Benjamin Franklin Ramey

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
In re
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN RAMEY,
Debtor.
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 07-00138
(Chapter 13)
[Not for Publication in
West's Bankruptcy Reporter]
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
This addresses the debtor's Objection for Order Reopening
Case to Permit Creditor to Pursue Motion for Relief From
Automatic Stay Nunc Pro Tunc (Docket Entry ("DE") No. 45) filed
June 16, 2008. 	The objection appears to be to the granting of a
creditor's motion for nunc pro tunc relief from the automatic
stay. 	Treating the debtor's objection as a motion to vacate the
order that was entered on June 12, 2008, granting such nunc pro
tunc relief, the motion will be denied.
The objection fails to explain why the debtor failed to
address the creditor's motion in a timely fashion. 	It also fails
to address the merits of the creditor's motion.
The creditor's first foreclosure sale was made on March 15,
2007, only 20 minutes after the filing of the debtor's petition,
The Memorandum Decision and Order below is hereby
signed. Dated: July 1, 2008.
_____________________________
S. Martin Teel, Jr.
United States Bankruptcy Judge
Case 07-00138 Doc 47 Filed 07/02/08 Entered 07/02/08 15:30:07 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 3

and was rescinded when the creditor learned of the filing. 	The
case was dismissed on March 26, 2007, and the debtor moved to
vacate the dismissal (without serving it on the creditor) and the
court vacated the dismissal on April 12, 2007, but the creditor
was unaware of that. 	The creditor, being aware that the case had
been dismissed on March 26, 2007, proceeded with a second
foreclosure sale on May 17, 2007, not being informed that the
dismissal was vacated. 	The foreclosure sale fetched far less
than the amount of the creditor's claim. 	It then proceeded with
eviction efforts, and filed its motion for nunc pro tunc relief
once it realized that the second foreclosure sale had been made
after the dismissal of the case had been vacated.
This case was dismissed again on July 20, 2007, this time
with prejudice for 180 days, such that the creditor could have
foreclosed anew had it known that its foreclosure sale had
violated the automatic stay, and the debtor would not have been
entitled to an automatic stay against foreclosure by way of
filing a new case during the 180-day bar. 	11 U.S.C. §
362(b)(21). 	The debtor has articulated no reason to put the
creditor to the burden and expense of a new foreclosure sale and
renewed eviction efforts when it acted in good faith, without
realizing that the dismissal of this bankruptcy case had been
vacated, in conducting the foreclosure sale, and could have
proceeded with a foreclosure sale anew during the 180-day period
after July 20, 2007, without the debtor being able to utilize a
Case 07-00138 Doc 47 Filed 07/02/08 Entered 07/02/08 15:30:07 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 3

bankruptcy case to stay the foreclosure. 	The property does not
appear to have any equity.
That the debtor has not shown any reason to vacate the order
granting nunc pro tunc relief is not altered by the prospect that
the debtor may obtain a worker's compensation claim sometime in
the future by virtue of the June 5, 2008, decision of the D.C.
Court of Appeals remanding his worker's compensation claim to the
Compensation Review Board for redetermination. 	Moreover, the
debtor's reliance solely on that event in seeking reconsideration
suggests that he has not had the ability to fund a chapter 13
plan that would address the mortgage arrears that were owed the
creditor. 	It is thus
ORDERED that the debtor's objection (DE No. 45) is DENIED.
[Signed and dated above.]
Copies to: Debtor, Chapter 13 Trustee;
Darine K. Tabbara, Esq.
4520 East West Highway, Suite 200
Bethesda, MD 20814
Counsel for South Point Inc.
c/o Wilshire Credit Corporation
Case 07-00138 Doc 47 Filed 07/02/08 Entered 07/02/08 15:30:07 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 3