2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 2-27-2008 

# In Re: Alb e r t F ield s P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-4070

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " In Re: Albe r t F ie ld s " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1513. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1513NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 07- 4070

___________ I N RE: ALBERT J. FIELDS, J R., Appellant

v. JACK BLEIMAN

________________________ A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 06- 5451) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e N oel L . H i l l m an

________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

February13, 2008 B efor e: R E N D E L L , J O R D A N and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: February27, 2008)

___________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

___________ P E R C UR I AM A l ber tJ . Fi el ds , J r . , fi l ed a vol unt arypet i t i on forbankrupt cyunderC hapt er7 of t he B ankrupt cyC ode. T he B ankrupt cyC our tappoi nt ed a trus t ee, w ho s ubs equent l yfi l ed a not i ce of

i nt ent i on t o abandon pr oper t y , namel yt he debt or ’ s r es i dence , r eal pr oper t yat2

105 S. M i l l erA venue i n Penns G r ove, N ew J er s ey , beca us e i tw as of i ncons equent i al val ue t o t he bankrupt cyes t at e ( t he $46, 000 pr oper t yw as encumber ed byl i ens t ot al i ng alm o st $3 7 , 0 0 0 ). N o o b jecti o n s to the n o ti ce w ere fil ed , an d , in d u e c o u rse, on F eb rua ry 16, 2006, t he trus t ee f

i l ed a c er t i fi cat i on of no obj ect i on t o t he aba ndonm entof the pr oper t y . Pur s uantt o t he t erm s of the not i ce, t he aba ndonm entbeca m e ef fec t i ve s oon t her eaf t er , on February20, 2006. T he trus t ee a l s o ent er ed a r epor tof no di s t r i but i on, not i ng t hathe di d notr ece i ve anypr oper t yorpayanym oneyon acc ountof the bankrupt cyes t at e exc eptexemptpr oper t yand thathe had f ound no pr oper t yavai l abl e for d istrib u tio n f

ro m th e e sta te. T h e B a n k ru p tcy C o u rt g ra n ted F ield s a d isc h a rg e p u rsu a n t to 1 1 U .S .C . § 7 2 7 a n d d e c re e d th a t h is e s ta te h a d b e e n f u lly a d m in is te re d . A f e w mo n t h s l a t e r , F i e l d s f i l e d a mo t i o n t o r e o p e n t h e c a s e u n d e r1 1 U. S . C. § 350( b) , compl ai ni ng t hatone of hi s cr edi t or s vi ol at ed the aut om at i c s t aypr ovi s i ons of 1 1 U .S .C . § 3 6 2 (a ). H e re q u e ste d th a t th e B a n k ru p tcy C o u rt v a c a te “ a n ya n d a ll p o stp eti ti o n n o n -ba n k rup tcym att ers b etw ee n the p arit ies [sic] as a re su lto f th e C red it o r’s v iolati o n o f th e A u tom ati c stay . ” F iel d s arg u ed that the c red it o r w h o init iat ed fo rec losu re p ro c e e d in g s o n h is P e n n s G ro v e re sid e n c e o n F e b ru a ry2 7 , 2 0 0 6 , v io late d th e a u to m a tic s ta y . T he B ankrupt cyC our tr eopene d t he ca s e but , aft era hea r i ng, ot herw i s e deni ed F iel d s’s m o ti o n . F iel d s filed a m o ti o n fo r reco n side rati o n , w h ich th e B an k rup tcyC o u rt also d en ied. F iel d s ap p ea led to the D istri ct C o u rt , an d fil ed an em erg en cym o ti o n fo r a3

s t aypendi ng appea l . T he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed Fi el ds ’ s m ot i on fora s t ayand af fi r m ed t he B ankrupt cyC our t ’ s j udgm ent . Fi el ds fi l ed a mot i on forr econs i der at i on, w hi ch the D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed. T aki ng i s s ue w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s det erm i nat i on t hatt he a u to m a tic s ta yw a s n o t v io la te d , F ie ld s a p p e a ls . T h e D istri ct C o u rth ad juri sd ict ion to rev iew the B an k rup tcyC o u rt ’s ord ers p u rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 5 8 (a), an d w e h av e jurisdicti o n to rev iew the D istri ct C o u rt ’s or der s under28 U . S. C . §§ 158( d) & 1291. W e exe r ci s e the s ame st andar d of r evi ew as the D istri ct C o u rt , su b

jecti n g the B an k rup tcyC o u rt ’s l eg al de term ination s to p lena ry r evi ew , r evi ew i ng i t s fac tual fi ndi ngs forcl earerr or , and cons i der i ng i t s exer ci s e of d iscreti o n fo r ab u se th ere o f. S ee In re U n it ed H ea lth ca re S y s. , 3 9 6 F . 3 d 2 4 7 , 2 4 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). In c o m p let e a g ree m en t w ith the D istri ct C o u rt ’s an aly sis of the B an k rup tcyC o u rt ’s d e c isio n s, w e a f

f irm . T o su m m a riz e , the b a n k ru p tcy tru ste e a b a n d o n e d th e p ro p e rty p u r s u a n tt o 1 1 U. S . C. § 5 5 4 ( a s F i e l d s d o e s n o td i s p u t e ) . W h e n t h e a b a n d o n me n tb e c a me eff ect i ve, t he r eal pr oper t yw as no l ongerpr oper t yof the bankrupt cyes t at e. See M or l an v . U n iversa l G u ar. L ife In s. C o . , 2 9 8 F . 3 d 6 0 9 , 6 1 7 (7th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ); C atalan o v . C o m m ’r of I nt ernal R evenue , 279 F. 3d 682, 685 ( 9t h C i r . 2002) . A ccor di ngl y , t he aut om at i c s t ay d id n o t app lyto ac ti o n s af fe cti n g the P en n s G rov e p rop erty . S ee 1 1 U . S . C . § 3 6 2 (c)(1); In re B o land , 2 7 5 B . R . 6 7 5 , 6 7 8 n . 5 (B an k r. D . C o n n . 2 0 0 2 ). T h ere fo re, Fields’s c red it o r, w h o in iti a ted f

o re c lo su re p ro c e e d in g s a f ter th e p ro p e rtyw a s a b a n d o n e d , d id n o t v io late4

th e a u to m a tic s tay. T h e B a n k ru p tcy C o u rt m a d e n o e rro r, so th e D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rly aff i r m ed the B ankrupt cyC our t ’ s deci s i on ( and deni ed Fi el ds ’ s emer gencym ot i on and m o tio n f o r r e c o n s id e ra tio n ). W e w ill a f f ir m th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s o rd e r.