Kimberly A. Chandler, VSB# 47897

CHANDLER LAW FIRM

P.O. Box 17586

Richmond, VA 23226

Office: (804) 353-1971

Fax: (804) 723-0954

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

RICHMOND DIVISION

In re:

Kandise Nadine Lucas, Case No. 20-33177-KRH

 Debtor Chapter 13

 

Amanda Simons,

 Movant/Creditor

v.

Kandise Nadine Lucas, and

Carl M. Bates, Trustee,

 Respondents.

___________________________________________

DEBTOR’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM 

STAY

Kandise Nadine Lucas, Debtor in the above-captioned case (“Debtor”), by its 

undersigned counsel, states in response to the Motion for Relief from Automatic Stay 

(“Motion”) to finalize state litigation filed by Amanda Simons (“Simons” or “Movant”) 

as follows:

I. Debtor Admits the Following Allegations Contained in Movants Motion

Debtor admits the allegations contained in paragraphs 1., 2., 3., 4., 5., 6., 8., 9., and 

12.

Case 20-33177-KRH Doc 75 Filed 06/25/21 Entered 06/25/21 16:30:19 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 7
Kimberly A. Chandler, VSB# 47897

CHANDLER LAW FIRM

P.O. Box 17586

Richmond, VA 23226

Office: (804) 353-1971

Fax: (804) 723-0954

II. Debtor Denies the Allegations Contained in Paragraphs 7, 10, 11., 13, 14. 15, 

and16. And Presents the Following Legal Argument Opposing Relief 

From Stay

2. On March 19, 2019, Simons filed a Complaint in Chesterfield County Circuit 

Court seeking damages against Debtor for defamation and intentional infliction of 

emotional distress, along with punitive damages. On February 7, 2020, after a trial on the 

issues of damages alleged in the Complaint, the Chesterfield County Circuit Court 

awarded the following to Simons: Sixty-five thousand dollars ($65,000.00), on the count 

of defamation and forty-five thousand dollars ($45,000.00) for punitive damages. No 

order reflecting this verdict was entered by the Court. Further, on February 18, 2020, 

Simons filed a Motion in Chesterfield County Circuit Court for costs in the amount of 

three thousand, seven hundred thirty-eight dollars and sixty-two cents ($3,738.62). She 

further sought sanctions against Debtor. No final order granting costs and sanctions has 

been entered by Chesterfield Circuit Court.

3. On July 23, 2020, Debtor filed this instant bankruptcy case, thus triggering the 

automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362. Debtor listed the debt allegedly owed to Simons on 

her bankruptcy schedules. On November 9, 2020, Simons filed an adversary proceeding 

(A.P. No. 20-03143) asking that the amount allegedly owed to Simons be determined to 

be non-dischargeable in her bankruptcy case under 11 U.S.C. § 523. 

4. Debtor, in part, denies the allegations contained in paragraphs 7. and 10. and

demands strict proof thereof. The Circuit Court of Chesterfield County may have

“pronounced a verdict against Lucas,” and awarded Simons damages for defamation and 

Case 20-33177-KRH Doc 75 Filed 06/25/21 Entered 06/25/21 16:30:19 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 7
Kimberly A. Chandler, VSB# 47897

CHANDLER LAW FIRM

P.O. Box 17586

Richmond, VA 23226

Office: (804) 353-1971

Fax: (804) 723-0954

punitive damages. However, no order reflecting this verdict has ever been entered by 

Chesterfield Circuit Court. Paragraph 10., alleges that no final order has been entered 

reflecting that court’s verdict and no hearing has taken place to address the issues which 

derive from the state court litigation, i.e. an award of costs. However, the fact that no 

order has been entered by the state court reflecting its verdict is not, in and of itself, a 

valid reason to lift the stay. According to the Court in In re: Alan Murrow Secrest, 

Debtor, Aileen Secrest, Movant v. Alan Murrow Secrest and H. Jason Gold, 

Chapter 7 Trustee, Respondents, Case No. 11-11158-RGM, the Court, quoting In re 

Robbins, 964 F.2d at 345 there are three principal factors to be considered in 

determining whether relief from the automatic stay should be granted. “The first is the 

extent to which state law is applicable. The more that the case disposition is controlled 

by state law, the more the bankruptcy court should defer to the state court, particularly 

where the area of the law is within the special expertise of the state court.” Secrest Page 

7. The second is judicial economy and the efficient administration of the bankruptcy

case and the third is the protection of the bankruptcy estate. Secrest Page 8. 

In Secrest, the Movant was the ex-wife of the Debtor who had filed a motion for 

relief from stay to pursue equitable distribution of property in the divorce pending in state 

court. The Court granted relief consistent with the wife’s needs in the divorce proceeding 

but crafted to protect the bankruptcy estate. The Court agreed that equitable distribution 

is a “category of cases in which state courts have a special expertise for which federal 

courts owe a significant deference.” Secrest Page 8. However, the wife failed to meet 

the factors of judicial economy and protection of the bankruptcy estate and the Court 

Case 20-33177-KRH Doc 75 Filed 06/25/21 Entered 06/25/21 16:30:19 Desc Main

Document Page 3 of 7
Kimberly A. Chandler, VSB# 47897

CHANDLER LAW FIRM

P.O. Box 17586

Richmond, VA 23226

Office: (804) 353-1971

Fax: (804) 723-0954

denied the wife’s motion for relief, stating that the state court could not enter an order for 

equitable distribution that affected the property of the bankruptcy estate. 

