Mark Fraser

1
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------x
In re:
Case No. 8-26-71438-las
Mark Fraser,
Chapter 13
Debtor.
-------------------------------------------------------------x
MEMORANDUM ORDER
I. 	Introduction
Before the Court is the motion of Mark Fraser (the “Debtor”) dated April 16, 2026 (the
“Motion”) [ECF No. 8], seeking an ex parte order (1) finding the lender and its agents willfully
violated the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a); 1 (2) declaring the foreclosure sale
conducted on April 15, 2026 of real property located 107 Barbara Ln, Levittown, NY 11756
to be null and void; (3) imposing sanctions pursuant to section 362(k); and (4) enjoining any
transfer, enforcement or eviction actions. Bank of America, N.A. (“Bank of America”) filed
opposition to the Motion (“Opposition”). [ECF No. 21.] The Debtor filed a reply (“Reply”).
[ECF No. 23.] The Court held a hearing on May 5, 2026 and for the reasons set forth herein
and at the hearing, the Debtor’s Motion is denied.
II. 	Jurisdiction
The Court has jurisdiction over this proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) and
the Standing Order of Reference of the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of New York, dated August 28, 1986 (Weinstein, C.J.), as amended by Order dated December
5, 2012 (Amon, C.J.) entered in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 157(a).
1 All statutory references to sections of the United States Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., will hereinafter
be referred to as “section (number).”
Case 8-26-71438-las Doc 36 Filed 07/30/26 Entered 07/30/26 10:52:56

2
III. 	Background and Procedural History
The Debtor filed for chapter 13 relief under the Bankruptcy Code on April 13, 2026
(“Petition Date”). The Debtor’s bankruptcy petition signed under penalty of perjury listed his
residence as 107 Barbara Ln, Levittown, NY 11756 (the “Property”) in Nassau County. [ECF
No. 1.] The Debtor did not file any schedules or other required bankruptcy documents. The
Debtor’s creditors mailing matrix listed only 2 entities – 1) Blue Ridge Family Trust with an
address of 107 Barbara Ln, Levittown, NY 11756, the same as the address listed as the
Debtor’s purported residence, and 2) M & T Services at 1825 Bedford Ave, Brooklyn, YN (sic)
11225. [ECF No. 1.] Attached to the petition and the creditors mailing matrix is a notice of a
foreclosure sale of the Property scheduled for April 15, 2026. Debtor also filed an Initial
Statement About An Eviction Judgment Against You (Official Form 101A) certifying under
penalty of perjury that he rents his residence and his landlord, Blue Ridge Family Trust, has
obtained a judgment for possession in an eviction or similar proceeding against him to possess
his residence. [ECF No. 4.]
It is undisputed that the Debtor filed for bankruptcy to implicate the automatic stay
under section 362(a) so as to stay the foreclosure sale of the Property scheduled for April 15,
2026. Bank of America received notice of the Debtor’s bankruptcy filing but nevertheless
proceeded with the foreclosure sale.
a. 	The Note and Mortgage, and Transfer of Title to the Property
Sulaiman Haqq executed a note and mortgage dated April 9, 2008 in favor of Bank of
America. See Opposition [ECF No. 21]. There was a default on the note and Bank of America
commenced a foreclosure action. A Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale was entered on March
6, 2019 (“Judgment”). Id.
Title to the Property was transferred from Sulaiman Haqq to Y&S Services, Inc. by
deed dated April 15, 2013 and recorded on March 23, 2015. The deed was signed by Sulaiman
Case 8-26-71438-las Doc 36 Filed 07/30/26 Entered 07/30/26 10:52:56

