether a scheme existed to frustrate 

the efforts of Wells Fargo to enforce its rights against the Property.

First Bankruptcy of Sandeep Vardan 

 Dr. Vardan filed Case No. 16-70362 pro se, requesting relief under Chapter 11 of the 

Bankruptcy Code on March 22, 2016, in the Western District of Virginia, Roanoke Division. WF 

Case 17-13848-KHK Doc 144 Filed 11/30/18 Entered 11/30/18 16:13:50 Desc Main

 Document Page 3 of 17
4. 

Exh. 3 (Case No. 16-70362, filed on March 22, 2016). After the case was filed, Mrs. Vardan filed 

a Notice of Entry of Appearance on behalf of Dr. Vardan, along with his Schedules I and J and a 

declaration regarding the accuracy of the schedules that was not signed by the debtor. Id. at 

Docket Nos. 22-31. 

At the § 341 meeting of creditors conducted by the U.S. Trustee, Dr. Vardan’s 

examination under oath revealed several errors in his statements and schedules. At the end of the 

meeting he was instructed to amend the documents and to file a signed declaration of their 

accuracy under penalty of perjury. Id. at Docket No. 52 (“Motion to Convert Case”). 

On July 22, 2017, the U.S. Trustee filed an Emergency Motion to convert the bankruptcy 

to a case under chapter 7 on the basis that Dr. Vardan had breached his fiduciary duties as a 

Debtor-in-Possession. This occurred after Mrs. Vardan disclosed that the debtor could not 

provide the U.S. Trustee with evidence of closure of his pre-petition bank accounts. He no 

longer had access to the accounts because he had transferred the assets of his sole proprietorship, 

including control of his business bank accounts, to his father, Dr. Suman Vardan. Id. at Docket. 

No. 58. At the conclusion of a hearing conducted on July 28, 2016, the Court found adequate 

cause existed to convert the case to a Chapter 7 for several reasons including: 

1. Failure of the debtor to file amended schedules to add assets worth one million dollars 

owed to the Debtor;

2. Failure to comply with Bankruptcy Rule 4008 which requires the debtor to swear 

under penalty of perjury that his schedules are true and correct; 

3. Gross mismanagement by the debtor causing a substantial and continuing loss to or 

diminution of the estate as evidenced by $132,000 in losses within 4 months; 

4. The debtor’s execution of a transfer of estate assets post-petition without the Court’s 

knowledge or authorization; 

Case 17-13848-KHK Doc 144 Filed 11/30/18 Entered 11/30/18 16:13:50 Desc Main

 Document Page 4 of 17
5. 

5. Failure of the debtor and his Counsel to understand and acknowledge that the assets 

and liabilities of the debtor’s sole proprietorship interest in his company called 

CardioMed PLLC were assets of the bankruptcy estate and; 

6. The debtor’s admission that he could not advance his case without experienced 

bankruptcy Counsel, but that he had no funds to retain Counsel. Transcript of Record 

at 135-137, (Case No. 16-70362).

On September 30, 2016, Bank of America filed a Motion for Relief from Stay with 

respect to the subject Property alleging that no mortgage payments had been made since before 

the bankruptcy had been filed. Id. at Docket No. 86. After the Chapter 7 trustee filed his report 

indicating there were no assets in the case, an Order granting the bank relief from the stay was 

entered on October 28, 2016. Id. at Docket Nos. 93 and 94.

The following month, the U.S. Trustee filed a Complaint to Deny Discharge in the case. 

Id. at Docket No. 106. In his Answer, Dr. Vardan pled as an affirmative defense that the U.S. 

Trustee’s allegations regarding the unauthorized transfer of estate assets was baseless because 

Dr. Suman Vardan had owned an equitable interest in the debtor’s business assets long before the 

bankruptcy petition had been filed. Id. at Docket No. 109. Rather than mounting a defense to 

the Complaint, the debtor moved to waive his discharge and on August 17, 2017, the Court 

entered an Order Approving Waiver of Discharge. Id. at Docket Nos. 122 and 123. The 

adversary proceeding and the bankruptcy case were closed on September 6, 2017. Id. at Docket 

Nos. 128 and 129. 

