Cheryl Yeboah

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
HARTFORD DIVISION
In re:
Cheryl Yeboah,
Debtor.
Chapter 7
Case No. 25-21024 (JJT)
Re: ECF No. 25
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER
DISMISSING CHAPTER 7 CASE WITH TWO-YEAR BAR
Before the Court is its Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 25), in which the Court
ordered the Debtor to “show cause as to why this bankruptcy case should not be
dismissed as a bad faith filing with a bar to refiling for two years[.]” The Debtor and
U.S. Bank1 have both responded to the Order to Show Cause. After reviewing the
filings in this bankruptcy case, multiple state court dockets, and two district court
dockets,2 the Court is convinced that this bankruptcy case was filed in bad faith.
The Court therefore dismisses the bankruptcy case with a two-year bar to refiling.3
The Court begins by noting that the history between this Debtor and U.S.
Bank and its predecessors up to this point is beyond tortured, but is necessary to
examine its course in order to explain the reasoning of this ruling. U.S. Bank
commenced proceedings in the Connecticut Superior Court against the Debtor in
1 In full, U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee Successor in Interest to Bank of America,
National Association, as Trustee, Successor by Merger to LaSalle Bank National Association, as
Trustee for Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors Trust, Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed Certificates,
Series 2006-SD1.
2 The Court takes judicial notice of all dockets referenced in this Memorandum of Decision.
3 The Court has determined that the filings are sufficient and that a live hearing is inappropriate
under the present circumstances. See 11 U.S.C. § 102(1)(A); see also D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 7(a)(3)
(“[T]he Court may, in its discretion, rule on any motion without oral argument.”).
Case 25-21024 Doc 46 Filed 12/03/25 Entered 12/03/25 15:09:14 Page 1 of 7

2
2012 to foreclose on a mortgage it held for 39 Ridge Boulevard, East Granby, CT
(Property). See U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Yeboah, No. HHD-CV-12-6033619-S (Conn.
Super. Ct.). A trial was eventually set for November 29, 2017, but the Debtor was
defaulted for failure to appear at that trial. The matter was plagued by extensive
motion practice, with the Superior Court denying all substantive motions filed by
the Debtor. In a Memorandum of Decision denying one of the Debtor’s motions to
dismiss, the Superior Court determined that U.S. Bank was entitled to enforce a
mortgage on the Property as the owner of a lost note. On June 17, 2019, a judgment
of strict foreclosure entered.4 A flurry of other filings followed, including three
appeals to the Connecticut Appellate Court (all dismissed) and various motions to
vacate the judgment or to dismiss the case (all denied).5
In 2018 (and during the pendency of the foreclosure action), the Debtor and
her spouse filed a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act suit against Bank of America,
N.A. (one of U.S. Bank’s predecessors), Nationstar Mortgage, LLC (a servicer), and
McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce, LLC (U.S. Bank’s counsel in the foreclosure). See
Yeboah v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 18-cv-02020-VAB (D. Conn.). The District Court
dismissed that action in 2019, determining that the Debtor’s spouse did not have
standing6 and that the Debtor had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be
granted. The Court noted in dismissing with prejudice that the Debtor had not
4 The Superior Court found a debt of $536,352.28 against a fair market value of $367,000.
5 On June 13, 2025, the Superior Court entered a filing injunction against the Debtor, prohibiting
her “from filing any further pleadings in this matter without first seeking permission of the court to
do so[.]” After the Debtor proceeded to file documents in violation of that order, the Superior Court
revoked the Debtor’s e-filing privileges.
6 Kwadwo Yeboah was not a signatory to the note and mortgage.
Case 25-21024 Doc 46 Filed 12/03/25 Entered 12/03/25 15:09:14 Page 2 of 7

