Leonard H. Edwards

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
In re
LEONARD H. EDWARDS,
Debtor.
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 07-00241
(Chapter 13)
Not for Publication in
West’s Bankruptcy Reporter
MEMORANDUM DECISION RE MOTION TO FIND
CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE IN CONTEMPT OF AUTOMATIC STAY
The debtor has filed a document captioned “Praecipe” (D.E.
No. 24, filed May 15, 2007) in which he requests that his
“‘automatic stay’ rights;” i.e., the rights provided to debtors
under 11 U.S.C. § 362, “be enforced” against the chapter 13
trustee, who has collected amounts owed pursuant to the debtor’s
chapter 13 plan directly from the debtor’s payroll. 	The debtor’s
request, which the court construes as a motion to find the
chapter 13 trustee in contempt of the automatic stay, is
defective because there is no automatic stay in effect in this
case. 	Pursuant to § 362(c)(4), a debtor who has had two or more
cases pending before the court within the prior year that were
dismissed (other than cases re-filed under § 707(b)) receives no
The decision below is signed as a decision of
the court.
Signed: May 30, 2007.
_____________________________
S. Martin Teel, Jr.
United States Bankruptcy Judge
Case 07-00241 Doc 30 Filed 05/30/07 Entered 05/30/07 12:53:35 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 3

2
automatic stay upon the filing of a subsequent case. 	Instead,
§ 362(c)(4) provides that a party in interest to the case must
request that a stay be effectuated, which the court may grant
only “if the party in interest demonstrates that the filing of
the later case is in good faith as to the creditors to be
stayed.” 	11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(4)(B). 	The debtor’s
“demonstrat[ion]” must be by “clear and convincing evidence” to
rebut the statutory presumption that the filing is made in bad
faith. 	Id. at § 362(c)(4)(D)(i).
The court has dismissed two prior cases filed by the debtor
within the past year. 	In re Edwards, Case No. 06-00205, slip
order (Bankr. D.D.C. Aug. 8, 2006); In re Edwards, Case No. 07-
00108, slip order (Bankr. D.D.C. March 20, 2007). 	Consequently,
there is no automatic stay in place by operation of § 362, nor
has the debtor provided any basis (evidentiary or otherwise) for
effectuating a stay pursuant to § 362(c)(4)(B). 	The debtor’s
motion is therefore invalid with respect to the chapter 13
trustee.
Finally, the court notes that even if the stay were in
effect, the motion would still be denied on its face because the
debtor has submitted a plan of repayment (D.E. No. 10, filed May
11, 2007) in which he explicitly “authorizes and directs [his]
employer/income source to comply with all [of the chapter 13]
[t]rustee’s [d]irections by deducting and forwarding plan
Case 07-00241 Doc 30 Filed 05/30/07 Entered 05/30/07 12:53:35 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 3

3	O:\Laura\ORDERS\memorandum decision_deny motion no stay in effect_EdwardsV2.wpd
payments directly out of the debtor’s income source.” 	In short,
the debtor’s motion is completely devoid of merit and can be
denied without need for a hearing.
An order follows.
[Signed and dated above.]
Copies to: Debtor; chapter 13 trustee.
Case 07-00241 Doc 30 Filed 05/30/07 Entered 05/30/07 12:53:35 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 3