Tagged Opinion

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

IN RE: 

LORENZO PEREZ, JR., 

 Debtor.

________________________________/

CASE NO. 20-11599-BKC-LMI

Chapter 13

ORDER FINDING THAT ATTORNEY IS 

JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE FOR DAMAGES

This matter came before the Court on March 5, 2021 on this Court’s Order 

Setting Evidentiary Hearing by Video Conference (ECF #60). The Court has 

reviewed the docket in this case, the memoranda filed by Debtor’s counsel, Julio 

Marrero (“Marrero”) (ECF #69) and by the Creditor, C.G.T.J Investments LLC (the

“Creditor”) (ECF #71), and finds that the law firm of Marrero, Chamizo, Marcer 

Law, LP (the “MCM Firm”) should be jointly and severally responsible for the 

Laurel M. Isicoff

Chief United States Bankruptcy Judge

___________________________________________________________________________

ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on April 6, 2021.

Case 20-11599-LMI Doc 72 Filed 04/07/21 Page 1 of 5
CASE NO. 20-11599-BKC-LMI

2

attorney fees and costs incurred by the Creditor in connection with this 

bankruptcy case.

The case was filed by the Debtor, Lorenzo Perez, Jr., on February 6, 2020 

(the “Petition Date”). The Creditor filed a Motion to Dismiss Bankruptcy Case 

with Prejudice, a [sic] Prospective Stay Relief and for Sanctions (ECF #18) (the 

“Motion to Dismiss”), arguing, amongst other reasons, that Creditor was the 

record title owner of property subject of the bankruptcy proceeding – property 

located at LOTS 29 AND 30, BLOCK 182, OF CORAL GABLES RIVIERA 

SECTION PART 6, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, AS RECORDED IN 

PLAT BOOK 20, PAGE 79, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF MIAMI-DADE 

COUNTY, FLORIDA; a/k/a Folio No. 03-4130-002-0840 a/k/a 1551 Delgado 

Avenue, Coral Gables, FL 33146-2414 (the “Property”). The Creditor noted in its 

Motion to Dismiss that the Debtor had filed an appeal to the Florida Third 

District Court of Appeal (the “Third DCA”) of the foreclosure sale by which the 

Creditor obtained title to the Property. By Supplement to the Pending Motion to 

Dismiss Bankruptcy Case and Response to the Debtor’s Emergency Motion to 

Continue (ECF #21) filed a few days later, the Creditor advised the Court that 

the Third DCA had dismissed the appeal due to the Debtor’s failure to file its 

required brief.

On April 30, 20201, the Court entered its Order Granting Motion to 

Dismiss with Prejudice, A [sic] for Prospective Stay Relief and for Sanctions and 

Setting Hearing on Order to Show Cause (ECF #29) (the “Dismissal Order”), 

1 The hearing on the Motion to Dismiss was delayed, at the request of Debtor’s counsel, because

Debtor’s counsel’s law firm was closing to comply with the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention. (Debtor’s Emergency Motion to Continue (ECF #20)). 

Case 20-11599-LMI Doc 72 Filed 04/07/21 Page 2 of 5
CASE NO. 20-11599-BKC-LMI

3

finding the case was filed in bad faith solely to avoid eviction from Property, 

dismissing the case with prejudice for one year, granting two years of “in rem”

stay relief, and reserving jurisdiction to determine whether the Creditor “is 

entitled to attorney fees and other costs pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011.”

The Debtor appealed the Dismissal Order, which appeal was summarily 

dismissed by the District Court by paperless order (ECF #44). The Court set a 

preliminary hearing in September of 2020 on the 9011 sanctions, which the 

Debtor’s counsel requested be continued. The matter went forward solely for the 

purpose of discussing the parameters of the continued evidentiary hearing. That 

evidentiary hearing was then reset first to January of 2021 and then to March of 

2021. Immediately prior to the March 2021 hearing the Debtor decided to 

stipulate to all facts relating to the Creditor’s request for sanctions, including the 

amount of fees and costs requested. See Notice of Stipulation to All of Creditor’s 

Statement of Issues in Support of Record Title Owner/Secured Creditor’s 

Damages Following Dismissal (ECF #66) (the “Notice of Stipulation”). The sole 

issue remaining is whether the MCM Firm should be held jointly and severally 

liable for the sanctions. The parties were directed to brief the issue.

Marrero’s brief argues that the MCM Firm should not be held jointly and 

severally liable, relying on the standards under 28 U.S.C. §1927 that must be 

met to levy sanctions against a litigant or the litigant’s counsel for vexatious 

litigation. However, as the Creditor points out in its response, the Court set a 

hearing on liability under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011, not 28 U.S.C. §1927. Fed. R.

Bankr. P. 9011(b) states in part: 

Case 20-11599-LMI Doc 72 Filed 04/07/21 Page 3 of 5
CASE NO. 20-11599-BKC-LMI

4

(b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court (whether 

by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) a petition, 

pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or 

unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person's 

knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry 

reasonable under the circumstances,

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to 

harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the 

cost of litigation;

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are 

warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the 

extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the 

establishment of new law; 

 (emphasis added). 

Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011(c) states: “If, after notice and a reasonable 

opportunity to respond, the court determines that subdivision (b) has been 

violated, the court may, subject to the conditions stated below, impose an 

appropriate sanction upon the attorneys, law firms, or parties that have violated 

subdivision (b) or are responsible for the violation.” See In re Grigsby, 233 B.R. 

558, 560 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 1999) (sanctioning debtor and debtor’s attorney for 

filing bankruptcy petition in bad faith). 

While it is clear that the Debtor violated Rule 9011(b)(1), it is also clear 

that the MCM Firm violated Rule 9011(b)(2).

2 Because the MCM Firm’s litigation 

tactics, including the filing of the appeal of the Dismissal Order and waiting to 

the last minute to stipulate to facts for a scheduled evidentiary hearing, and the 

Debtor’s non-litigation delays, including refusing access to the property both 

before and after title passed, worked in tandem, both the Debtor and the MCM 

2 Note that Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011(c)(2)(A) states that “monetary sanctions may not be awarded 

against a represented party for a violation of subdivision (b)(2).”

Case 20-11599-LMI Doc 72 Filed 04/07/21 Page 4 of 5
CASE NO. 20-11599-BKC-LMI

5

Firm are responsible for the filing of the bad faith petition and the costs 

associated with the Motion to Dismiss and the subsequent events. 

Therefore, it is ORDERED that the MCM Firm and the Debtor are jointly 

and severally liable for the sanctions requested by the Creditor, the amounts of 

which the Debtor has previously agreed to in the Notice of Stipulation. The total 

sanctions therefore awarded jointly and severally against the Debtor and the 

MCM Firm are $55,525.50 (attorney fees of $16,550.003 and costs and expenses 

of $38,975.504).

# # # 

Copies furnished to:

John Penson, Esq.

Attorney Penson is directed to serve a copy of this Order on interested parties who do not 

receive service by CM/ECF, and file a proof of such service within two (2) business days from 

entry of the Order. 

3 Affidavit of C.G.T.J Investments, LLC’s Attorney’s Fees in Support of Record Title 

Owner/Secured Creditor’s Damages Following Dismissal (ECF #55).

4 Affidavit of Damages in Support of Order Disissmissing [sic] Case and Setting Evidentiary 

Hearing Damage Hearing (ECF #56).

Case 20-11599-LMI Doc 72 Filed 04/07/21 Page 5 of 5