Court Opinion

ID: 9940960
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-15 18:02:41.211654+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:04.844515
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL
            FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                          ________________________

                             BAP NO. MB 99-083
                          ________________________

                        IN RE: PETER A. FUCCIONE,
                                   Debtor.
                          ________________________

                            PETER A. FUCCIONE,
                                Appellant,

                                        v.

            DOREEN A. SOLOMON, CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE,
         UNITED STATES TRUSTEE, and DANIEL S. BLECK, ESQ.,
                            Appellees.

                          ________________________

               Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court
                       for the District of Massachusetts
                (Hon. Carol J. Kenner, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge)
                         ________________________

                             Before
          GOODMAN, HAINES AND CARLO, U.S. Bankruptcy Judges

                          _________________________

         Leonard A. Frisoli and Frisoli & Associates, on brief for Appellant.

                          _________________________

                               February 24, 2000
                          _________________________
Per Curiam.
     The Debtor, John R. Fuccione, appeals from the July 26, 1999

bankruptcy court order that dismissed his case pursuant to 11

U.S.C. §109(g) and from the August 30, 1999 order that denied the
debtor’s motion to vacate the dismissal.1    For the reasons set

forth below, the July 26, 1999 order is vacated and the matter is

remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether
Fuccione willfully failed to comply with orders of the bankruptcy

court, or otherwise engaged in conduct violative of 11 U.S.C.

§109(g) such that he should be precluded from refiling another

petition for 180 days.

I.   Background.

     The Debtor alleges that he, John Cote, and Steven Hurley are

trustees and beneficiaries of the Genoa Realty Trust.    Each filed
separate bankruptcy cases.2     The cases of Cote and Fuccione were

assigned to Judge Kenner.     Hurley’s case was assigned to Judge

Feeney.   Fuccione filed his Chapter 13 petition on June 14, 1999,
but did not file his Chapter 13 plan, Schedules and Statement of

Financial Affairs.   See Order Dismissing Case, July 26, 1999.

The bankruptcy court ordered Fuccione to file these documents by

June 29, 1999.   Prior to the expiration of the deadline, Fuccione

     1
           Because Fuccione filed a motion to vacate and/or alter
the dismissal order, the dismissal did not become final until
August 30, 1999. Since 180 days have not yet passed, the appeal
is not moot. Carey v. Askenase (In re Carey), 221 B.R. 571, 572
(B.A.P. 1st Cir. 1998).
     2
          John Cote dba Genoa Realty Trust (“Cote”) filed Case
No. 99-15018; Peter Fuccione dba Genoa Realty Trust (“Fuccione”)
filed Case No. 99-15019; and Steven M. Hurley dba Genoa Realty
Trust (“Hurley”) filed Case No. 99-15045.

                                  2
filed a motion to extend the time for filing these documents.

Judge Kenner endorsed the motion on July 1, 1999, extending the

time for filing to July 16, 1999.3    Prior to the expiration of
the extended deadline, Fuccione filed a pleading titled “Motion

for Joint Administration Pursuant to Rule 1015 and Additional

Time to File Plan.”    This pleading was filed with a caption
containing all three case numbers, (App. at 5),    but apparently

was not entered on the docket in the two cases assigned to Judge

Kenner.4    On July 22, 1999, the motion was filed again, with a

separate caption for the Fuccione case.     The July 22, 1999 re-

filed motion was denied without hearing by an endorsed order

entered by Judge Kenner on July 26, 1999.     (App. at 7).

     At the same time the Fuccione motion for joint
administration was being considered without hearing by Judge

Kenner, Judge Feeney had scheduled the Hurley motion for joint

administration for hearing on July 26, 1999, at 2:15 p.m.       (App.
at 8).     Prior to the Hurley hearing, on July 26, 1999, Judge

Kenner denied the Fuccione motion for joint administration and

motion to extend time without notice to any of the parties or

     3
          Specifically, the endorsement states “Allowed in part.
The time is extended to 7/16/99. No further extensions.” July
1, 1999 endorsement. (App. at 4).
     4
          The July 16, 1999 motion was the first one filed, and
had a caption that contained the names and case numbers of the
three cases that were the subject of the motion for joint
administration. Ironically, even though this pleading does not
appear to have been docketed in Fuccione’s case because it
utilized this multiple case caption, the bankruptcy court
utilized the same multiple case caption when it denied Fuccione’s
motion to vacate the dismissal. (App. at 2).

