United States Bankruptcy Court

Southern District of Florida

In re: Case No. 19-24331-PDR

Ralph Levi Sanders, Jr. Chapter 13

Debtor

CERTIFICATE OF NOTICE

District/off: 113C-0 User: groomsd Page 1 of 2

Date Rcvd: Jun 21, 2021 Form ID: pdf004 Total Noticed: 1

The following symbols are used throughout this certificate:

Symbol Definition

+ Addresses marked '+' were corrected by inserting the ZIP, adding the last four digits to complete the zip +4, or replacing an incorrect ZIP. USPS

regulations require that automation-compatible mail display the correct ZIP.

Notice by first class mail was sent to the following persons/entities by the Bankruptcy Noticing Center on Jun 23, 2021:

Recip ID Recipient Name and Address

db + Ralph Levi Sanders, Jr., 561 SW 60 Ave., Plantation, FL 33317-3947

TOTAL: 1

Notice by electronic transmission was sent to the following persons/entities by the Bankruptcy Noticing Center.

Electronic transmission includes sending notices via email (Email/text and Email/PDF), and electronic data interchange (EDI). 

NONE

BYPASSED RECIPIENTS 

The following addresses were not sent this bankruptcy notice due to an undeliverable address, *duplicate of an address listed above, *P duplicate of a

preferred address, or ## out of date forwarding orders with USPS.

NONE

NOTICE CERTIFICATION

I, Joseph Speetjens, declare under the penalty of perjury that I have sent the attached document to the above listed entities

in the manner shown, and prepared the Certificate of Notice and that it is true and correct to the best of my information and

belief.

Meeting of Creditor Notices only (Official Form 309): Pursuant to Fed .R. Bank. P.2002(a)(1), a notice containing the

complete Social Security Number (SSN) of the debtor(s) was furnished to all parties listed. This official court copy contains

the redacted SSN as required by the bankruptcy rules and the Judiciary's privacy policies.

Date: Jun 23, 2021 Signature: /s/Joseph Speetjens

CM/ECF NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING

The following persons/entities were sent notice through the court's CM/ECF electronic mail (Email) system on June 21, 2021 at the address(es) listed below:

Name Email Address

Christian A. McCue

on behalf of Mediator Christian McCue christian.mccue@mccuelaw.com 

ecf.mccuelaw@gmail.com;ign@mccuelaw.com;lisa.mccue@mccuelaw.com;patty@mccuelaw.com;mccuecr41107@notify.bestca

se.com

Gavin N Stewart

on behalf of Creditor Specialized Loan Servicing LLC bk@stewartlegalgroup.com 

Matthew Tillma

on behalf of Creditor THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON matthew.tillma@bonialpc.com 

Notices.Bonial@ecf.courtdrive.com

Natalie Zindorf Lea

on behalf of Creditor THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON Natalie.Lea@bonialpc.com Notices.Bonial@ecf.courtdrive.com

Office of the US Trustee

USTPRegion21.MM.ECF@usdoj.gov 

Case 19-24331-PDR Doc 160 Filed 06/23/21 Page 1 of 9
District/off: 113C-0 User: groomsd Page 2 of 2

Date Rcvd: Jun 21, 2021 Form ID: pdf004 Total Noticed: 1

Robin R Weiner

ecf@ch13weiner.com ecf2@ch13weiner.com

TOTAL: 6

Case 19-24331-PDR Doc 160 Filed 06/23/21 Page 2 of 9
Page 1 of 7 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION

In re: 

Case No. 19-24331-PDR 

Ralph Levi Sanders, Jr., 

Chapter 13 

 Debtor. 

 / 

ORDER DENYING DEBTOR’S MOTION (DOC. 136) 

This matter is before the Court on the pro se Debtor’s Motion filed on June 1, 

2021. (Doc. 136, the “Motion”). At hearing on June 1, 2021, the Court heard other 

matters in this case and discussed matters with the Debtor relevant to the contents 

of the Motion. See (Docs. 140–144). Upon review of the Motion, court file, and record, 

the Court finds and concludes as follows: 

Ralph Levi Sanders, Jr. has a long history of filing bankruptcy cases. Since 

2014, he has filed three chapter 13 cases – all three of which were dismissed prior to 

discharge. See In re Sanders, No. 18-12969-JKO, (Doc. 72) (Bankr. S.D. Fla. May 16, 

Peter D. Russin, Judge 

United States Bankruptcy Court

_____________________________________________________________________________

ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on June 17, 2021.