The martial home was the main asset in the divorce proceeding. The Court reasoned 

that the bankruptcy trustee could sell the house for market value and said liquidation of 

the asset would simplify the equitable distribution hearing, wife’s interests would be fully 

protected, and the bankruptcy estate would be protected because the house would be 

administered under the supervision of the bankruptcy court. Furthermore. the Court 

determined that the wife could be granted a divorce under the Code of Virginia without 

lifting the stay. 

In the present case, both defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress 

are categories of cases in which state courts have a special expertise. However, judicial 

economy and the efficient administration of the bankruptcy case will not be enhanced by 

the lifting of the stay. If the state court enters an order, such order could preclude any 

defenses that Debtor has against the Movant in the adversary proceeding which was 

brought to determine the dischargability of the judgment amount of state court and thus 

undermine Debtor’s bankruptcy case. Also, the Movant asks the Court to lift the stay for 

the benefit of one creditor, (i.e., the Movant), the result of which would affect the assets 

of the estate, and as a result, the bankruptcy estate would not be protected. 

4. Debtor denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 11. and demands strict proof 

thereof. Movant alleges that the only matters that remain to be determined are her 

motions for costs and claims for sanctions. First, Movant filed an adversary proceeding 

objecting to the discharge of her judgment against Debtor. Whether a debt is 

Case 20-33177-KRH Doc 75 Filed 06/25/21 Entered 06/25/21 16:30:19 Desc Main

Document Page 4 of 7
Kimberly A. Chandler, VSB# 47897

CHANDLER LAW FIRM

P.O. Box 17586

Richmond, VA 23226

Office: (804) 353-1971

Fax: (804) 723-0954

dischargeable or falls under an exception under § 523 is a matter to be determined by the 

Bankruptcy Court. Next, in the ordinary course of a bankruptcy case, punitive damages 

and sanctions are dischargeable and a state court’s determination of amount of such 

damages and sanctions is futile and a waste of the court’s time. Also, the entry of an 

order by the state court will preclude the defenses that Debtor has against the Movant’s 

claims, and the state court could possibly enter an order stating that the defamation and 

intentional infliction of emotional distress caused willful and malicious injury to the 

Movant and, therefore, creating a nondischargeable judgment debt under 11 U.S.C. §523. 

Therefore, the relief that the Movant seeks lacks judicial economy and leaves the 

bankruptcy estate unprotected. 

5. Debtor denies the allegations contained in In Paragraph 13. and demands strict 

proof thereof. Movant alleges that “the entry of the final judgment order on 

compensatory and punitive damages is essentially ministerial.” Debtor denies this 

allegation. As stated above, the entry of such an order would deprive the Debtor of 

defenses that she has against the Movant’s claims and makes a determination affecting 

the property of the bankruptcy estate. Judicial economy is not enhanced by lifting the 

stay and the bankruptcy estate is not protected. 

6. Debtor denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 14. and demands strict proof 

thereof. For the reasons stated above, the stay should not be lifted to allow the 

Chesterfield Circuit Court to enter an order reflecting its verdict. As an alternative, the 

Court could grant relief crafted specifically to allow Cheryl Tuck, Esquire, now retired, to 

Case 20-33177-KRH Doc 75 Filed 06/25/21 Entered 06/25/21 16:30:19 Desc Main

Document Page 5 of 7
Kimberly A. Chandler, VSB# 47897

CHANDLER LAW FIRM

P.O. Box 17586

Richmond, VA 23226

Office: (804) 353-1971

Fax: (804) 723-0954

withdraw from the state court case and substitute other counsel, as such an order does not 

make any determination with respect to the property of the estate. 

7. Debtor denies the allegations in Paragraphs 15. and 16. and demands strict proof 

thereof. For the reasons stated above, lifting the stay will not “facilitate the efficient 

resolution of the Adversary Proceeding.” Movant has failed to establish that judicial 

economy is best served by lifting the stay and that the bankruptcy estate would be 

protected. 

WHEREFORE, respondent, Kandise Nadine Lucas, by Counsel, respectfully

requests that the Court deny the Motion and provide the relief that is just and proper.

Date: June 25, 2021

Kandise Nadine Lucas

By: /s/Kimberly A. Chandler

Kimberly A. Chandler, VSB# 47897

CHANDLER LAW FIRM

P.O. Box 17586

Richmond, VA 23226

Office: (804) 353-1971

Fax: (804) 723-0954

Counsel for Debtor

Proof of Service

The undersigned hereby certifies that on this date the foregoing Answer was served by 

mail or electronically transmitted to: Counsel for Amanda Simons, and the Chapter 13 Trustee 

and other interested parties by the undersigned.

Date: June 25, 2021

/s/Kimberly A. Chandler 

Kimberly A. Chandler, VSB# 47897

Case 20-33177-KRH Doc 75 Filed 06/25/21 Entered 06/25/21 16:30:19 Desc Main

Document Page 6 of 7
Kimberly A. Chandler, VSB# 47897

CHANDLER LAW FIRM

P.O. Box 17586

Richmond, VA 23226

Office: (804) 353-1971

Fax: (804) 723-0954

SERVICE LIST

Todd M. Ritter, Esquire

Daniels, Williams, Tuck & Ritter

P.O. Box 3570

Chester, VA 23831

Counsel for Movant

Carl M. Bates

Chapter 13 Trustee

P.O. Box 1819

Richmond, VA 23218

Kandise Nadine Lucas

514 East Williamsburg Road

Sandston, VA 23150

Case 20-33177-KRH Doc 75 Filed 06/25/21 Entered 06/25/21 16:30:19 Desc Main

Document Page 7 of 7