Second Bankruptcy of Sandeep Vardan

On August 28, 2017, before his prior case was closed, Dr. Vardan filed Case No. 17-

12912 pro se in the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division at 12:08 p.m. WF Exh. 12 

(Case No. 17-12912, filed on August 28, 2017). The filing of this petition caused the cancellation 

Case 17-13848-KHK Doc 144 Filed 11/30/18 Entered 11/30/18 16:13:50 Desc Main

 Document Page 5 of 17
6. 

of a foreclosure sale scheduled later that day at 1:30 pm. WF Exh. 11(“Notice of Foreclosure to 

be held on August 28, 2017”). 

The petition, schedules and statements in the second case differed from those filed in the 

first case. The second set of documents disclosed the debtor’s business interest in CardioMed 

PLLC and the transfer of his interest in that company to Dr. Suman Vardan. WF Exh. 12 at 

Docket No. 1. The Statement of Financial Affairs in the second case indicated that, although the 

transfer to the debtor’s father occurred on December 1, 2011, CardioMed was not registered as a 

PLLC in Dr. Suman Vardan’s name until 2016. Id. 

On September 25, 2017, the Court conducted a hearing on an Order issued to the debtor 

to appear and show cause why his case should not be dismissed with prejudice. At the hearing, 

Dr. Vardan testified that he filed the first case because of an impending foreclosure. WF Exh. 13 

(Transcript of Hearing at 13:5-7, Case No. 17-12912) When asked how his financial condition 

had changed between the time he filed his first case and the case before the Court, he replied that 

the plan to expand the business he transferred to his father was continuing to develop. He 

contended that his father planned to borrow $500,000 to finance the expansion and once the 

expansion was complete, he would become his father’s employee. Tr. at 13-14. Dr. Vardan 

acknowledged that the Schedules I and J filed in this case indicated monthly income of -$3,885 

despite monthly family contributions of $10,000. Tr. at 8:13-15. 

At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court determined that the case was filed in 

subjective bad faith because there was no genuine belief that it could be successful within a 

reasonable period of time. It also found that the case was objectively futile for the following 

reasons: 

Case 17-13848-KHK Doc 144 Filed 11/30/18 Entered 11/30/18 16:13:50 Desc Main

 Document Page 6 of 17
7. 

1. There was no evidence before the Court regarding the ability of family members to 

make the $10,000 monthly contributions to a plan of reorganization on an ongoing 

basis; 

2. The ability of Dr. Vardan and his father to successfully expand their business was 

speculative and could not be relied on to support a plan and; 

3. The debtor was ineligible to discharge debts in this case because he had waived his 

right to discharge the same debts in his prior case. 

The Court dismissed the case with prejudice to filing a bankruptcy case in any 

bankruptcy court in the United States for one year from the entry of the Order. The Order 

dismissing the case was entered on September 28, 2017. WF Exh. 14 (“Order Dismissing Case 

with Prejudice”). 

Bankruptcy of Bobbie Vardan 

On November 13, 2017 at 12:48 pm., Mrs. Vardan filed the instant case. WF Exh. 17 

(Case No. 17-13848). This filing caused the cancellation of a foreclosure sale of the Property 

scheduled that afternoon at 1:00 pm. WF Exh. 15 (“Notice of Foreclosure to be held on 

November 13, 2017”). 

Wells Fargo filed its Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay in the case on November 

17, 2017, alleging the loan was contractually due for the April 2016 monthly payment with 

substantial arrears. WF Exh. 16 (Case No. 17-13848, Docket No. 12)(“Motion for Relief from 

Stay”). The day before the motion was to be heard, Mrs. Vardan filed a Response to the motion 

claiming in rem relief was not justified. Id. at Docket No. 25 (“Debtor’s Response to Motion for 

Relief from Stay”). She filed a Supplemental Response to her Response on January 9, 2018, the 

day before the next hearing on the motion for relief. Id. at Docket No. 40. 

