Todd L Mack

1 	Attorney’s fees that were intended to be covered include
the attorney’s fees incurred in pursuing a dismissal of the
improper filing as a prelude to seeking annulment of the
automatic stay, in pursuing the motion to annul, and in pursuing
a sale anew of the subject real property (that is, the real
property that was sold in a postpetition execution sale without
knowledge of the bankruptcy case).
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
In re
TODD L. MACK,
Debtor.
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 07-00046
(Chapter 13)
Not for Publication in
West’s Bankruptcy Reporter
SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM DECISION RE MOTION TO ANNUL STAY
In addressing the motion of Bronz-Glow Technologies, Inc.
(“Bronz-Glow”) to annul the automatic stay in the oral ruling of
last week, I fashioned a remedy of requiring the debtor to pay
$20,000.00 to Bronz-Glow by April 2, 2007, or else the automatic
stay would be annulled. 	That $20,000.00 figure represented a
rough estimate of attorney’s fees and costs that were or may
be incurred by reason of the improper filing, 1 the lack of
notice to Bronz-Glow, and the necessity of commencing anew the
execution sale process (including any steps necessary to permit
The decision below is signed as a decision of
the court.
Signed: April 05, 2007.
_____________________________
S. Martin Teel, Jr.
United States Bankruptcy Judge
Case 07-00046 Doc 59 Filed 04/05/07 Entered 04/05/07 11:56:44 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 4

2
the execution sale to go forward). 	Bronz-Glow has filed a
proposed order purporting to reflect the court’s ruling. 	That
proposed order is consistent with the court’s oral ruling except
that it proposes a treatment of the $20,000.00 upon receipt that
the court did not articulate, and the proposed order has
triggered an objection by the debtor to that proposed treatment.
The debtor, however, has not objected to the remaining terms of
the order. 	The court has two observations regarding the
treatment of the $20,000.00.
First, the $20,000.00 should be applied to amounts actually
incurred postpetition with respect to the motion to dismiss, the
motion to annul, and the pursuit of a sale of the real property
at issue anew. 	Bronz-Glow ought not be permitted to pursue a
judgment for such amounts to the extent that the $20,000.00
suffices to pay such amounts.
Second, Bronz-Glow’s fees and expenses incurred in seeking
annulment of the automatic stay and in pursuing anew a sale of
the subject real property may not actually reach $20,000.00. 	To
the extent that Bronz-Glow has not and does not incur $20,000.00
in postpetition collection expenses (including attorney’s fees)
relating to the motion to dismiss, the motion to annul, and
efforts to sell the subject real property anew, the excess above
such postpetition collection expenses should be credited to the
prepetition judgment and interest thereon or refunded to the
Case 07-00046 Doc 59 Filed 04/05/07 Entered 04/05/07 11:56:44 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 4

3
debtor. 	However, so long as the judgment remains unpaid and the
subject real property has not been sold, Bronz-Glow is entitled
to retain the entire $20,000.00 as a reserve against postpetition
collection costs relating to the motion to dismiss, the motion to
annul, and efforts to sell the subject real property anew.
After the debtor filed the opposition to the language of the
proposed order dealing with the treatment of the $20,000.00 once
received, Bronz-Glow filed an affidavit of its president reciting
that the $20,000.00 payment was not timely received. 	The court
clearly announced at last week’s hearing that the stay was to be
annulled if a $20,000.00 payment was not received by Bronz-Glow
by April 2, 2007, and the belated entry of the court’s order
after the deadline of April 2, 2007, is not a basis for revising
that ruling. 	That is to say, the debtor had clear and
unmistakable warning that he was to pay $20,000.00 by April 2,
2007, if the stay was not to be annulled. 	Moreover, the debtor
did not object to the part of the proposed order embodying that
ruling. 	There is no reason to revise the ruling.
In light of the affidavit reciting that the $20,000.00
payment was not timely made, this decision regarding the
treatment that would be accorded the payment will be academic
unless the debtor files a motion to strike the affidavit as
inaccurate. 	The order will be automatically stayed for ten days
after entry pursuant to the terms of F.R. Bankr. P. 4001(a)(3).
Case 07-00046 Doc 59 Filed 04/05/07 Entered 04/05/07 11:56:44 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 4

4	O:\Judge Temp Docs\Mack (Todd) Decision re Mtn to Annul.wpd
Thus, annulment will not take place as of April 2, 2007, but
instead will take place ten days after entry of the order.
However, the order’s requirement of a payment by April 2, 2007,
in order to prevent such annulment from occurring is unaffected
by the ten-day stay.
An order follows.
[Signed and dated above.]
Copies to: Debtor; Debtor’s attorney; Janet M. Nesse.
Case 07-00046 Doc 59 Filed 04/05/07 Entered 04/05/07 11:56:44 Desc Main
Document Page 4 of 4