Case 19-24331-PDR Doc 160 Filed 06/23/21 Page 3 of 9
Page 2 of 7 

2019) (dismissed for failure to make plan payments); In re Sanders, No. 17-19141-

RBR, (Doc. 31) (Bankr. S.D. Fla. Nov. 30, 2017) (dismissed following denial of 

confirmation); In re Sanders, No. 14-12147-JKO, (Doc. 77) (Bankr. S.D. Fla. Jan. 30, 

2017) (voluntarily dismissed after the Chapter 13 Trustee filed a motion to dismiss 

the case for failure to make plan payments). 

On October 25, 2019, Sanders filed a chapter 13 petition initiating this case. 

(Doc. 1). In his expedited motion to continue the automatic stay filed the day after 

the Petition Date, Sanders contends that he filed the Petition to save his home (the 

“Property”) and because he has a large pending homeowner’s insurance claim that he 

could use to pay the arrearage on the mortgage on the Property. (Doc. 4). 

Specialized Loan Servicing LLC (“SLS”) acts as the servicing agent for the 

senior secured lienholder on the Property, the Bank of New York Mellon (“BNYM”) 

(collectively, the “Mortgagee”). On March 18, 2020, the Court granted Sanders’ 

motion to refer himself and the Mortgagee to Mortgage Modification Mediation 

(“MMM”). (Docs. 50; 59). 

On May 4, 2020, the Court confirmed Sanders’ Third Amended Chapter 13 

Plan (the “Confirmed Plan”). (Docs. 68; 75). Under the Confirmed Plan, the 

Mortgagee was to receive monthly disbursements of $1,200.01. Further, the 

Confirmed Plan states that if the MMM process fails and no settlement is reached, 

the Debtor must, within 14 days of the entry of the Mediator’s Final Report, amend 

or modify the Confirmed Plan to conform with the Mortgagee’s proof of claim (without 

Case 19-24331-PDR Doc 160 Filed 06/23/21 Page 4 of 9
Page 3 of 7 

limiting Sanders’s rights to pursue the claim) or treat the Mortgagee outside the 

Confirmed Plan. 

On June 19, 2020, over the objection of Sanders, the Court granted his 

counsel’s motion to withdraw. (Docs. 77; 80–82; 85–86). Since then, Sanders has 

been proceeding pro se. Unfortunately, this has resulted in Sanders’ filings and other 

statements made on the record to the Court difficult to understand. Despite these 

challenges, the Court has continued to carefully review and consider each of Sanders’ 

filings and statements made to the Court. 

On January 4, 2021, the Mediator filed a Final Report and indicated no 

agreement was reached. (Doc. 93). According to the Final Report, the MMM 

conference was scheduled for January 13, 2021, but would not be conducted because 

of Sanders’s hostility toward the Mediator made continued interaction “infeasible.” 

Sanders disputes the Mediator’s conclusion in this regard. 

On February 25, 2021, SLS filed a motion to compel Sanders to modify his 

Confirmed Plan by either conforming to the Mortgagee’s proof of claim or treating it 

outside the Confirmed Plan (the “Motion to Compel”). (Doc. 101). The Court set the 

motion for hearing on April 5, 2021. (Doc. 102). However, the Debtor requested that 

the Court continue the hearing and filed a motion to access the DMM – the MMM 

system. (Docs. 104; 106). Based on the Debtor’s assertions, the Court continued the 

hearing on the Motion to Compel to May 3, 2021. (Doc. 105). 

On April 30, 2021, the business day prior to the hearing, Sanders filed an 

objection to the Motion to Compel. (Doc. 114). On the day of the hearing, Sanders 

Case 19-24331-PDR Doc 160 Filed 06/23/21 Page 5 of 9
Page 4 of 7 

filed several other documents, including an emergency motion for sanctions, a 

notification of SEC Whistleblower, and a second objection to the Motion to Compel. 

(Docs. 116–118). At the hearing, the Court walked through the issues presented with 

Sanders, SLS, and the Chapter 13 Trustee. For the reasons stated on the record at 

the May 3, 2021, hearing, the Court granted the motion to compel and gave Sanders 

until June 1, 2021, to file a motion to modify and proposed modified plan. (Doc. 120). 

In addition, the Court continued all other relief to the June 1, 2021, hearing. 

Prior to June 1, 2021, Sanders filed several additional motions. (Docs. 128; 

131). On June 1, 2021, Sanders filed a slew of additional documents. (Docs. 136–

139). Conspicuously absent from Sanders’ documents was a motion to modify plan 

and a modified plan, which were Ordered to be filed with the Court by June 1, 2021. 

What was included, however, was this Motion, which Sanders self-titled as a “Motion 

for Notification of Creditor directly willing to help Debtor, Breach of Mortgage Note 

part of the objection to Mr. Stewart’s motion. I.E. BAP and Overall Plan.” (Doc. 136). 