Case 17-13848-KHK Doc 144 Filed 11/30/18 Entered 11/30/18 16:13:50 Desc Main

 Document Page 7 of 17
8. 

The Court gave the debtor an oral deadline to file her Disclosure Statement and Plan 

early on in the case. Thereafter, Mrs. Vardan filed two motions to extend the deadlines on the 

days the documents were due. The notice accompanying the motions to extend requested a new 

deadline of December 31, 2014. The notice was confusing because creditors did not know if 

Mrs. Vardan was requesting that the deadline be extended to the end of 2018, or some other time. 

The issue was resolved when, on March 30, 2018, the U.S. Trustee filed a Notice and Motion to 

Convert Case to Chapter 7 or Dismiss. Id. at Docket Nos. 60 and 67. A few days later, the 

debtor filed her Disclosure Statement and Plan. Id. at Docket Nos. 63 and 64. 

The U.S. Trustee’s overriding objection to the Disclosure Statement was the lack of plan 

feasibility. He relied on In re Quigley Co., 377 B.R. 110, 115 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2007) and 

argued that the plan was “patently unconfirmable” because any plan proposed in the case would 

depend almost entirely on the financial contributions of family members who were not subject to 

the Court’s jurisdiction. Id. at Docket No. 78. In his objection the U.S. Trustee specifically 

argued that the debtor had offered no proof that the family contributions would be forthcoming. 

Id. The U.S. Trustee also objected to the Disclosure Statement on other grounds that included 

failure to: (1) address the first priority rule; (2) state the amount of administrative expenses to be 

paid; and (3) put unsecured creditors on notice of the amount they would be paid and when they 

would receive payment.

 At the hearing on the approval of the Disclosure Statement, the debtor failed to produce 

any evidence of her family’s ability or willingness to contribute to a plan for five years. The 

Monthly Report of Debtor in Possession for the Period March 1, 2018 to March 31, 2018 filed by 

Mrs. Vardan disclosed that the debtor had an overall net income of $604.08 from the inception of 

her case to the end of the reporting period. WF Exh. 16 (“The Monthly Report of Debtor in 

Case 17-13848-KHK Doc 144 Filed 11/30/18 Entered 11/30/18 16:13:50 Desc Main

 Document Page 8 of 17
9. 

Possession for the Period March 1, 2018 to March 31, 2018”). The Court determined that without 

evidence to support feasibility, any plan proposed by the debtor would be highly speculative at 

best. The Court also determined that the debtor was not producing sufficient income to pay for 

the professional assistance she would need to prepare and file tax returns due after the case was 

filed or to pay taxes as they became due. Upon concluding that a feasible plan could not be 

proposed, the Court denied the motion to approve the Disclosure Statement and dismissed the 

case sua sponte. Id. at Docket No. 87. The Order of Dismissal without prejudice was entered on 

May 23, 2018. Id.

Five days after her case was dismissed, Mrs. Vardan and her husband signed a Gift Deed 

conveying a 20% undivided interest in the Property to Dr. Suman Vardan and his wife, Asha 

Vardan. WF Exh. 28 (“Gift Deed from Sandeep Vardan and Bobbie Upasna Vardan to Suman 

Vardan and Asha Vardan, dated May 28, 2018 and recorded on September 10, 2018”). 

Bankruptcy of Suman Vardan 

On September 10, 2018 the following events took place: 

1. At 7:51 am., Mrs. Vardan filed a Chapter 13 petition in bankruptcy in the Eastern District 

of Virginia on behalf of her father-in-law Dr. Suman Vardan; WF Exh. 29 (Case No. 18-

13062).

