Court Opinion

ID: 2964756
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:30:34.559089+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:21:08.509809
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 96-2116

                                   JOSE RAUL PEREZ,

                                      Appellant,

                                          v.

                        FAJARDO FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK, ET AL.,

                                      Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                   [Hon. Salvador E. Casellas, U.S. District Judge]

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________
                                Boudin, Circuit Judge.
                                        _____________

                                 ____________________

            Jose Raul Perez on brief pro se.
            _______________
            Viviana  Rodriguez  Ortiz  and Garcia  &  Fernandez  on  brief for
            _________________________      ____________________
        appellees.

                                 ____________________

                                    June 13, 1997
                                 ____________________

                      Per  Curiam.    Debtor-appellant  Jose  Raul  Perez
                      ___________

            appeals  pro  se  from  a  decision  of  the  district  court
                     ___  __

            affirming the  dismissal of  his third Chapter  13 bankruptcy

            case and a related adversary proceeding.  We affirm.

                      Under 11 U.S.C.   109(g)(1), no individual may be a

            "debtor" if he or she has  been a debtor in the preceding 180

            days and the previous case was dismissed for "willful failure

            . .  . to abide by  orders of the court, or  to appear before

            the court in proper prosecution of the case."  Perez's second

            bankruptcy case was dismissed based upon  his failure to file

            a  plan  or  schedules,  failure  to  appear  at  the     341

            creditors' meeting, and failure to  make payments.  The third

            bankruptcy  petition  was  filed   within  180  days  of  the

            dismissal of  the second.   Relying on these  facts, creditor

            Fajardo  Federal  Savings Bank  argued before  the bankruptcy

            court that Perez was ineligible for bankruptcy relief under  

            109(g)(1).   The bankruptcy  judge agreed, finding  a willful

            failure to abide by orders of the court and to prosecute.

                      Perez argues that it was error to dismiss his third

            case pursuant to   109(g)(1) because the bankruptcy court, in

            its order  dismissing the  second case, did  not specifically

            find a "willful"  failure.  He also contends that  he was not

            put on notice that  willfulness would be an issue.   Finally,

                                         -2-

            he argues that  the evidence  does not support  a finding  of

            willfulness.

                      Contrary to Perez's suggestion, no specific finding

            of "willfulness"  was necessary  in the order  dismissing the

            second petition.  A finding of willfulness may be made at the

            time  of a  dismissal.   However, it  can also  be made  in a

            subsequent case  when the  bankruptcy court  is called up  to

            determine  if  the  earlier  dismissal   renders  the  debtor

            ineligible under    109(g) to proceed in the subsequent case.

            See Montgomery v. Ryan  (In re Montgomery), 37 F.3d  413, 415
            ___ __________    ____   ________________

            (8th  Cir. 1994);  In re  Robinson, 198  B.R. 1017,  1023 n.8
                               _______________

            (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1996).  

                      We  think  that  Fajardo Federal's  citation  to   

            109(g)  put Perez  on  notice that  willfulness  would be  an

            issue.    Moreover,  Perez's  opposition  to  the  motion  to

            dismiss--in  which he argued that  "the previous case was not

            dismissed for  willful failure"--makes  it plain that  he was
                           _______

            aware it was a key issue.

                      Finally,  based  on  the  record  before  him,  the

            bankruptcy judge did not  clearly err in finding willfulness.

            There was a pattern  of failure to abide by  court orders, as

            well  as of failure to  prosecute.1  Moreover,  Perez did not
                                              1

                                
            ____________________

               1Perez's  first  bankruptcy  case was  dismissed  after he
               1
            failed to  file a plan  and failed  to show up  at the    341
            creditors' meeting.  The second case was dismissed based upon
            Perez's failure  to  file a  plan  or schedules,  failure  to
            appear at the    341 creditors' meeting, and failure  to make

                                         -3-

            introduce   any   evidence  on   the   point.     Under   the

            circumstances, an  inference  of willfulness  was  justified.

            See, e.g., In re Herrera, 194 B.R. 178, 189 (Bankr. N.D. Ill.
            ___  ____  _____________

            1996)  (inferring  willful  conduct  based on  a  pattern  of

            repeated failures).

                      Since the  dismissal of  the third  bankruptcy case

            was proper  under     109(g)(1), we  need  not  consider  the

            alternative bases given for dismissal.  Perez has waived, for

            failure  to raise the issue  in his brief,  any argument that

            the  dismissal  of the  adversary  proceeding  was in  error.

            Finally,  since it is not material to any decision before us,

            we need  not consider whether  the bankruptcy judge  erred in

            making certain  findings in connection with a  motion to stay

            pending appeal.

                      Affirmed.2
                               2
                      _________

                                
            ____________________

            payments.  In  his third case, Perez filed his  plan late and
            failed to file a statement of affairs or schedules.

               2The motion  of appellee  Juan R. Zalduondo-Viera  to join
               2
            the brief of Fajardo Federal Savings Bank is granted.

                                         -4-