3
Haqq by Yolonda Martin allegedly as Attorney in Fact. The Property was then transferred
from Y&S Services, Inc. to Yolanda J. Martin by deed dated May 22, 2019 and recorded on
May 23, 2019. Id.
b. 	Multiple Bankruptcy Filings
After acquiring the Property, Ms. Martin filed five bankruptcy petitions in this Court
to stay the foreclosure sale of the Property. She first filed for relief under chapter 13 of the
Bankruptcy Code on June 3, 2019, case number 19-74007. The filing triggered the automatic
stay under section 362(a) and stayed the foreclosure sale of the Property scheduled for June
4, 2019. On motion of the Chapter 13 Trustee, this first bankruptcy case was dismissed on
August 29, 2019. Ms. Martin then filed her second bankruptcy case on October 28, 2019 under
chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code, case number 19-77397, thus automatically staying the
foreclosure sale of the Property scheduled for October 29, 2019. Ms. Martin received a
discharge in her chapter 7 case on February 10, 2020.
Yolanda Justina Martin aka Yolanda Justina De La Rosa filed her third bankruptcy
case on May 31, 2024 under chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code, case number 24-72104.
During that case, on July 18, 2024, Ms. Martin filed a contract of sale dated May 31, 2024
with 	respect 	to 	the 	Property 	between 	Blueridge 	Family 	Trust 	(Trustee) 	Stephanie
McLachlan, as seller, to Nilson De Larosa, Walter Donaldson and Justina Valentine, as
purchasers. The contract is signed by Courtney T. Lemmons as Trustee on behalf of the seller.
This third bankruptcy case was dismissed on the Chapter 13 Trustee’s motion on November
29, 2024.
Yolanda Justina De La Rosa aka Yolanda Justina Martin filed her fourth bankruptcy
case under chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code on February 24, 2025, case number 25-70733,
which automatically stayed the foreclosure sale of the Property scheduled for February 26,
2025. That case was dismissed on June 27, 2025 on the Chapter 13 Trustee’s motion.
Case 8-26-71438-las Doc 36 Filed 07/30/26 Entered 07/30/26 10:52:56

4
Undeterred, Yolanda Justina De La Rosa aka Yolanda Justina Martin filed her fifth
bankruptcy case under chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code on September 11, 2025, case
number 25-73526, 2 seeking to stay the foreclosure sale of the Property scheduled for
September 15, 2025. That case was also dismissed on the Chapter 13 Trustee’s motion on
January 26, 2026. On February 6, 2026, Ms. Martin filed a motion to reinstate her
bankruptcy case, vacate the dismissal order and reimpose the automatic stay (“Motion to
Reinstate”). On the same date, she filed an appeal of the dismissal order to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York (“District Court”) and a motion seeking a
stay of any foreclosure sale of the Property pending appeal. This Court denied the Motion to
Reinstate and the motion for stay pending appeal pursuant to an Order dated April 3, 2026.
The District Court entered a Memorandum and Order dated April 9, 2026 denying the motion
for a stay pending appeal.
Having filed two prior bankruptcy cases within the preceding one-year period that
were dismissed, another bankruptcy filing by Ms. Martin before June 28, 2026 would not
implicate the automatic stay under section 362(a). 3 Accordingly, the Debtor filed his chapter
13 case on April 13, 2026 believing that the filing would stay the foreclosure sale scheduled
for April 15, 2026.
c. 	The Motion
Upon learning that the foreclosure sale occurred, the Debtor filed the Motion seeking
an ex parte order (1) finding the lender and its agents willfully violated the automatic stay
under section 362(a); (2) declaring the foreclosure sale conducted on April 15, 2026 null and
2 Although not raised by any party, pursuant to section 362(c)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code, the automatic stay did
not go into effect on Ms. Martin’s fifth bankruptcy filing on September 11, 2025 as Ms. Martin had two prior
bankruptcy cases that were dismissed within the preceding one-year period - case number 24-72104 was dismissed
on November 29, 2024 and case number 25-70733 was dismissed on June 27, 2025. Ms. Martin did not file any
motion to impose the automatic stay contemporaneous with her fifth bankruptcy filing.
3 See 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(4).
Case 8-26-71438-las Doc 36 Filed 07/30/26 Entered 07/30/26 10:52:56