2. At 8:49 am., the Gift Deed previously signed on May 28, 2018 was recorded in the 

Fairfax County Land Records; WF Exh. 28 (“Gift Deed”). 

3. At 8:56 am., Mrs. Vardan sent a Notice of Bankruptcy Case Filing to Wells Fargo by 

email demanding a halt to the foreclosure of the Property scheduled for that afternoon 

and; Debtor’s Ex. 1 (“Notice”)

4. On or about 1:00 pm, Wells Fargo conducted a foreclosure sale of the Property.1 GREI 

Exh. 1 (“Deed of Foreclosure”). 



1

 In reliance on the in rem Order for relief issued by this Court, Wells Fargo conducted the sale and a Deed of 

Foreclosure was issued to GREI, LLC. Timothy McGary, Counsel for GREI, LLC made an appearance at the 

Case 17-13848-KHK Doc 144 Filed 11/30/18 Entered 11/30/18 16:13:50 Desc Main

 Document Page 9 of 17
10. 

When Dr. Suman Vardan failed to timely file his schedules, statements and a plan, the 

Court set hearings to determine whether or not the case should not be dismissed because of the 

deficiencies and whether or not the case was filed in good faith. WF Exh. 29 (Case No. 18-

13062)( See Docket Nos. 16 and 17). On November 15, 2018, at a hearing conducted on both 

matters, Mrs. Vardan explained that the schedules were never filed because, after the foreclosure 

occurred despite the imposition of the stay, the debtor decided not to continue in bankruptcy 

even though he had other debts. Id. at Docket No. 27 (See also Transcript of Hearing, at 2-4).

Dr. Suman Vardan made a statement on the record confirming that the bankruptcy was filed to 

stop a foreclosure, but since the foreclosure sale had been executed, he wanted to have his case 

dismissed without prejudice. Tr. at 14-15. 

Mrs. Vardan confirmed that she and her husband transferred an interest in the Property to 

the elder Vardans five days after her bankruptcy case was dismissed and that the deed was not 

recorded until the day she filed her father-in-law’s bankruptcy. Tr. at 5:19 -7:1-9. She explained 

that Dr. Suman Vardan and his wife had lived in and maintained the house for many years and 

considered it their home. They had also given their son more than $1,000,000 during that period, 

in part, to help pay the mortgage on this and other properties. Mrs. Vardan contended that the 

Gift Deed simply memorialized the understanding between father and son that Dr. Suman 

Vardan and his wife had an equitable interest in the Property. Tr. at 8:18-10. 

Judge Kenney rejected the idea that Dr. Suman Vardan’s generosity translated into an 

equitable interest in the Property because no evidence was presented to support that contention.

Tr. at 34:19-35:1. He also found that the debtor had been convinced by Dr. and Mrs. Vardan to 



hearing and asked the Court to issue orders regarding the validity of the foreclosure sale. The Court declined to 

address the request as the matter was not properly before the Court. 

Case 17-13848-KHK Doc 144 Filed 11/30/18 Entered 11/30/18 16:13:50 Desc Main

 Document Page 10 of 17
11. 

file a bankruptcy that he did not need for the sole purpose of shielding the Property of his son 

and daughter-in-law from foreclosure. He concluded that the case was not filed in good faith and 

dismissed it without prejudice to Dr. Suman Vardan who, by all accounts, had excellent credit 

prior to his bankruptcy. Tr. at 35. 

Conclusions of Law 

A bankruptcy court “shall” grant relief from the automatic stay “for cause, including the 

lack of adequate protection of an interest in property of such party in interest.” 11 U.S.C. 

§ 362(d)(1). The bankruptcy court “shall” also grant relief from the automatic stay “with respect 

to a stay of an act against real property . . . by a creditor whose claim is secured by an interest in 

such real property, if the Court finds that the filing of the petition was part of a scheme to delay, 

hinder, or defraud creditors that involved . . . multiple bankruptcy filings affecting such real 

property.” 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(4). The Code provides no definition of what constitutes “cause”, 

therefore courts must determine when discretionary relief if appropriate on a case-by-case basis. 

