David Brian Derringer

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
PACER Cover Sheet
for Electronically Filed Documents
Any data shown here are current as of 	. Any element of information on this form,
except the received date, is subject to change as changes may be made to the Court's official docket.
Case Title:
Case Number:
Document Information
Description:
Date Filed:
Date Entered On
Docket:
Filer Information
Submitted By:
If this form is attached to the document identified above, it serves as an endorsed copy of the
document as it existed on the above date. To confirm that nothing has changed since then,
review the docket.
06/10/06
David Brian Derringer
04-17330
Order Denying [182-1] Motion To Strike Affidavit by Stephen Long [174-1] by
David Brian Derringer .
Received on: 2005-06-28 10:22:40.000
2005-06-28 00:00:00.000
2005-06-28 00:00:00.000
Patti Hennessy
Case 04-17330-m13 Doc 196 Filed 06/28/05 Entered 06/28/05 15:57:00 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
In re: DAVID DERRINGER, No. 13-04-17330 MA
Debtor.
ORDER DENYING DEBTOR’S MOTION TO STRIKE STEPHEN LONG’S
SECOND AFFIDAVIT REGARDING DEBTOR’S CONTINUING FAILURE
TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE
COURT ORDER OF DECEMBER 23, 2004
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Debtor David Derringer’s Motion to Strike Stephen
Long’s Second Affidavit Regarding Debtor’s Continuing Failure to Comply with the Terms and
Conditions of the Court Order of December 23, 2004 (“Motion to Strike”). Stephen Long filed an
affidavit regarding the Debtor’s failure to comply with the Court’s Order on Chapels’ Motion for Relief
from Stay, entered December 23, 2004 (“ Second Long Affidavit”) on May 6, 2005. The Motion to
Strike requests that the Long Affidavit be stricken because it is “both fraudulent and designed for
‘improper purposes’” in violation of Rule 11(b), Fed.R.Civ.P., made applicable to bankruptcy
proceedings by Rule 9011, Fed.R.Bankr.P. The Motion to Strike also asserts that the Second Long
Affidavit should be stricken because it falsifies the record and defeats the Debtor’s rights of due
process. The Court finds that the Motion to Strike fails to raise sufficient grounds upon which to strike
the Second Long Affidavit. In reaching this determination, the Court FINDS:
1. The Order on Chapels’ Motion to Modify Automatic Stay (“December 23, 2004 Order”)
conditioned the continuation of the automatic stay imposed by 11 U.S.C. § 362 on the Debtor
complying with certain requirements for proceeding under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code,
including filing a proposed plan of reorganization, obtaining a preliminary hearing on confirmation, filing
amended statements and schedules, and confirming a plan.
Case 04-17330-m13 Doc 196 Filed 06/28/05 Entered 06/28/05 15:57:00 Page 2 of 5

2. The December 23, 2004 Order provided that “[i]f the Debtor fails to comply with these
deadlines, then upon the filing of an affidavit by counsel for the Chapels that the Debtor has failed to
comply, the Court will enter an order terminating the automatic stay.”
3. The Second Long Affidavit was filed in accordance with the December 23, 2004 Order.
4. Affidavits must be based on personal knowledge. See 3 Am. Jur. 2d Affidavits § 13 (An
affidavit must be based on personal knowledge, and its allegations should be of the pertinent facts and
circumstances, rather than conclusions.”); Cf. Rule 56(e), Fed.R.Civ.P., made applicable to
bankruptcy proceedings by Rule 7056, Fed.R.Bankr.P. (“affidavits [in support or opposition of
motions for summary judgment] shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as
would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to
the matters stated therein.”).
5. There is nothing contained in the Motion to Strike which would indicate that the statements
are not based on the personal knowledge of the affiant, or that the affiant is not competent to testify to
the matter stated therein.
6. Debtor also asserts that the Second Long Affidavit improperly interferes with his due
process rights with regard to the requirements for obtaining relief from the automatic stay under 11
U.S.C. § 362(d). Debtor’s assertion mis-interprets the requirements for notice and a hearing under
11 U.S.C. § 362. The December 23, 2004 Order was issued after a final hearing on the merits of
Chapels’ Motion for Relief from Stay, and the inclusion of a provision allowing for the entry of an order
terminating the stay upon filing an affidavit of default is within the Court’s discretion. See In re
Mendoza, 111 F.3d 1264, 1270 (5th Cir. 1997) (bankruptcy court is not precluded “from including
Case 04-17330-m13 Doc 196 Filed 06/28/05 Entered 06/28/05 15:57:00 Page 3 of 5

1 “A ‘drop dead’ clause ‘allows a creditor to exercise its state law remedies upon default of a
debtor under a plan without seeking further permission from the bankruptcy court.’" Id. at 1269
(quoting In re Kennedy, 177 B.R. 967, 975 (Bankr.S.D.Ala.1995)).
‘drop dead’1 clauses in its orders, whether by agreement of the parties or sua sponte without the
parties’ agreement.”).
7. Because the Long Affidavit is based on personal knowledge and was filed in accordance
with the December 23, 2004 Order, the Debtor’s assertion that the Second Long Affidavit is fraudulent
and filed for an improper purpose in violation of Rule 9011, Fed.R.Bankr.P. is without merit.
8. Finally, because Debtor’s request for stay pending appeal has been denied, Debtor’s
argument that the Second Long Affidavit improperly falsifies the record because a plan cannot be
consummated until the issues on appeal are resolved is inapposite. All other arguments raised in the
Motion to Strike, such as Debtor’s continuing assertions of ongoing constitutional rights violations, are
irrelevant to a motion to strike an affidavit.
WHEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Debtor’s Motion to Strike the Long
Affidavit is DENIED.
_________________________________________
MARK B. McFEELEY
United States Bankruptcy Judge
Case 04-17330-m13 Doc 196 Filed 06/28/05 Entered 06/28/05 15:57:00 Page 4 of 5

I certify that on the date shown on the attached document verification, a true and correct copy of
the foregoing was either electronically transmitted, faxed, delivered or mailed to the listed counsel
and/or parties.
David Derringer
Box 157
Quemado, NM 87829
Stephen C.M. Long
2501 Yale SE, Suite 204
Albuquerque, NM 87106
________________________________
Patti G. Hennessy
Law Clerk
(505) 348-2545
Case 04-17330-m13 Doc 196 Filed 06/28/05 Entered 06/28/05 15:57:00 Page 5 of 5