Nancy Clark Bell and Douglas Stauffer Bell, Sr

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
NEW BERN DIVISION
IN RE:
NANCY CLARK BELL,
DOUGLAS STAUFFER BELL, SR.,
DEBTORS.
CHAPTER 13
CASE NO. 11-08707-8-RDD
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER
OR VACATE ORDER GRANTING RELIEF FROM STAY
Pending before the Court is the Motion to Reconsider or Vacate Order Granting Relief from
Stay (the “Motion to Reconsider”) filed by Douglas Stauffer Bell, Sr. and Nancy Clark Bell (the
“Debtors”) on February 27, 2012 and the Response to Motion to Reconsider or Vacate Order
Granting Relief from Stay filed by National Auto Finance Company (“NAFC”) on March 2, 2012.
The Court conducted a hearing on April 3, 2012 in New Bern, North Carolina to consider the motion
and the response.
On November 14, 2011, the Debtors filed a petition for relief under Chapter 13 of the
Bankruptcy Code. NAFC held a claim against the Debtors secured by a 2008 Nissan Titan (the
“Vehicle”). 	On November 7, 2012, one week prior to the petition date, NAFC repossessed the
SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this 16 day of April, 2012.
________________________________________
Randy D. Doub
United States Bankruptcy Judge
____________________________________________________________
Case 11-08707-8-RDD Doc 46 Filed 04/16/12 Entered 04/16/12 15:44:07 Page 1 of 4

Vehicle. The Debtors’ proposed plan, which lists NAFC’s claim as $20, 230.00, proposed to “strip
down” the claim to $11,125.00, which is the listed as the value of the Vehicle. On January 17, 2012,
NAFC filed a Motion for, Among Other Things, Relief from the Automatic Stay (the “Motion for
Relief”). The deadline within which to respond to NAFC’s Motion for Relief was February 3, 2012.
The certificate of service stated that the notice was sent to Debtors’ counsel and the Debtors by
United States mail. No response to NAFC’s Motion for Relief was filed and on February 7, 2012,
the Court entered the Order Granting Motion for, Among Other Things, Relief from the Automatic
Stay. On February 22, 2012, the Vehicle was sold by NAFC at an auction sale.
The Debtors move the Court to set aside the order granting relief from the automatic stay.
NAFC responds that the Motion to Reconsider is moot as the Vehicle was sold prior to the filing of
the Motion to Reconsider.
Counsel for the Debtors, the Debtors, and counsel for NAFC appeared at the hearing on April
3, 2012. Debtors’ counsel acknowledged his failure to timely respond to the Motion for Relief. He
explained his untimeliness by stating that he was not reminded of the response deadline by his office
staff. He represented that the Debtors did receive notice of the Motion for Relief. Debtors’ counsel
argues that this constitutes excusable neglect pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).
NAFC contends the Debtors’ motion is moot because it no longer has possession of the
vehicle. NAFC argues that approximately 65 days after the Debtors’ bankruptcy petition was filed,
NAFC filed the Motion for Relief. NAFC contends that during this period the Debtors did not file
a motion for turnover and further the Debtors failed to respond to the Motion for Relief. As a result,
the Order granting the Motion for Relief was entered on February 7, 2012 and the Vehicle was
rightfully sold at an auction sale on February 22, 2012.
2
Case 11-08707-8-RDD Doc 46 Filed 04/16/12 Entered 04/16/12 15:44:07 Page 2 of 4

At the hearing Mr. Bell testified that the Vehicle was repossessed on November 7, 2011.
After the Vehicle was repossessed, he testified, that the Debtors contacted the owner of the
repossession company who informed the Debtors that in his experience it would take approximately
4-6 months until NAFC picked up the vehicle from the repossession company. Mr. Bell testified
that he relied upon the information given to him by the owner of the repossession company. Mr.
Bell testified that he was served with the Motion for Relief and contacted his attorney once
regarding the Vehicle and the Motion for Relief.
The Court treats the Motion to Reconsider as one brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60(b)(1). Bankruptcy Rule 9024 incorporates Rule 60(b). Rule 60(b) provides a party
may be relieved from a final judgment, order, or proceeding based on mistake, inadvertence,
surprise, or excusable neglect. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 60(b)(1). The party seeking relief under Rule 60(b)
must show the motion is timely filed, the movant has a meritorious defense, and the opposing party
would not be unfairly prejudiced by granting the proposed relief. In re Canovali, No. 09-05342-8-
RDD, 2011 WL 307374 at *5 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. Jan. 27, 2011) (citing Park Corp. v. Lexington Ins.
Co., 812 F.2d 894, 896 (4th Cir. 1987); Compton v. Alton Steamship Co., 608 F.2d 96, 102 (4th Cir.
1979)).
Here the Court finds no grounds for justifying relief under Rule 60(b). The Court finds no
conduct that would constitute excusable neglect. NAFC lawfully repossessed the Vehicle prior to
the petition date. The standards of practice in this district would have required Debtors’ counsel to
make contact with NAFC and negotiate terms for a turnover of the Vehicle and if unsuccessful, file
a motion for turnover. No motion for turnover was ever filed. Debtors’ counsel had a second bite
at the apple when he was served with the Motion for Relief. The Motion for Relief was served on
3
Case 11-08707-8-RDD Doc 46 Filed 04/16/12 Entered 04/16/12 15:44:07 Page 3 of 4

Debtors’ counsel both by regular mail and electronically. Such inaction is inexcusable. Further the
actions of the Debtors in relying upon the representations of the owner of the repossession company
that it would be 4-6 months before NAFC picked up the vehicle, is a representation upon which the
Debtors could not reasonably rely and which does not justify excusable neglect. 	Because the
Debtors have failed to show excusable neglect, there are no grounds for justifying relief under Rule
60(b). 	A party is required to handle its legal affairs in a timely and diligent manner. 	In re
Harrelson Utilities, Inc., No. 09-02815-8-RDD at 8 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. April 6, 2012) (citing
Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp., LLC, 599 F.3d 403, 413 (4th Cir. 2010) (finding a party that fails
to act with diligence is unable to establish excusable neglect)).
Therefore, the Motion to Reconsider is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
END OF DOCUMENT
4
Case 11-08707-8-RDD Doc 46 Filed 04/16/12 Entered 04/16/12 15:44:07 Page 4 of 4