John Stewart Davidson

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
In re
JOHN STEWART DAVIDSON,
Debtor.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 11-30629 SFC
Chapter 13
MEMORANDUM RE LESSOR CLAIRE CARROLL’S
THIRD MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM STAY
On June 16, 2011, this court held a hearing re Lessor Claire
Carroll’s third motion for relief from stay. 	William E. Gilg
appeared for Lessor. 	Debtor appeared in pro per. 	Upon further
consideration of the record, the court determines that the oral
ruling stated at the hearing was in error, and for the reasons
stated below, determines that the motion should be denied.
At a hearing on May 16, 2011, this court issued an oral
decision that Debtor must permit Lessor to inspect the leased
premises. 	Later that day, Lessor delivered to Debtor a written
notice that Lessor wished to inspect the premises on May 18, 2011.
Debtor promptly delivered a letter to Lessor stating that Debtor
MEMORANDUM RE LESSOR CLAIRE CARROLL’S
THIRD MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM STAY 	-1-
Signed and Filed: June 17, 2011
________________________________________
THOMAS E. CARLSON
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
________________________________________
Entered on Docket
June 20, 2011
GLORIA L. FRANKLIN, CLERK
U.S BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case: 11-30629 Doc# 42 Filed: 06/17/11 Entered: 06/20/11 17:54:48 Page 1 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
would not afford Lessor access to the premises until this court
entered a written order. 	Such an order was entered on May 18,
2011. 	Lessor filed this current motion on May 24, 2011. 	There is
no evidence in the record that Lessor made an attempt to schedule
an inspection after the written order was entered and before filing
the current motion.
The May 18th order was in large measure an attempt to preserve
the peace by directing each party to act lawfully and civilly
toward the other. 	It is debatable whether Debtor acted in good
faith in demanding to see the court’s written order before
complying with the clear oral ruling issued on May 16th. 	It is not
debatable that Lessor did not act in a manner consonant with the
letter and spirit of the May 18th order in filing a third motion
for relief from stay without first attempting to schedule a new
date and time for inspection after the written order was entered.
The statements of Lessor’s counsel at prior hearings suggest
that Lessor and her counsel believe Lessor is entitled to relief
from stay to terminate Debtor’s tenancy because she and her husband
find Debtor’s continued presence personally intolerable. 	This
court does not believe that is the standard for determining cause
for relief from stay. 	Rather, this court will refine its prior
order in an attempt to require both compliance with the lease and
civil conduct, and will grant relief from stay if Debtor materially
breaches the terms of that written order without provocation by
Lessor.
I also note that Debtor is far from blameless in this
situation. 	The May 18th order does not permit Debtor to decide
that a scheduled inspection is unreasonable. 	Debtor has breached
MEMORANDUM RE LESSOR CLAIRE CARROLL’S
THIRD MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM STAY 	-2-
Case: 11-30629 Doc# 42 Filed: 06/17/11 Entered: 06/20/11 17:54:48 Page 2 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the spirit of the May 18th order by offering one reason for delay
after another, so that Lessor has not been able to inspect the
premises for more than 30 days after the May 18th order. 	Relief
from stay is denied at this time solely because Lessor “went
nuclear” by filing the present motion prematurely. 	Any continued
legalistic refusal by Debtor to comply with the spirit as well as
the letter of this court’s orders will result in prompt relief from
stay.
The court will issue an amended order specifying in greater
detail the procedures governing Lessor’s inspection of the
premises.
Both parties are advised that the party that will prevail in
this relief from stay dispute is the party that acts most
reasonably, not the party that is the most aggressive.
**END OF MEMORANDUM**
MEMORANDUM RE LESSOR CLAIRE CARROLL’S
THIRD MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM STAY 	-3-
Case: 11-30629 Doc# 42 Filed: 06/17/11 Entered: 06/20/11 17:54:48 Page 3 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Court Service List
John Stewart Davidson
331B N. Delaware Street
San Mateo, CA 94401
Wlliam E. Gilg, Esq.
Law Offices of William E. Gilg
305 San Bruno Avenue West
San Bruno, CA 94066
MEMORANDUM RE LESSOR CLAIRE CARROLL’S
THIRD MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM STAY 	-4-
Case: 11-30629 Doc# 42 Filed: 06/17/11 Entered: 06/20/11 17:54:48 Page 4 of 4