5
void; (3) imposing sanctions pursuant to section 362(k); and (4) enjoining any transfer,
enforcement or eviction actions. [ECF No. 8.] The Court entered an Order dated April 17,
2026 scheduling a hearing for May 5, 2026. [ECF No. 11.]
Not satisfied with the Court’s scheduling order which simply scheduled a hearing on
his Motion, the Debtor filed on April 17, 2026, an ex parte emergency motion for a temporary
restraining order and interim relief pending the May 5, 2026 hearing to prevent the lender
from recording the deed, transferring title, encumbering the Property or initialing or
continuing any eviction or dispossess proceeding prior to the hearing. [ECF No. 13.] The
Court entered an Order on April 20, 2026 denying the Debtor’s April 17th emergency motion
for a temporary restraining order. [ECF No. 20.] Not satisfied with the Court’s April 20th
Order, the Debtor filed another emergency motion on April 25 th seeking an order (i) declaring
the foreclosure sale to be void; (ii) finding that the lender and its agents willfully violated the
automatic stay under section 362; (iii) imposing sanctions; and (iv) enjoining any transfer,
recording or disposition of the Property. [ECF No. 19.] Finding the April 25th emergency
motion to be duplicative of the Motion filed on April 16th , the Court entered an order on April
27 th marking off the April 25th emergency motion. [ECF No. 20.]
d. 	The Opposition
In its Opposition, Bank of America noted that the Debtor is not a borrower under the
note and mortgage, and did not guarantee the debt owed to the mortgagee. Bank of America
also points out that the Debtor is not a party to the foreclosure action or the Judgment and
is not an owner of the Property. Bank of America proceeded with the foreclosure sale of the
Property on the premise that there would be no violation of the automatic stay triggered by
the Debtor’s bankruptcy filing where a debtor is not a defendant in the foreclosure action, not
a guarantor of any debt owed to the foreclosing party, and not the owner of the property.
Bank of America argued that any possessory interest the Debtor may have would be
Case 8-26-71438-las Doc 36 Filed 07/30/26 Entered 07/30/26 10:52:56

6
addressed separately in any action commenced under N.Y. REAL P ROPERTY ACTIONS AND
PROCEEDINGS LAW § 713(5) and Bank of America has not taken any action vis-à-vis the
Debtor thus far.
e. 	The Debtor’s Reply
The Debtor raises for the first time in his Reply, [ECF No. 23], that he has “fiduciary,
beneficial and equitable interests in the subject Property through his role as Co-Trustee and
beneficiary of Blue Ridge Family Trust”. Id. Debtor states that Blue Ridge Family Trust was
created on February 12, 2023 and that he became Co-Trustee and beneficiary of the Trust on
March 29, 2023. 4 Id The Debtor claims that the Trust was deeded the Property on May 30,
2024 and that a contract of sale was executed on May 31, 2024. Id.
There is no trust document attached to the Reply other than a “Certificate of Trust
with Real Property as Part of the Corpus” dated March 29, 2023 (“Certificate”). The
Certificate lists Yolanda Martin, with a mailing address of 608 Thomas Boyland Street,
Brooklyn, NY 12212, as the Grantor of the Property. While the Certificate lists Courtney T.
Lemmons and Mark Fraser as Co Trustees, the Certificate is signed by Courtney T. Lemmons
and Yolanda Martin, and not by the Debtor. The Certificate also lists an address of 716
Cumberland Street, Raleigh, NC 27610 for the Trustee. Attached to the Certificate is an
“Exclusive Right to Sell Listing Agreement” dated October 31, 2023 executed only by the
broker and Courtney T. Lemmons, (trustee) Blueridge Family Trust for the Property. It is
not signed by the Debtor as co-trustee or otherwise.
4 If the Debtor is a trustee of the Blue Ridge Family Trust, this would mean the Debtor obtained a judgment of
possession seeking to evict himself from the Property. As discussed above, the Debtor’s bankruptcy petition and
Initial Statement About An Eviction Judgment Against You, both signed by the Debtor under penalty of perjury,
stated that Blue Ridge Family Trust was his landlord and it had obtained a judgment of possession against him
to possess his residence.
Case 8-26-71438-las Doc 36 Filed 07/30/26 Entered 07/30/26 10:52:56

