Curtis Daramola and Bukky Daramola

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
at Greenbelt
IN RE: 	:
:
CURTIS DARAMOLA 	: 	Case No. 06-18544PM
BUKKY DARAMOLA 	: 	Chapter 11
:
Debtors 	:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - :
CAPITOL ONE 	:
a Maryland general partnership 	:
Movant 	:
vs. 	:
:
CURTIS DARAMOLA 	:
Respondent 	:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - :
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
Before the court are two matters, (1) the Debtors’ Motion to Value Collateral and Avoid
Security Interest that the court denied as moot, and (2) a Motion filed by Capitol One, a
Maryland general partnership, for relief from the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) so as to
allow it to move for ratification of a foreclosure sale said to have taken place, according to the
Trustees’ Report of Sale, November 14, 2006, at 12:30 p.m., in front of the Courthouse in
Baltimore City, Maryland. (Doc. # 81-3).
The Trustees’ Report relating to a sale in Baltimore City concerns the court in that the
subject property is located in Baltimore County, Maryland. This is one of a number of
irregularities attendant to the sale besides those described by counsel for the Debtors in open
court.
Date signed May 23, 2007
Entered: May 24, 2007 Case 06-18544 Doc 110 Filed 05/24/07 Page 1 of 2

It is long settled law, as pointed out by the moving party that when the auctioneer’s
hammer fell the Respondent/Debtor lost his right to exercise his equity of redemption. All that
remains for the reunion of legal and equitable title is the ratification of the sale by the Trustees.
The right to cure defaults with respect to claims secured by a lien on Debtor’s residence ceases
when the auctioneer’s hammer falls. 11 U.S.C. § 1322(c)(1). 	This has long been the law in
Maryland. Butler v. Daum, 226 A.2d 261, 264 (Md. 1967); In re DeSouza, 135 B.R. 793, 795
(BC Md. 1991); In re Denny, 242 B.R. 593, 597-599 (BC Md. 1999). The court finds that cause
exists for the modification of the automatic stay so as to permit the parties to litigate in state
court the issues of ratification of the Trustees’ sale. Following a foreclosure sale, the Debtor’s
only source of recourse is to object to the ratification of the sale by the state court. Filing this
bankruptcy case did not enable the Debtor to nullify Maryland law. But nothing in this
Memorandum may be taken to support in any fashion the validity of the sale. That is a matter
for the state court to determine.
An appropriate order will be entered.
cc:
Byron L. Huffman, Esq., 5550 Sterrett Place, Suite 204, Columbia, MD 21044
Curtis/Bukky Daramola, 129 Northampton Drive, Beltsville, MD 20705
Omar J. Simpson, Esq., 8325 Cherry Lane, Laurel, MD 20707
United States Trustee, 6305 Ivy Lane, #600, Greenbelt MD 20770
End of Memorandum
Case 06-18544 Doc 110 Filed 05/24/07 Page 2 of 2