James Adeyemi

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
at Greenbelt
IN RE: 	:
:
JAMES ADEYEMI 	: 	Case No. 04-13729PM
: 	Chapter 13
Debtor 	:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - :
JAMES ADEYEMI 	:
Movant 	:
vs. 	:
TREETOP CONDOMINIUM ASSN. 	:
Respondent 	:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - :
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
This case is again before the court in the ongoing dispute between the Debtor and the
condominium association for his property. Debtor’s motion seeks damages against Treetop
Condominium Association (“the Association”) on account of its willful violation of the
automatic stay. It is true that the Association filed a Motion for relief from stay the court ruled
upon at a hearing held on June 27, 2005, that the relief would be granted. However, in the
absence of the presentation of an order implementing the court’s ruling within 60 days, the
Motion was dismissed for want of prosecution by an Order entered October 24, 2005. Thus, any
action taken by the Association to collect condominium fees was in violation of the automatic
stay and subjects the Association to damages. Future disputes may be rendered moot by a
forthcoming foreclosure filed by the holder of the senior secured position on Debtor’s
condominium unit, CitiMortgage, Inc.
There is no question that the Debtor has failed to pay the expenses incurred for
Date signed December 15, 2005
Entered: December 16, 2005 Case 04-13729 Doc 148 Filed 12/16/05 Page 1 of 3

condominium assessments make pursuant to Md. Real Prop. Code Ann. 11-110 (2003). The
Debtor unjustifiably refused to pay these assessments, contending that the assessments made
upon him and his neighbors are unequal. Such condominium assessments are generally
governed by the area of the individual condominium unit so that the owner of a unit with one
bedroom may pay a smaller assessment than the owner of a three-bedroom unit or a larger one-
bedroom unit. In any event, Treetop Condominium Association is the holder of an unsecured
non-priority claim in the sum of $13,994.00. In addition, for the reason described above, Mr.
Adeyemi has failed to pay any condominium assessments since the date of the filing of this case.
The Debtor’s motion for damages for willful violation of the automatic stay was
unopposed. Because of the Debtor’s inability to speak, the court received his sworn allegation as
to the truth of the Complaint filed October 14, 2005. In addition, the court received in evidence
photographs of the fence installed to deprive Debtor of access to his priority, the towing bills
incurred, including a towing bill for parking on a neighbor’s parking space with permission of
that neighbor. There is no question that this violation of the stay has been willful and done with
the intent to injure the Debtor and cause him further discomfort, all in an effort to cause him to
leave the premises. All of this action has been done in the name of the Board of Directors of the
Association.
The automatic stay is a cornerstone of the debtor protections provided by the bankruptcy
laws. In re Avis, 178 F.3d 718, 721 (CA4 1999) (citing Midlantic Nat’l Bank v. New Jersey
Dep’t of Environmental Protection, 474 U.S. 494, 503, 106 S.Ct. 755 (1986)). “‘It gives the
debtor a breathing spell from its creditors. It stops all collection efforts, all harassment, and all
foreclosure actions. It permits the debtor to attempt a repayment or reorganization plan, or
simply to be relieved of the financial pressures that drove him into bankruptcy.’” Williford v.
Armstrong World Indus., 715 F.2d 124, 127 (CA4 1983) (quoting S. Rep. 989, 95th Cong., 2d
Sess. 54-55, reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5787, 5840-41)). Because of the vital protection
the automatic stay offers to debtors, a creditor must be extremely careful not to act in violation
thereof.
“But the automatic stay ... must be enforced to provide any meaningful protection or
incentive.” In re Curtis, 322 B.R. 470, 483 (BC Mass. 2005). Accordingly, inasmuch as there
has been a flagrant disregard of the automatic stay, the Debtor is entitled to damages, including
reimbursement of all expenses caused him on account of the violation. Debtor is likewise
entitled to the emotional damages that he has described that the court witnessed. See Fleet
Case 04-13729 Doc 148 Filed 12/16/05 Page 2 of 3

Mortgage Group, Inc. v. Kaneb, 196 F.3d 265, 269, 279 (CA1 1999). An appropriate order will
be entered.
cc:
James Adeyemi, 10117 Prince Place 403, Largo, MD 20774
Stanley S. Picket, Esq., 6411 Ivy Lane, Suite 305, Greenbelt, MD 20770
Nancy S. Grigsby, Trustee, P.O. Box 958, Bowie, MD 20718
End of Memorandum
Case 04-13729 Doc 148 Filed 12/16/05 Page 3 of 3