Michael Joseph Sindram

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
In re
MICHAEL JOSEPH SINDRAM,
Debtor.
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 08-00559
(Chapter 7)
Not for Publication in
West’s Bankruptcy Reporter
MEMORANDUM DECISION RE
(1) DIRECTING CLOSING OF CASE AND THEN
REOPENING TO ADDRESS PENDING CONTEMPT MOTION;
(2) DENYING DEBTOR’S REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF
ATTORNEY TO DEFEND AGAINST MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM
AUTOMATIC STAY FILED BY CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC; AND
(3) DISMISSING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM AUTOMATIC STAY AS MOOT
Chase Home Finance, LLC (“Chase”) (designating itself as
“s/b/m to Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp.,” presumably meaning
successor by merger to Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp.) has filed
a Motion to Modify Stay to Permit Foreclosure of the Deed of
Trust (Docket Entry No. 85) seeking relief from the automatic
stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) to foreclose on the debtor’s home.
The debtor has filed an opposition to the motion and requested
the appointment of counsel to represent him with respect to the
motion. 	The request for appointment of counsel will be denied.
I
The document below is hereby signed.
Signed: February 06, 2009.
_____________________________
S. Martin Teel, Jr.
United States Bankruptcy Judge
Case 08-00559 Doc 106 Filed 02/06/09 Entered 02/06/09 16:33:06 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 7

2
The debtor’s defenses to Chase’s motion are:
• 	that he does not owe as much as is claimed, and will
pay whatever is determined to be owed to bring the debt
current;
• 	that a church has committed to assist him in making
mortgage payments to avoid foreclosure;
• 	that he has not been able to get information from Chase
or its attorneys regarding the amount of the debt
(including payments);
• 	that the debtor has filed a discrimination complaint
against Chase with the D.C. Office of Human Rights;
• 	that the discrimination complaint preempts Chase’s lift
stay motion;
• 	that Chase has frustrated the debtor’s attempt to
utilize a certificate of eligibility for home loan
guaranty benefits issued by the Department of Veterans
Affairs; and
• 	that the co-debtor stay of 11 U.S.C. § 1301 ought not
be lifted when the debtor proposes to pay the entire
amount claimed.
Because the debtor’s defenses fail to state any basis for denying
Chase’s motion, they do not warrant the appointment of counsel to
assist the debtor in pursuing the defenses. 	The defenses of
preemption and of § 1301 (a provision inapplicable in this
Case 08-00559 Doc 106 Filed 02/06/09 Entered 02/06/09 16:33:06 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 7

3
chapter 7 case) are frivolous. 	The defense that the debtor may
be obtaining assistance from a church might be pertinent in a
chapter 13 case as pertinent to the debtor’s ability to cure a
default over time, but it is not pertinent in this chapter 7 case
as there is no right to cure a default over time in chapter 7.
The remaining defenses are nonbankruptcy law defenses that the
debtor can still pursue outside of bankruptcy, and that may (or
may not) entitle the debtor under nonbankruptcy to stop a
foreclosure, but there is no bankruptcy reason to permit those
defenses to be pursued in this court. 	First, they will have no
impact on the administration of the estate as the property has
been exempted from the estate, and, in any event, the trustee
does not intend to sell the property. 	Second, a debtor in a
chapter 7 bankruptcy case generally has no valid basis for
raising nonbankruptcy law defenses to a secured creditor’s
enforcement rights in opposing the creditor’s obtaining relief
from the automatic stay to pursue foreclosure, and the debtor has
not pointed to any exception to that general rule.
To elaborate on the last point, this case started as a
chapter 13 case but was converted to a case under chapter 7 of
the Bankruptcy Code. 	In chapter 7, in contrast to chapter 13, a
debtor has only limited rights to alter the nonbankruptcy law
rights of a secured creditor. 	In a chapter 7 case, the old adage
that liens on assets not sold by the trustee in the bankruptcy
Case 08-00559 Doc 106 Filed 02/06/09 Entered 02/06/09 16:33:06 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 7

