Howard J. Boxley

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
In re:
Howard J. Boxley,
Debtor.
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 26-30759
Chapter 13
Judge Crist
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION
OF THE AUTOMATIC STAY (DOC. 6)
This matter is before the Court on Debtor Howard J. Boxley’s (the “Debtor”) Motion for
Extension of the Automatic Stay (Doc. 6) filed on April 8, 2026 (the “Motion to Continue Stay”),
pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3)(B), and Creditors Shulerdog Land Co., LLC, an Ohio limited
liability company, and Wilde Yutani, Inc., an Ohio corporation, d/b/a Central Bark Madeira-Indian
Hill (collectively, the “Creditors”) Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Extension of the
Automatic Stay (Doc. 22) filed on April 27, 2026. Relevant to understanding the dynamics of this
matter, the Creditors do not purport to hold liens against any of the Debtor’s or estate’s property
and assert they have been stymied in pursuing litigation to judgment against the Debtor in the
Hamilton County Courts of Common Pleas, such that this second chapter 13 case was just an effort
to avoid litigation and collection of judgments by other creditors.
On April 9, 2026, the Court entered its typical Order Scheduling Hearing to Determine
Continuation of the Automatic Stay (Re: Doc. 6) (Doc. 12) (the “Scheduling Order”), setting the
This document has been electronically entered in the records of the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 7, 2026
Case 3:26-bk-30759 Doc 27 Filed 05/07/26 Entered 05/08/26 09:00:21 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 3

2
hearing for Wednesday, May 6, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. (Eastern Prevailing Time). The Debtor and his
Counsel, Elizabeth M. Chinault, and Counsel the Creditors, Adam J. Turer, appeared in-person for
the hearing held in the West Courtroom, and Robert B. Trattner, representing PNC Bank, National
Association, a creditor purporting to hold an unsecured deficiency claim, appeared by telephone
to monitor the hearing.
In accordance with the Scheduling Order, the Debtor timely filed an Exhibit List (Doc. 25)
on May 4, 2026, which included proposed Exhibits 1 through 8. In addition, the Debtor timely
filed a Witness List (Doc. 24) identifying only himself. The Creditors filed neither an exhibit nor
witness list. And the Debtor was the only person to testify at the hearing. Further, at the Debtor’s
request and without objection by the Creditors, the Court admitted Debtor’s Exhibits 3 (Chapter
13 Plan, filed at Doc. 18) and 4 (recent paychecks of the Debtor from his work as an independent
contractor for Artemis Capital, LLC).
In accordance with the Court’s oral decision, and based on the filings, the testimony by
Debtor and the evidence presented and admitted, as well as the legal argument of the parties’
counsel, the Court ruled from the bench, determining that the presumption that the case was not
filed in good faith did not arise pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3)(C)(i)(I) because Debtor did not
have “more than 1 previous case” in the “preceding 1-year period;” it did not arise under subsection
(C)(i)(II), because none of those situations existed; and it did not arise under subsection (C)(i)(III),
because there had been a substantial change in the financial and personal affairs of the Debtor
since dismissal of his last chapter 13 case (No. 25-32142). Therefore, in the absence of the
presumption under § 362(c)(3)(C), the Debtor’s burden was to demonstrate that his current chapter
13 case “was filed in good faith under the less demanding preponderance of the evidence standard”
under § 362(c)(3)(B). See 3 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 362.06[3][b] & n.32b (16th ed. 2026) (citing
In re Bowman, 555 B.R. 918, 922 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 2016) (stating “if no presumption arises, the
moving party must only carry its burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence”); In re
Pence, 469 B.R. 643, 646 (Bankr. W.D. Va. 2012)).
For the reasons stated on the record, after analyzing the evidence in comparison to the
twelve factors applicable (or not) as set forth in In re Okoreeh-Baah, 836 F.2d 1030, 1032 (6th
Cir. 1988), the Court found that the Debtor had met his burden of proof to establish that his present
chapter 13 case was filed in good faith as to the creditors to be stayed. See also In re Caldwell, 895
Case 3:26-bk-30759 Doc 27 Filed 05/07/26 Entered 05/08/26 09:00:21 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 3

3
F.2d 1123, 1126-27 (6th Cir. 1990). Primary amongst those factors was that Debtor had become
ill during his prior chapter 13 case, resulting in a loss of employment. And he has since recovered
and now has stable employment, albeit as an independent contractor, such that he fully expects
that he will be able to perform under his proposed chapter 13 plan in this case. Moreover, within
this case he is proposing, under his currently filed Chapter 13 Plan (Doc. 18) (the “Plan”), to sell
his real estate in order to reduce his expenses, live within his means, and if a forthcoming adversary
proceeding to avoid a judgment lien is successful, pay a dividend to unsecured creditors, in which
circumstance the Plan would be modified. See Plan at 8, ¶ 13.
Based upon the foregoing, the Motion to Continue Stay was, at the hearing, and is hereby,
GRANTED pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3)(B) as to all creditors, including the Creditors who
opposed the Motion to Continue Stay, and, accordingly, the automatic stay of § 362(a) was, at the
hearing, and is hereby, extended as to all creditors until this case is closed, dismissed, discharge is
granted or denied, or until the Court grants relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d) or
orders otherwise.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Copies to:
All Creditors and Parties in Interest
Case 3:26-bk-30759 Doc 27 Filed 05/07/26 Entered 05/08/26 09:00:21 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 3