7
f. 	Additional Filing by Debtor
On May 5, 2026, the Debtor filed a Notice of Correction to Debtor’s Petition [ECF No.
25], seeking to clarify that he was previously a renter of the Property but that on March 29,
2023, he became Co-Trustee of the entity holding title to the Property and that he is a 30%
beneficial and equitable owner through Blue Ridge Family Trust.
The Court held an evidentiary hearing on May 5, 2026 (“Hearing”) 5 at which the
Debtor appeared pro se, and Saul Leopold, Esq. of Leopold & Associates appeared on behalf
of Bank of America.
IV. 	Discussion
Based on the record placed before the Court, there is and can be no dispute that the
Debtor does not hold legal title to the Property as he is not the owner. He was not an obligor
under the note and mortgage, he did not guarantee the obligation under the note, and he was
not a party to the foreclosure action nor the Judgment.
As the Debtor stated in the Notice of Correction to Debtor’s Petition he filed with the
Court, he is also not a renter or tenant at the Property. The Debtor admitted at the Hearing
that the Property is not his primary residence. May 5, 2026 Transcript (“Tr.) 29:20 [ECF No.
28]. Debtor stated “[a]t this time my primary residence is in Brooklyn.” Tr. 30:7-8. Thus, the
Debtor also does not have any possessory interest in the Property even though he listed the
Property on his petition as his residence under penalty of perjury and filed documents
indicating that he rented the Property from Blue Ridge Family Trust.
To the extent the Debtor claims that he has an ownership interest in the Property as
a Trustee of the Blue Ridge Family Trust, the Debtor has not submitted any documentary
5 Pursuant to E.D.N.Y. LBR 9014-2, the first scheduled hearing in a contested matter will not be an evidentiary
hearing unless, among other things, the motion requests emergency relief and is made at the commencement of
the case. Because the Debtor’s Motion sought emergency relief and was filed within days of the Petition Date, the
Hearing constituted an evidentiary hearing on the matters set forth in the Motion.
Case 8-26-71438-las Doc 36 Filed 07/30/26 Entered 07/30/26 10:52:56

8
evidence in admissible form demonstrating that: (i) Blue Ridge Family Trust exists, (ii) Blue
Ridge Family Trust is the owner of the Property, (iii) the Debtor is a Co-Trustee, and (iv) the
Debtor is a designated beneficiary of the Trust or that he has an equitable interest in the
Property. 6 All documents attached to the Debtor’s Reply appear to be signed by Courtney T.
Lemmons as Trustee. Those same documents and the contract of sale do not refer to Courtney
T. Lemmons as a Co-Trustee with another individual. The Certificate the Debtor attached to
his Reply does not show that the Debtor is a beneficiary of the Blue Ridge Family Trust and
the Certificate is not signed by the Debtor. Furthermore, as Bank of America noted, in the
bankruptcy schedules filed by Yolanda Martin in her last bankruptcy case (case number 25-
73526) on September 11, 2025, Ms. Martin declared under penalty of perjury that she is the
sole owner of the Property. This contradicts the representations made by the Debtor that
Blue Ridge Family Trust has been the owner of the Property since 2024.
Generally, the filing of a bankruptcy petition by a debtor implicates the automatic
stay under section 362(a), which stays most actions against the debtor and against property
of the debtor’s bankruptcy estate. Specifically, section 362(a) provides, in relevant part, that
the filing of a bankruptcy petition operates as a stay against:
(1) the commencement or continuation, including the issuance
or employment of process, of a judicial, administrative, or other
action or proceeding against the debtor that was or could have
been commenced before the commencement of the case under
this title, or to recover a claim against the debtor that arose
before the commencement of the case under this title;
(2) the enforcement, against the debtor or against property of the
estate, of a judgment obtained before the commencement of the
case under this title . . . .
11 U.S.C. § 362(a).
6 In the Debtor’s prior bankruptcy filing under case no 23-74540, the Debtor stated in his Schedule A/B that he is
the holder of an option to purchase the Property, which appears to contradict the representations made in this
case. There is no evidence that the Debtor holds an option to purchase the Property.
Case 8-26-71438-las Doc 36 Filed 07/30/26 Entered 07/30/26 10:52:56