See In re Robbins, 964 F.2d 342, 345 (4th. Cir. 1992) (quoting In re MacDonald, 755 R.2d 715, 

717 (9th. Cir. 1985).

The moving party under section 362(d) has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie 

case; “[o]nce that has been accomplished, however, the ultimate burden of proof rests upon the 

Debtor to show a lack of cause to grant” the motion for relief from stay. Unnamed Citizens A 

Thru E and Certain Minor Children v. White (In re White), 410 B.R. 195, 201 (Bankr. W.D. Va. 

2008). Under § 362(g), the movant “has the burden of proof on the issue of the debtor’s equity in 

property” and the “party opposing such relief has the burden of proof on all other issues.” 11 

U.S.C. § 362(g). 

Case 17-13848-KHK Doc 144 Filed 11/30/18 Entered 11/30/18 16:13:50 Desc Main

 Document Page 11 of 17
12. 

 In the instant case, Wells Fargo does not dispute that the debtor and her husband may 

have equity in the Property. Its grievance is that it lacks adequate protection because it received 

no payments from the Vardans on this debt between the time Dr. Vardan filed his first 

bankruptcy on March 22, 2016 and the day Mrs. Vardan filed her case on November 13, 2017. 

The lack of adequate protection under § 362(d)(4) may be shown where the debtor has a history 

of failing to make payments under a promissory note or bankruptcy plan. “[O]nce a creditor 

establishes a history of failing to make payments, the burden then shifts to the debtor to show 

why automatic relief should not be granted.” In re McCullough, 495 B.R. 692, 695. (W.D.N.C. 

2013). Mrs. Vardan has not refuted the allegation regarding the arrears in the Motion for Relief, 

therefore Wells Fargo has satisfied its initial burden of establishing a lack of adequate protection.

Moreover, in her Supplemental Response to Wells Fargo’s motion, the debtor proffered her 

intention to keep current on the mortgage payments due after her case was filed; however, the 

monthly operating reports she filed indicate only one payment to this creditor was made postpetition.

On close examination, it appears that the Vardan bankruptcies failed because of the 

intentional actions or inactions of Dr. Vardan or Mrs. Vardan, or both. The Fourth Circuit has 

stated: [W]e hold that a bankruptcy court may dismiss such a petition for want of good faith in its 

filing, but only with great caution and upon supportable findings both of the objective futility of 

any possible reorganization and the subjective bad faith of the petitioner in invoking this form of 

bankruptcy protection. Carolin Corp. v. Miller, 886 F.2d 693, 694 (4th Cir.1989). Dr. Vardan 

admitted he filed his first Chapter 11 case to avoid a foreclosure. His reorganization was clearly 

not feasible because of a lack of funding and an inability or unwillingness on the part of the 

debtor to satisfactorily perform his fiduciary duties as a Debtor-in-Possession. His bankruptcy 

Case 17-13848-KHK Doc 144 Filed 11/30/18 Entered 11/30/18 16:13:50 Desc Main

 Document Page 12 of 17
13. 

was converted to a case under Chapter 7 because of the dissipation of estate assets and because 

he executed a transfer of some of those assets without the approval of the Court. When the U.S. 

Trustee made accusations of wrongdoing against the debtor that appeared sufficient to support a 

denial of discharge, Mr. Vardan chose to avoid defending himself against those allegations by 

waiving his discharge. Essentially, when it appeared he might be forced out of bankruptcy, he 

decided to skip the trial and exit the case quickly by waiving his discharge. 