                                  3
opportunity for hearing.   By separate order on the same date,

Judge Kenner dismissed Fuccione’s case pursuant to 11 U.S.C.

§109(g) concluding that Fuccione had “failed to comply with the
Court order to file the Chapter 13 plan.”   See Order Dismissing

Case, July 26, 1999. (App. at 1).

II.   The Appeal.
      The bankruptcy court dismissed Fuccione’s case pursuant to

11 U.S.C. 109(g), which provides, in relevant part:

                Notwithstanding any other provision of
           this section, no individual or family farmer
           may be a debtor under this title who has been
           a debtor in a case pending under this title at
           any time in the preceding 180 days if-

                (1) the case was dismissed by the court
                for willful failure of the debtor to
                abide by orders of the court, or to
                appear before the court in proper
                prosecution of the case; ...

11 U.S.C. §109(g)(1).5

      Fuccione argues that there was no evidence that he willfully

failed to abide by orders of the bankruptcy court.    The complete

text of the bankruptcy court order, including all findings of

fact and conclusions of law, is as follows:

                Debtor filed a chapter 13 petition on
           June 14, 1999, but failed to file his chapter
           13 Plan and Schedules and Statement of
           Affairs. The Court then ordered the Debtor to
           file those documents by June 29, 1999.      By
           motion filed June 25, 1999, the Debtor sought
           an extension of time to comply with the order;

      5
          The bankruptcy court did not specifically reference
section 109(g)(1), but the court’s conclusion that the debtor
failed to comply with court orders implicates only section 11
U.S.C. § 109(g)(1).

                                 4
            the Court endorsed the motion on July 1, 1999
            as follows: “Allowed in part - the time is
            extended to July 16, 1999 at 4 PM. No further
            extensions.”
                 The Debtor filed the Schedules and
            Statement on July 16, 1999, but no Chapter 13
            Plan. To date, the Debtor has failed to file
            his Chapter 13 Plan.
                 On July 22, almost a week after his
            chapter 13 Plan was due, the Debtor filed a
            motion for additional time to file his plan,
            saying he needed more time to ‘sort out
            Debtors (sic) financial affairs.’    Atlantic
            Bank and Trust Company, a large secured
            creditor, opposed that motion.     The Court
            denied that motion because the Debtor failed
            to demonstrate any basis for a further
            extension of time.
                 Based on Debtor’s failure to comply with
            the Court order to file the Chapter 13 Plan,
            this case is hereby DISMISSED pursuant to
            section 109(g).
Order Dismissing Case, July 26, 1999.

       “Willful” is not defined in the statute, but, at a

minimum, that determination should not be made without notice to

the debtor and an opportunity for hearing.    Once the bankruptcy
court concluded that the Debtor appeared to have failed to abide

by the court’s prior orders, Fuccione was entitled to an

opportunity to present evidence to justify the alleged failures.

     There was no notice to Fuccione that dismissal with

prejudice pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §109(g)(1) might be a sanction

for his failure to file a plan by the previously extended

deadline.    It appears that the bankruptcy court relied on the

Debtor’s failure to have filed a plan by the extended deadline of

July 16, 1999.    However, the Debtor’s motion to vacate the

dismissal suggests that the Debtor’s July 16, 1999 Motion for

                                 5
Joint Administration Pursuant to Rule 1015 and Additional Time to

File Plan, (App. at 5), extended the deadline, at least until the

Debtor had notice of the denial of that motion.    The endorsement
denying this motion was entered July 26, 1999, the same day the

bankruptcy court dismissed the Debtor’s case for failure to file

the plan.
       If we assume that the denial of the motion to extend the

deadline triggered the deadline for Fuccione to file his Chapter

13 plan, we cannot imagine how Fuccione could have reasonably

known of the denial of the extension prior to the dismissal of

his case.    If Fuccione didn’t know of the denial of the

extension, he did not know that he had an immediate obligation to

file his plan.    Because the Debtor did not have notice and an
opportunity to be heard, there is no record from which this panel

could affirm the bankruptcy court’s conclusion that the Debtor’s

conduct was a willful violation of a court order.
III.    Conclusion.

       We VACATE only that portion of the July 26, 1999 order that

dismissed Fuccione’s case pursuant to 11 U.S.C.§109(g) and REMAND

the matter to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings

consistent with this decision.

                                 6