At the hearing on June 1, 2021, the Court denied five of Sanders’ motions. 

(Docs. 140–144). Though the Motion was not specifically ruled on at the hearing, 

many of the issues encompassed in the Motion were discussed. The Motion contains 

what appears to be 10 paragraphs of requests for relief. 

Paragraph 1 generally lists the actions Sanders has taken to find counsel and 

appears to request Court approval to have an attorney from SLS or BNYM represent 

him in the bankruptcy case. To the extent Sanders requests approval of employment 

of counsel from SLS or BNYM to represent him in the bankruptcy case, a separate 

Case 19-24331-PDR Doc 160 Filed 06/23/21 Page 6 of 9
Page 5 of 7 

motion would need to be filed with all necessary documentation pursuant to the 

Bankruptcy Code and Local Rules. Therefore, the relief requested in paragraph 1 of 

the Motion is denied. 

Paragraph 2 lists several “options” Sanders gives the Court for how he might 

modify his Confirmed Plan in a manner consistent with the Court’s Order granting 

SLS’s Motion to Compel. He suggests that either the Property should be removed 

from the bankruptcy case or the asset should be appraised with “not a fraudulent and 

highly inflated BPO valuation.” The Court’s motion to compel modification in a 

manner consistent with the previous Confirmed Plan specifically allows Sanders to 

reserve his rights to challenge the Mortgagee’s claim, including its valuation of the 

Property. To the extent relief is sought in Paragraph 2 of the Motion, such relief is 

denied. 

Paragraph 3 states that Sanders sent his plan but needs access to the DMM 

for some reason to complete it. These statements seem contradictory. Either way, 

the Debtor has yet to file a modified plan and a motion to modify and the Court has 

previously denied Sanders’ request to access the DMM. (Doc. 140). Therefore, to the 

extent relief is sought in Paragraph 3, the Motion is denied. 

Paragraph 4 discusses potential relief (the specifics of which the Court is 

unable to discern) related to an appeal of some kind to a Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. 

There is no Bankruptcy Appellate Panel in the Eleventh Circuit, and this is not an 

appellate court. Therefore, to the extent Sanders seeks relief under paragraph 4, the 

Motion is denied. 

Case 19-24331-PDR Doc 160 Filed 06/23/21 Page 7 of 9
Page 6 of 7 

Paragraph 5 states as follows: 

Breach of Mortgage Note: Not filing Homeowner Insurance claim 

when the borrower does not. I have informed/email SLS that I 

have not made the claims for Hurrican [sp] ETA. I have made 

offers to let SLS/BNYM take over Homeowner Insurance in the 

past, which at that time was [H]urricane Irma only BNYM & 

Wells Fargo do have resources per mortgage note, page 7 of 

mortgage note last paragraph See exhibits 136.2, 136.3, 136.4, 

136.5[.] 

The Court is unable to determine what relief, if any, Sanders seeks in paragraph 5. 

Therefore, to the extent Sanders seeks relief it paragraph 5, the Motion is denied. 

Paragraph 6 states that someone has breached an agreement, either by acting 

or failing to act, because “we needed a valuation.” The Court, again, is unable to 

determine what relief Sanders seeks in this paragraph. Therefore, to the extent 

paragraph 6 does seek relief, the Motion is denied. 

Paragraph 7 just says “[f]raudulent BPO exhibit to come.” It is unclear what 

relief, if any, is sought by in paragraph. Therefore, any relief sought is denied. 

Paragraph 8 says only that someone “withheld assets, i.e. title exhibit to come.” 

It is unclear what relief, if any, is sought in this paragraph. Therefore, any relief 

sought is denied. 

In paragraphs 9 and 10, Sanders seems to seek discovery. Sanders does not 

need Court approval to conduct discovery, though the Court may determine discovery 

limitations or compel production of discovery if disputes arise. However, no such 

allegation is made and, it does not appear that Sanders has requested any 

appropriate relief for the Court to grant. Therefore, the Court denies any relief sought 

in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Motion. 

Case 19-24331-PDR Doc 160 Filed 06/23/21 Page 8 of 9
Page 7 of 7 

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the Motion (Doc. 136) is DENIED. 

Further, as the Court has previously stated on the record and noted in its 

orders, it strongly suggests that Sanders hire counsel to represent him in this case 

and deal with the issues presented before him or, at the very least, that he take 

advantage of the various resources available to pro se debtors. 

# # # 

Copies To: 

Debtor 

Peter Kelly 

Chapter 13 Trustee 

AUST 

Case 19-24331-PDR Doc 160 Filed 06/23/21 Page 9 of 9