When the next foreclosure loomed, in an effort to avoid the scrutiny of the bankruptcy 

court in the Western District of Virginia where he lived and worked, Dr. Vardan filed a second 

Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the Eastern District of Virginia before the previous case was closed 

and despite his inability to receive a discharge of his debts. Mrs. Vardan argued that she had 

nothing to do with this pro se filing by her husband, but whether or not she filed the case is 

immaterial. She knew about the bankruptcy and she benefited from the stay as long as her 

husband’s cases were pending. Dr. Vardan’s second case was justifiably dismissed with 

prejudice for disobeying an order of the Court.

In response to the next threat of foreclosure, Mrs. Vardan filed a Chapter 11 on her own 

behalf. The case proceeded until it became obvious that she would not or could not produce 

evidence to show how a plan could be funded. The case was dismissed because of the debtor’s 

failure to perform her obligations under the Bankruptcy Code as a Debtor-in-Possession; 

however, she and her husband still received the benefit of the protection provided by the stay for 

several months. 

The debtor’s actions after this case was dismissed resolve any possible doubt about her 

motives, for five days after the dismissal, she and her husband signed a Gift Deed, transferring 

an interest in their Property to Dr. Vardan’s parents. Four months later, on the morning of the 

Case 17-13848-KHK Doc 144 Filed 11/30/18 Entered 11/30/18 16:13:50 Desc Main

 Document Page 13 of 17
14. 

next foreclosure sale, Mrs. Vardan filed a bankruptcy on behalf of her father-in-law; then Dr. 

Vardan recorded the Gift Deed, and moments later, Mrs. Vardan sent notice of these events to 

Wells Fargo. These actions represent the very behavior that §362(d)(4) was enacted to prevent. 

Mrs. Vardan presents several arguments in support of her contention that in rem relief is 

not justified. First, she argues that her husband’s cases should not be held against her. She 

contends that the Court should limit its designation of a serial filer to an individual who has filed 

several cases and has a history of not pursuing those cases. This definition has no basis in the 

law. The Bankruptcy Code does not provide a definition of a “serial filer”. Yet, § 362(d)(4) sets 

out the behavior that describes a serial filer and provides that such behavior will result in 

forfeiture of the protection of the automatic stay. It follows, therefore that, if two individuals 

collude to deprive a mortgage creditor of its right to foreclose on Property by strategically timing 

the filing of one bankruptcy after another, then those individuals should lose the protection of the 

stay.

The Court acknowledges that Dr. and Mrs. Vardan tried to keep their cases open for as 

long as possible; however, the Court is not convinced that the Vardans ever intended to bring the 

debt owed to Wells Fargo current through bankruptcy. It is well established that Debtors rarely 

give direct evidence of fraudulent intent; however, intent can be proven by circumstantial 

evidence or by inferences derived from a debtor’s course of conduct. See generally In re Hunter, 

535 B.R. 203 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2015); In re Hagarty, 400 B.R. 332 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2008); In 

re Friedberg, 516 B.R. 450 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2014); In re Slocombe, 344 B.R. 529 (Bankr. W.D. 

Mic. 2006); In re Libermann, 375 B.R. 450 (Bankr. N. D. Ill. 2007).

In Dr. Vardan’s case, the very act of using his parents’ address to file a petition in this 

District resulted in the appearance of evading the stain of his previous case. Also, he offered no 

Case 17-13848-KHK Doc 144 Filed 11/30/18 Entered 11/30/18 16:13:50 Desc Main

 Document Page 14 of 17
15. 

evidence to support a finding of a change in his financial circumstances between the dismissal of 

his first case and the beginning of the second case. The only value he derived from filing his 

second case was the protection of the stay – in other words, the goal was to hinder and delay 

Wells Fargo’s right to foreclose and he achieved that goal if only for a few days. 

Mrs. Vardan’s bankruptcy might have survived had she proceeded in a manner that was 

consistent with a true desire to rehabilitate her finances. But that was not the case. Instead, she 

repeatedly filed documents and pleadings the day before or on the morning of hearings and she 

requested multiple continuances and extensions and often set goals that were never achieved. 

