LUIS RIVERA VELEZ and NANCY SANCHEZ MARTINEZ

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case:d6-07953-BKT11 Doc#:193 Filed:11/16/06 Entered:11/16/06 10:54:53 Desc: Main
Document Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

IN THE MATTER OF
LUIS RIVERA VELEZ & NANCY

SANCHEZ MARTINEZ, : CASE NO. 05-07953(SEK)
DEBTORS CHAPTER 11 | FILED & ENTERE|
BO NOV 1 6 2006
OPINION AND ORDER SE IADKRGEEEY count

Luis Rivera Vélez and Nancy Rivera Vélez are Debtors in
possession (Debtors). They filed a “Nunc Pro Tunc Amendment of
Request for Additional Facts and Conclusions of Law Under FRBP
Rule 8002 and 7052” from a partial and a final order entered on
February 7 and 16, 2006, granting General Electrical Capital
Corporation’s (G.E. Capital), request for relief from stay.?

G.B. Capital objects. We deny Debtors’ requests for reasons that
follow.

Background

We granted G.E. Capital’s amended motion for relief from
stay filed under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d) based on agreed documentary
evidence of record that showed:

1. Before Debtors filed this petition for bankruptcy, G.E.

* we found that General Electric Capital Corporation had

waived the thirty day determination period contained in 11 U.S.C.
§ 362(e). Debtors first motion for additional findings was filed
within ten days from entry of the final order granting the motion
for lift of stay. See dkt. # 122. The court could not
understand the requests made in this documents and ordered
Debtors to amend these nunc pro tunc. Debtors complied.

AUTHENTICATED 2]
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION
GPO

hie

Case:¢b-07953-BKT11 Doc#:193 Filed:11/16/06 Entered:11/16/06 10:54:53 Desc: Main
Document Page 2 of 4

obtained a judgment entered by a non bankruptcy court,
incorporating the parties’ settlement of that complaint. fThis
judgment provided Debtors would pay G.E. Capital twelve
consecutive payments of $4,000 each. As relevant, the eighth
paragraph of the settlement provides, “El incumplimiento de la
parte demandada con los pagos y condiciones contendidas en la
presente estipulcaién ... dara derecho a ésta a dar por vencida,
liquida y exigible la deuda en cuestién: y a ejecutar la
sentencia dictada por el Tribunal...”.

2. Payment history provided by the Debtors showed they did
not comply with the settlement merged into a judgment.

3. Under the terms of the settlement merged into the
judgment, G.E. was entitled to accelerate the loan and could not
be compelled by this Court to accept an “adequate protection”

payment of $8,000 deposited by the Debtors.

4. The parties agreed that the adversary proceeding filed
by the Debtors as 06-00029 shows the collateral mentioned in the
settlement has no equity which could serve as a cushion
equivalent to adequate protection,

5. The court granted the motion for lift of stay.

Discussion

Debtors requests for additional findings is governed by Fed.

R. Bankr. P. 7052(b), which mirrors F.R.C.P. 52(b). “The primary

purpose of Rule 52(b) is to enable the appellate court to obtain

Case:db-07953-BKT11 Doc#:193 Filed:11/16/06 Entered:11/16/06 10:54:53 Desc: Main
Document Page 3 of 4
a correct understanding of the factual issues determined by the
trial court as a basis for the conclusions of law and judgment
entered thereon. ... It is said that the motion must raise
questions of substance by seeking reconsideration of material
Findings of fact or conclusions of law “. Wright & Miller, 9A
Fed. Practice & Procedure Civil 2d § 2585. “Although Rule 52({b)
is not intended to allow parties to rehash old arguments already
considered and rejected by the court, [citations omitted], its
purpose is to permit the correction of any manifest errors of law
or fact that are discovered, upon reconsideration, by the trial
court.” National Metal Finishing Co., Inc., v. Barclays American
Commercial, Inc., 899 F.2d 119, 122 (18° Cair.1990). We now
examine each request for an additional finding to see whether it
meets the stated criteria.

The first two additional findings mentioned in Debtor’s
motion concern § 362(d)(2)(B). However, G.E.’s motion for relief
from stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d) allowed the Court to rule
based on § 362(d) (1), or § 362(d) (2). We granted the motion
based on § 362(d)(1). Therefore, the additional findings #1 and
#2 are irrelevant.

Our rulings included Debtors’ third proposal. We did find
there was no equity in the collateral which could serve as an
adequate protection cushion. Hence, this request is moot.

We deny the request for entry on the fourth additional

Case:0b-07953-BKT11 Doc#:193 Filed:11/16/06 Entered:11/16/06 10:54:53 Desc: Main
Document Page 4 of 4

finding sought by Debtors as possession of the collateral does

not impede a party from offering adequate protection.

We deny Debtors’ fifth and sixth requests as these matters
were not brought to our attention before we ruled, and in any
event, the findings are irrelevant.

We deny Debtors’ seventh, eighth and ninth requests as
irrelevant to the court’s rulings.

We deny Debtors’ tenth request for reasons already stated:
we could have ruled under §§ 362(d)(1) or 362 (d) (2).

We deny Debtors’ thirteenth request because it is an
erroneous conclusion of law.

We deny Debtors’ requests 11 & 12, 14 because these are
irrelevant to the rulings of the court.

The fifteenth request is moot because the court rulings did
consider the adequate protection offered by the Debtors, and the
valuation of the collateral.

SO ORDERED, in San Juan, Puerto Rico, on November 15, 2006.

fod,

ARA DE JESUS
U.S/ Bankruptcy Judge