9
Here, section 362(a)(1) does not apply as Bank of America has not commenced, nor is
it continuing, an action or proceeding against the Debtor with respect to the Property, and is
not seeking to recover a claim against the Debtor that arose before the filing of the Debtor’s
bankruptcy case. As stated earlier, the Debtor is not a party to the foreclosure proceeding,
and it bears repeating that the Debtor is not an obligor under the note and mortgage, not an
owner of the Property, and not a tenant residing at the Property. Section 362(a)(2) also does
not apply because Bank of America is not seeking to enforce the Judgment against the Debtor
as he is not a defendant in the foreclosure action and Bank of America has not asserted a
claim against the Debtor.
Furthermore, there is no evidence in the record that the Property is property of the
Debtor’s bankruptcy estate. Section 541(a) provides, in relevant part, that property of the
bankruptcy estate comprises of “all legal and equitable interests of the debtor in property as
of the commencement of the case.” 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1). Here, there is nothing in the record
showing that the Debtor had a legal or equitable interest in the Property as of the
commencement of his bankruptcy case. Any claim that the Debtor has any such interest is
contradicted by the undisputed record. The Debtor admittedly is not an owner of the Property
and, because the Debtor did not reside at the Property at the time he filed his bankruptcy
case, there is nothing in the record to support any claim that he had a possessory interest in
the Property.
Even if the Debtor is a Trustee of the Blue Ridge Family Trust as he claims, putting
aside, for purposes of discussion, (i) the conflicting information as to who is the actual owner
of the Property – Yolanda Martin or the Blue Ridge Family Trust, and (ii) the absence of any
documentary evidence to support the claim that the Debtor is a co-trustee of the Blue Ridge
Family Trust, section 541(b)(1) specifically excludes from property of the estate “any power
that the debtor may exercise solely for the benefit of an entity other than the debtor”. 11
Case 8-26-71438-las Doc 36 Filed 07/30/26 Entered 07/30/26 10:52:56

10
U.S.C. § 541(b)(1). Thus, a bankruptcy estate does not include property that a debtor holds
as trustee of a trust. See U.S. v. Whiting Pools, Inc., 462 U.S. 198, 205 n.10 (1983) (noting
that “Congress plainly excluded property of others held by the debtor in trust at the time of
the filing of the petition.”). And again it bears repeating that no trust document was
presented to the Court describing the Blue Ridge Family Trust or the beneficiaries of the
Blue Ridge Family Trust, and there is no evidence in the record that the Debtor himself is a
beneficiary of the Blue Ridge Family Trust.
Thus, the Court finds that the Debtor’s bankruptcy filing on April 13, 2026 did not
stay the foreclosure sale of the Property conducted on April 15, 2026. The Debtor has failed
to demonstrate that the foreclosure sale of the Property by Bank of America violated any stay
that came into effect under section 362(a) as to the Debtor or any property of the Debtor’s
bankruptcy estate. Indeed, that may very well explain the Debtor’s repeated ex parte motions
for a temporary restraining order or an order voiding the foreclosure sale even before the
Court held the Hearing on the Debtor’s Motion as the Debtor clearly did not believe that his
bankruptcy filing implicated the automatic stay.
V. 	Conclusion
For all the foregoing reasons, and for the reasons set forth on the record made at the
Hearing, the Debtor’s Motion is denied.
So Ordered.
____________________________
Louis A. Scarcella
United States Bankruptcy Judge
Dated: July 30, 2026
Central Islip, New York
Case 8-26-71438-las Doc 36 Filed 07/30/26 Entered 07/30/26 10:52:56