Moreover, her demeanor was not in keeping with that of an honest debtor. In Court hearings, her 

evasive and unresponsive answers under direct and cross-examination appeared consistent with 

the behavior of someone whose goal was to hinder and delay the process regardless of the 

success or failure of her case.

Second, Mrs. Vardan argues that between the dismissal of her husband’s second 

bankruptcy and the filing of her petition, the couple experienced a change in circumstances that 

justified a third filing. As proof, she proffered that because of their new employment, she could 

afford to fund a Chapter 11 plan at the beginning of 2018; however, the Monthly Reports of 

Debtor in Possession never disclosed this income and she never produced evidence of her new 

employment or her husband’s employment. Nor did she produce evidence of cash on hand, or 

rental income that she claimed would be available to fund her plan.

Next, Mrs. Vardan contends that as a pro se debtor, she was entitled to receive certain 

notices as described in Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th. Cir. 1975). She argues that 

Wells Fargo is not entitled to the relief it seeks because it failed to provide her with the 

“Roseboro” notices regarding her right to file a responsive pleading to the motion for relief and 

Case 17-13848-KHK Doc 144 Filed 11/30/18 Entered 11/30/18 16:13:50 Desc Main

 Document Page 15 of 17
16. 

that her failure to respond to the motion might result in the entry of an order lifting the stay. This 

is simply not the case. The notices referred to are incorporated in Official Form 420A - Notice 

of Motion that creditors must use in accordance with Local Bankruptcy Rule 9013-1(M). In the 

instant case, Wells Fargo used Official Form 420A and the appropriate notices appear on the first 

page of its motion for relief. Therefore, Mrs. Vardan received proper notice of the motion. 

The debtor argues that Wells Fargo also failed to provide accountings she requested; 

however, none of the cases cited in her Supplemental Response to support this argument are 

applicable in this case. WF Exh. 16 (Case No. 17-13848) (See Docket No. 25 p. 5). Moreover, 

the supporting documents attached to the Proof of Claim 4-1 filed by Wells Fargo clearly 

provides a sufficient accounting to the debtor on pages 4 and 5.

The Court dismisses Mrs. Vardan’s contention that Wells Fargo did not provide 

mandatory financial disclosures as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 7007-1 because that Rule 

has been repealed.

Finally, Mrs. Vardan argues that Wells Fargo failed to notify the co-debtor of the motion 

for relief. She contends that the lack of notice to Dr. Vardan overrides the creditor’s right to 

pursue its claim. The Court disagrees. Although co-debtor stay provisions are included in 

Chapters 12 and 13, Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code does not contain a co-debtor stay 

provision and the Court declines to exercise its authority under § 105 of the Code to invoke one 

in this case. 

Based on a review of the bankruptcies filed by the Vardan family, the pleadings filed in 

their cases, statements made by the debtors in hearings, and arguments of Counsel, the Court 

finds that Mrs. Vardan knew that the filing of these cases would result in an undue delay to the 

mortgage creditor. The Court further finds that the filings were made for the specific purpose of 

Case 17-13848-KHK Doc 144 Filed 11/30/18 Entered 11/30/18 16:13:50 Desc Main

 Document Page 16 of 17
17. 

causing such delay. For these reasons, the Court concludes, based on Mrs. Vardan’s history of 

actions to delay the creditor secured by her real Property, that relief under § 362(d)(4) is 

warranted and appropriate. Accordingly, the motion for in rem relief filed by Wells Fargo shall 

be granted. 

 The Court will enter a separate Order consistent with the findings and conclusions 

contained in this Memorandum Opinion. 

Date: _________________ ___________________________ 

 Klinette H. Kindred 

 United States Bankruptcy Judge 

Nov 30 2018 /s/ Klinette Kindred

E.O.D. Nov 30 2018

Case 17-13848-KHK Doc 144 Filed 11/30/18 Entered 11/30/18 16:13:50 Desc Main

 Document Page 17 of 17