Patsy Ruth Long

1 In relevant part Rule 13-17(a) states: “A party who opposes a motion to dismiss shall
file a response to the motion to dismiss within twenty (20) days of service of the motion. If no
response to the motion to dismiss is filed, the Court, in its discretion, may allow the motion
without a hearing.”
In re
PATSY RUTH LONG,
Debtor
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
EASTERN DIVISION
Chapter 13
Case No. 09-10582-FJB
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON
DEBTOR’S MOTION TO VACATE ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND REINSTATE CASE
The chapter 13 debtor, Patsy Ruth Long (“the Debtor”), appearing pro se, has moved to
vacate this court’s order of dismissal of May 15, 2009. By that order, the Court granted the
motion of the chapter 13 trustee (“the Trustee”) to dismiss, to which the Debtor had filed no
response within the twenty-day period required by this court’s local rule, MLBR App. 1, Rule 13-
17(a). 1 The trustee’s motion sought dismissal for failure of the debtor to make the first plan
payment and to file or provide to the trustee six enumerated documents. In her motion to
vacate, the debtor now states that she missed the objection deadline because, the Court having
established May 28, 2009 as the deadline for filing an amended plan, she believed the deadline
for the filing of all “paperwork” (which the court construes to include her objection to the motion
to dismiss) was extended to that date. She states that she failed to make her first payment
because she believed no payment would be required until her plan was confirmed. And she
adds that she has adduced two of the documents sought by the trustee; she makes no mention
of the others. In a response to the motion to vacate, the chapter 13 trustee, Carolyn Bankowski,
states that she does not oppose reinstatement of the case but also (i) that the debtor still has
not adduced certain of the missing documents (evidence of real estate value and an amended
schedule C) and (ii) that although the debtor has now made her first payment, she has failed to
Case 09-10582 Doc 107 Filed 06/04/09 Entered 06/04/09 11:45:54 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 4

2 The six cases are as follows:
(1) Case No. 90-12924, a chapter 13 case filed by this debtor pro se under the name Patricia R.
Long on June 5, 1990 and dismissed on December 10, 1990 on motion of the chapter 13
trustee because the debtor’s debts exceeded the eligibility limits for chapter 13;
(2) Case No. 91-12470, a chapter 11 case filed by this debtor under the name Patricia R. Long
on March 25, 1991 and dismissed on motion of the United States Trustee for dismissal on April
15, 1992;
(3) Case No. 97-13364, a chapter 13 case filed by the Debtor’s husband, James Long , Jr., pro
se on April 10, 1997 and dismissed over five years later on April 26, 2002;
(4) Case No. 03-10565, a chapter 13 case filed by this debtor pro se under the name Patsy
Ruth Long on January 22, 2003, and dismissed on April 23, 2003 when (as in the present case)
she failed to object to the motion of the chapter 13 trustee to dismiss for failure to produce
certain documents and to make her first plan payment;
(5) Case No. 05-11312, a chapter 13 case filed by the Debtor’s husband, James Long , Jr., on
February 28, 2005 and converted to Chapter 7 on March 1, 2007. This case remains open. A
foreclosure sale of the debtors’ principal asset, the real property at 149 Adams Street in
Lexington, Massachusetts was scheduled for foreclosure in January 2009; and the chapter 7
trustee, though doubtful that the property would yield value for the estate, nonetheless was
reluctant to abandon the asset or to close the case before the foreclosure sale; and
(6) Case No. 09-10582, the present chapter 13 case filed by this debtor pro se under the name
Patsy Ruth Long on January 27, 2009.
2
make the second and third, which have since come due. For the reasons set forth below, the
court will deny the motion to vacate and reinstate.
First, the Debtor has stated no cause for reconsideration. Pro se debtors are expected
to familiarize themselves with and to abide by the rules of the court. There was nothing
ambiguous about the local rule or the order establishing the deadline for filing an amended plan
that would have justified even a pro se litigant’s confusion about the deadline for opposing the
motion to dismiss. The court will sometimes accommodate pro se litigants as they become
familiar with the rules and practices of the court, but this debtor is not new to the Bankruptcy
Court. She and her husband are veterans of at least six cases over the last nineteen years, 2
almost entirely as pro se debtors, which cases have cumulatively gained them the protections of
bankruptcy and the automatic stay for at least eleven full years. During almost all of this time,
Case 09-10582 Doc 107 Filed 06/04/09 Entered 06/04/09 11:45:54 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 4

3 See, for example, her Amended Plan [Doc. #64], her Motion to Reaffirm Debt [Doc. #
71], her Motion to Discharge Creditor’s Mortgage [Doc. # 62] (which names no mortgagee and
was not served), among others.
3
they have acted pro se, despite repeated advisements to obtain the assistance of counsel. This
debtor is entitled to no accommodation here, especially since her 2003 case was dismissed
under circumstances identical to those presented here: she failed to object to a motion of the
chapter 13 trustee to dismiss for failure to produce certain documents and to make her first plan
payment. In any event, even allowing for her pro se status, she has not stated grounds on
which her neglect could be deemed excusable. Reconsideration and vacatur may be denied on
this basis alone.
Second, the Debtor’s motion to vacate and reinstate does not answer the grounds for
which the trustee sought dismissal. According to the Trustee, at least two documents she
sought have still not been produced, and the Debtor is further in arrears on her payments to the
Trustee at this juncture than she was when the motion was filed. The Debtor does not address
these missing documents and her arrearage in payments. Even if reconsideration were
warranted, the Debtor has not stated cause to reach a different result.
Third, reinstatement would be futile. The debtor is not an attorney and patently lacks the
legal wherewithal to file a confirmable plan on her own. This would be true even if she were
proposing the simplest of plans (as it would be for almost any debtor lacking in legal training),
but she is not. She is nearly fifteen years in arrears on her mortgage (the arrearage stated in
the mortgagee’s proof of claim is $394,347) and cannot hope to cure that arrearage through
payments from disposable income over five years. She requires a different strategy, and the
pleadings she has filed to that end are grossly inadequate, both legally and procedurally, and,
for the most part, unintelligible. 3 She has proven herself incapable of competently prosecuting
a case under chapter 13.
Fourth, she and her husband have proven adept only at delay. I am mindful that she
Case 09-10582 Doc 107 Filed 06/04/09 Entered 06/04/09 11:45:54 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 4

4
appears to have commenced the present case only on the eve of foreclosure, despite the fact
that her husband has himself been in his most recent bankruptcy case for over four years,
during which time he has made no progress in addressing the mortgage at issue. I am hardly
confident that reinstatement of this case would not merely serve the purpose of further delay.
For these reasons, I am satisfied that the motion for reconsideration should be denied.
A separate order will enter accordingly.
Date: June 4, 2009 	_______________________________
Frank J. Bailey
United States Bankruptcy Judge
Case 09-10582 Doc 107 Filed 06/04/09 Entered 06/04/09 11:45:54 Desc Main
Document Page 4 of 4