Priscilla M. Dame

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
In re
PRISCILLA M. 	DAME,
Debtor.
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 07-00634
(Chapter 7)
Not for Publication in
West’s Bankruptcy Reporter
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE
EMERGENCY MOTION TO ENJOIN DEBTOR FROM VIOLATING
AUTOMATIC STAY, FOR SANCTIONS, AND ALTERNATIVELY TO
MODIFY ORDER MODIFYING THE AUTOMATIC STAY ON ONE DAY’S
NOTICE AND RE MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME PERIOD TO RESPOND
Creditor Mary Durrum has filed an Emergency Motion to Enjoin
the Debtor from Violating the Automatic Stay, For Sanctions and
Alternatively, to Modify Order Modifying the Automatic Stay
(Docket Entry (“DE”) No. 53, filed March 24, 2008)(“Emergency
Motion”). 	Durrum’s motion specifically requests the following
relief: (1) that the debtor be enjoined from prosecuting a motion
for sanctions against Durrum in a landlord-tenant proceeding
pending in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia (“D.C.
Superior Court”) pursuant to the automatic stay; (2) that the
debtor show cause why she should not be sanctioned for willfully
The Memorandum Decision and Order below are hereby
signed. Dated: April 1, 2008.
_____________________________
S. Martin Teel, Jr.
United States Bankruptcy Judge
Case 07-00634 Doc 67 Filed 04/01/08 Entered 04/01/08 09:45:32 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 5

2
violating the automatic stay by pursuing the motion for sanctions
against Durrum in D.C. Superior Court; and finally, (3) that the
court declare that Durrum is not prevented from seeking post-
petition rent. 	Durrum’s Emergency Motion also requests that the
court require the debtor’s response within one day of the filing
of the Emergency Motion.
Durrum also filed a Motion to Shorten Time Period to Respond
to the Emergency Motion (DE No. 57, filed March 24, 2008). 	In
that latter motion, Durrum asks that the debtor be required to
respond on or before March 27, 2008 and that this matter be set
for hearing on March 28, 2008. 	The court denies Durrum’s request
for expedited treatment of the Emergency Motion for the reasons
below.
Durrum and the debtor have a landlord-tenant relationship.
On March 6, 2008, this court lifted the automatic stay to permit
Durrum to evict the debtor from the rental property (DE No. 47,
entered March 6, 2008). 	Durrum’s Emergency Motion is in response
to the debtor filing a motion in D.C. Superior Court for
sanctions against Durrum for purported non-compliance with a pre-
petition settlement agreement reached in the landlord-tenant
proceeding pending there.
Although the debtor appears to be violating the automatic
stay by her motion for sanctions in D.C. Superior Court, because
that action is property of the estate and the attempt of the
Case 07-00634 Doc 67 Filed 04/01/08 Entered 04/01/08 09:45:32 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 5

3
debtor and her attorney to prosecute the motion against Durrum is
an unauthorized attempt to exercise control over the property of
the estate, contempt sanctions may only be issued after the
debtor has had adequate opportunity to prepare a defense to
Durrum’s request for sanctions. 	The debtor cannot reasonably
prepare such a defense in three days. 	The court therefore will
not require the debtor to show cause why sanctions ought not be
imposed against her and her attorney on or before March 27, 2008.
The debtor, however, is not authorized to pursue a claim
against Durrum that is property of the estate on behalf of the
estate in the landlord-tenant proceeding. 	If the debtor and the
debtor’s attorney, Mr. Battino, continue to pursue their motion
in D.C. Superior Court, they risk having contempt sanctions
imposed against them, including attorney’s fees incurred by
Durrum in pursuing the contempt violation in this court.
With respect to Durrum’s request for a declaration from the
court that she is not prevented from seeking post-petition rent
arrearages, the court also denies Durrum’s request for an
expedited response from the debtor and an expedited hearing.
It appears that Durrum may not be entitled to the
declaratory relief she seeks. 	See Miller v. Chateau Communities,
Inc. (In re Miller), 282 F.3d 874, 876-877(6th Cir. 2001).
Case 07-00634 Doc 67 Filed 04/01/08 Entered 04/01/08 09:45:32 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 5

4
According to Miller, any debt owed a landlord on a lease deemed
rejected by the trustee pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 365(d)(1),
including post-petition rent arrearages, is deemed a pre-petition
debt under 11 U.S.C. § 365(g)(1). 	Because section
365(g)(1)treats the trustee’s deemed rejection of the lease as a
breach of the lease arising immediately before the date of the
bankruptcy petition, the landlord becomes an unsecured creditor
with a pre-petition claim that encompasses unpaid rents accruing
post-petition. 	In any event, even before rejection, the lessor’s
right under the lease for future rents was a contingent claim in
existence on the petition date. 	Both the automatic stay and, if
a discharge is entered, the discharge injunction bar efforts to
collect that claim as a personal obligation of the debtor. 	The
in rem right of the lessor to proceed with eviction is not
affected by a discharge injunction, and the automatic stay has
been lifted to permit the lessor to pursue eviction.
It is thus
ORDERED that Durrum’s requests for expedited treatment of
her Emergency Motion (D.E. No. 53) are DENIED.
[Signed and dated above.]
Copies to: Debtor; Debtor’s attorney;
Case 07-00634 Doc 67 Filed 04/01/08 Entered 04/01/08 09:45:32 Desc Main
Document Page 4 of 5

5	O:\Judge Temp Docs\Order re Emergency Motion (Dame).wpd
Andre P. Barber, Esq.
1875 Eye Street, N.W. Suite 500
Washington, DC 20006
Case 07-00634 Doc 67 Filed 04/01/08 Entered 04/01/08 09:45:32 Desc Main
Document Page 5 of 5