3
responded to the motions to dismiss and that her legal theories were fundamentally
flawed, rendering any attempt to replead futile. No appeal was taken.
After title vested in U.S. Bank through its foreclosure, it initiated a summary
process action in the Superior Court against the Debtor and her spouse to secure
possession of the Property. See U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Yeboah, No. HFH-CV-24-
6029572-S (Conn. Super. Ct.). Like every other case mentioned, the Debtor and her
spouse filed a blizzard of motions, with all substantive relief sought ultimately
denied. A trial was held on February 19, 2025, with the Debtor and her spouse
present. A judgment of possession was entered by the Superior Court in favor of
U.S. Bank. More motions by the Debtor followed, along with an appeal to the
Connecticut Appellate Court. U.S. Bank moved to dismiss that appeal, which the
Appellate Court granted on July 23, 2025. Two days later, the Superior Court
terminated any remaining appellate stay.7
In 2024, the Debtor and her spouse initiated another case in federal court,
this time against U.S. Bank, the State of Connecticut, numerous Superior Court
judges, and many attorneys. See Yeboah v. U.S. Bank, N.A., No. 24-cv-00351-AWT
(D. Conn.). The original complaint in that matter had no counts, but requested that
the District Court vacate the foreclosure and eviction judgments, making many of
the same arguments that are being pursued here regarding the note and attorney
testimony. The amended complaint, among other things, sought $250 million in
7 Despite the September 30, 2025 bankruptcy filing, the Debtor (along with her spouse) filed a
petition for certification with the Connecticut Supreme Court on October 9, 2025, which was denied
on November 18, 2025.
Case 25-21024 Doc 46 Filed 12/03/25 Entered 12/03/25 15:09:14 Page 3 of 7

4
damages under various theories, including 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The District Court
granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss on January 15, 2025. The motions were
granted against the Debtor’s spouse (again) for lack of standing and against the
Debtor for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (for the state defendants), failure to
state a claim upon which relief could be granted (for the federal claims against the
other defendants), and lack of diversity jurisdiction (for the state law claims against
the other defendants). In dismissing the complaint with prejudice, the District
Court determined that the case was filed in bad faith. No appeal was taken.
This Chapter 7 case was filed in this Court on September 30, 2025, shortly
before a scheduled lockout of the Debtor and her spouse from the Property. The
barebones bankruptcy petition was not accompanied by the various required
schedules, summaries, and statements (ECF No. 1). A deficiency notice issued (ECF
No. 3) requiring that missing documents be filed by various deadlines in October
2025 or else the case would be dismissed. None of those required documents have
ever been filed. After U.S. Bank’s Motion for Relief from Stay (ECF No. 11) was
filed, heard, supplemented (ECF No. 21), and ruled upon by this Court (ECF No.
23)—all without any filing or appearance by the Debtor—the Court issued its Order
to Show Cause on November 12, 2025.
On November 21, 2025, the Debtor filed seven separate documents: (1) a
Motion to Reconsider and Vacate Order Granting Relief from Stay (ECF No. 30);
(2) a Memorandum of Law (ECF No. 31); (3) an Emergency Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction Enjoining Enforcement of State
Case 25-21024 Doc 46 Filed 12/03/25 Entered 12/03/25 15:09:14 Page 4 of 7

5
Court Foreclosure and Summary Process Judgments (ECF No. 32); (4) an
Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction
Enjoining U.S. Bank’s Counsel from Filing Any Further Pleadings or Exhibits (ECF
No. 33); (5) a Motion to Strike All Attorney Pleadings for Improper Admission of
Evidence (ECF No. 34); (6) an Affidavit (ECF No. 35); and (7) a Response to the
Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 36). All of these documents have been examined by
the Court in the context of the Debtor’s prior unsuccessful arguments, which have
been reiterated here.
In all these filings, the Debtor makes clear that she intends to relitigate
issues that have been previously asserted and rejected in multiple other forums.
Chiefly, she continues to assert that U.S. Bank could not foreclose for lack of
standing. That argument has been made and rejected numerous times, and this
Court is not at liberty to disturb the foreclosure judgment. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v.
Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005) (prohibiting federal court review
and rejection of final state court judgments under Rooker–Feldman doctrine).
Because those arguments also underlie the summary process action, the Court must
reject them as well.8
8 Despite the Debtor’s assertion that the Court was wrong to grant stay relief to U.S. Bank for failure
to make adequate protection payments, none of her cited cases lend any support to that contention.
Moreover, two of her cited cases do not appear where she cites them. In re Mad LO LO LLC is not
reported in the Bankruptcy Reporter and In re Thibault appears later in volume 518 of the
Bankruptcy Reporter. Of the three, only In re Mad LO LO LLC addresses 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1),
noting, contra the Debtor, that “[t]he failure to pay post-petition rent may also serve as grounds for
lifting the automatic stay.” 2009 WL 2902567, at *4 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. May 28, 2009). Note also that
In re Mad LO LO is not a 2021 case from the District of Connecticut, as the Debtor cites. Irrespective
of whatever led the Debtor to these false citations, the evictions have no bearing on this bankruptcy
case, and U.S. Bank demonstrated sufficient cause to continue the eviction. See Lamarche v. Miles,
416 B.R. 53, 58 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) (“‘cause’ can arise when a tenant fails to make post-petition
Case 25-21024 Doc 46 Filed 12/03/25 Entered 12/03/25 15:09:14 Page 5 of 7