4
case pass through bankruptcy unaffected still applies (with a
very few exceptions such as a debtor’s right to redeem tangible
personal property from a lien). 	The debtor has failed to
identify any exception to that general rule, which flows from the
proposition that nonbankruptcy law entitlements are not altered
by the filing of a bankruptcy case except as specified by the
Bankruptcy Code. 	There is no reason to keep the automatic stay
in place based on the existence of nonbankruptcy law defenses to
foreclosure that the debtor can pursue outside of bankruptcy
unless the debtor can demonstrate that adjudicating those
defenses would be pertinent to administering some entitlement
under the bankruptcy laws. 	The debtor has not identified any
such bankruptcy law entitlement. 	For example, this is not a
chapter 13 case in which the debtor’s bankruptcy law right to
cure arrearages over time under a plan would make resolving a
nonbankruptcy law defense as to the amount of arrears pertinent.
II
The debtor’s receipt of a discharge has already terminated
the automatic stay with respect to acts against the debtor or
property of the debtor. 	See 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(2)(C). 	The only
part of the automatic stay that remains in place is the stay of
certain acts against property of the estate, and the closing of
the case would terminate that part of the stay. 	See 11 U.S.C. §§
362(c)(1) and 554(c). 	The trustee has already indicated that
Case 08-00559 Doc 106 Filed 02/06/09 Entered 02/06/09 16:33:06 Desc Main
Document Page 4 of 7

1 	The trustee has filed a report of no distribution,
certifying that there are no assets to administer for the benefit
of the creditor body (as occurs when property has been exempted
or when all non-exempt property has insufficient equity to
warrant liquidating it for the benefit of creditors), and making
a final report by certifying that he has received no funds or
property of the estate, and paid no moneys on account of the
estate.
5
there is no property to administer for the benefit of creditors. 1
The only reason that the clerk has not closed the case is the
happenstance that there is a pending contempt motion against the
debtor’s condo association. 	That contempt motion ought not stand
as an obstacle to closing of the case for all other purposes.
Under 11 U.S.C. § 350(a), “[a]fter an estate is fully
administered and the court has discharged the trustee, the court
shall close the case.” 	Further, the trustee’s filing of a
report, as here (see n.1), that there is no property to
administer for the benefit of creditors and certification that
the estate has been fully administered, without any timely
objection having been made to that certification, warrants
treating the case as having been fully administered. 	Fed. R.
Bankr. P. 5009. 	In addition, once a case has been fully
administered, the court routinely discharges the trustee (by
including a direction that the trustee is discharged in the order
closing the case). 	The case is thus ready to close for all
purposes other than the pending contempt motion. 	Under 11 U.S.C.
§ 350(b), a closed case may be reopened “to accord relief to the
Case 08-00559 Doc 106 Filed 02/06/09 Entered 02/06/09 16:33:06 Desc Main
Document Page 5 of 7

6
debtor, or for other cause.” 	The court is thus closing the case,
which will terminate the automatic stay in toto, but
simultaneously the court will reopen the case anew to address the
pending contempt motion. 	By reason of the closing of the case, I
will dismiss Chase’s motion as moot.
III
Moreover, even if I were not to close the case and thereby
to effect a termination of the automatic stay, the debtor has no
standing to oppose the lifting of the automatic stay with respect
to acts against property of the estate. 	The debtor has received
a discharge that is effective against all of the unsecured debt
in the case. 	Accordingly, he will be unaffected by whether
creditors will receive any distribution from the chapter 7
trustee’s disposition of the property of the estate.
Accordingly, he has no standing, in contrast to the chapter 7
trustee, to oppose the motion for relief from the automatic stay
based on the trustee’s right to sell the property of the estate
for the benefit of the general creditor body. 	The debtor cannot
argue that he has such standing based on the possibility that the
property of the estate may revert to him: the automatic stay has
already been terminated with respect to acts against the property
of the debtor. 	There is thus no defense available to the debtor
against lifting the automatic stay that would warrant appointing
counsel to assist the debtor.
Case 08-00559 Doc 106 Filed 02/06/09 Entered 02/06/09 16:33:06 Desc Main
Document Page 6 of 7

7	O:\TEEL\Judge Temp Docs\Sindram (Michael Joseph) - Mem Decsn reMtn to Appt Atty.wpd
IV
In light of the foregoing, there is no reason to appoint
counsel in this case. 	Moreover, this case is at a juncture that
it should be closed based on the estate having been fully
administered (but then reopened to dispose of the pending
contempt motion). 	Appropriate orders follow.
[Signed and dated above.]
Copies to:
Office of U.S. Trustee
Debtor
Michael Cantrell, Esq.
Chapter 7 Trustee
Case 08-00559 Doc 106 Filed 02/06/09 Entered 02/06/09 16:33:06 Desc Main
Document Page 7 of 7