6
The Debtor’s filings also make several false or contradictory statements.9 For
example, in her Memorandum of Law (ECF No. 31), she states: “All filing
deficiencies have been cured. Debtor has fully cooperated with the Trustee and
intends to surrender the Property in an orderly fashion.” A review of the docket,
however, shows that the filings deficiencies have not been cured.10 The docket also
reflects that the Debtor has twice failed to attend the required § 341 meeting of
creditors.11 The Debtor’s response to the Order to Show Cause, on the other hand,
states that the Debtor “intends in good faith to [r]etain control of the Property[.]”
“The principal purpose of the Bankruptcy Code is to grant a fresh start to the
honest but unfortunate debtor.” Marrama v. Citizens Bank of Mass., 549 U.S. 365,
367 (2007). “It is well settled . . . that the filing of a bankruptcy petition on the eve
of . . . an eviction does not, by itself, establish a bad faith filing[.]” In re Syndicom
Corp., 268 B.R. 26, 47 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2001).12 Instead, a court must examine the
totality of the circumstances in making such a determination. Id.
payments or to otherwise meet his rental obligations”); In re Touloumis, 170 B.R. 825, 828 (Bankr.
S.D.N.Y. 1994) (“In a Chapter 7 case such as this, the landlord's desire to continue a pre-petition
eviction proceeding usually has no discernable impact on the bankruptcy case.”).
9 With regards to the automatic stay, the Debtor filed an Initial Statement About an Eviction
Judgment Against You with the petition (ECF No. 1). In that statement, the Debtor certified under
penalty of perjury that “[u]nder the state or other nonbankruptcy law that applies to the judgment
for possession (eviction judgment), I have the right to stay in my residence by paying my landlord the
entire delinquent amount.” That form (Form 101A) applies to debtors who rent their residence and
provides strict guidelines under 11 U.S.C. § 362(l) that require payment in order to maintain the
automatic stay. The Debtor, however, is not a renter and, based upon the eviction judgment, has no
right to stay at the Property. The Debtor’s statement is thus misleading, at best, or false, at worst.
10 The Court had not previously dismissed this case due to filing deficiencies (or failure to pay the
remainder of the filing fee) because it wanted to hear U.S. Bank’s Motion for Relief from Stay first,
but it notes that these filings (and fees) are long overdue.
11 The Chapter 7 Trustee has also moved to dismiss this case (ECF No. 43) due to the failure to
attend the § 341 meeting and the failure to provide required documents.
12 The Debtor cites In re Glenn for this proposition, but the citation given is to a separate case, In re
White. Given the numerous false citations in her filings, the Court cannot help but wonder how the
Debtor conjured such citations.
Case 25-21024 Doc 46 Filed 12/03/25 Entered 12/03/25 15:09:14 Page 6 of 7

7
Based upon the totality of the circumstances described above, the Court finds
that the Debtor is not using this forum for any legitimate bankruptcy purpose, such
as reorganization, but to relitigate matters that have been decided by numerous
other courts. Indeed, at least one other court has found that the Debtor has been
proceeding in bad faith. This Court will not become a haven for the Debtor to rehash
her grievances, all of which have been rejected by many other judges. The Debtor’s
numerous falsehoods and frivolous or duplicative filings demonstrate that she has
no intention of playing by the rules or accepting final judgments as final. Her
calculated conduct is dilatory and offensive to judicial process. Therefore, the Court
confirms its finding of bad faith and dismisses this case with prejudice. See In re
Casse, 219 B.R. 657, 662 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 1998); see also 11 U.S.C. §§ 105(a) and
349(a).
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED: This Chapter 7 case is dismissed for cause; and it is further
ORDERED: The Debtor is barred from refiling for any bankruptcy protection
in any district for a period of 2 years from the date hereof; and it is further
ORDERED: All other pending motions are denied as moot and any pending
objections by the Debtor are overruled as lacking in substantive merit.
Date: December 3, 2025
Hartford, Connecticut
Case 25-21024 Doc 46 Filed 12/03/25 Entered 12/03/25 15:09:14 Page 7 of 7