IN RE: Christine Seeram (2025)

Chapter 13

MEMORANDUM ORDER GRANTING CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE'S MOTION TO DISMISS CASE WITH PREJUDICE AND BAR TO REFILING FOR TWO YEARS [ECF NO. 19]

On March 3, 2025, the Court held a hearing on the Trustee's Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice and Notice of an Opportunity for a Hearing (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 19]. The Chapter 13 Trustee requests that the debtor's bankruptcy case be dismissed with prejudice and that a two-year bar to refiling be entered based on the debtor's bad faith and abuse of the bankruptcy process. At the hearing, the Chapter 13 Trustee appeared and presented a case, but the debtor did not appear. Nor did the debtor file a response to the Trustee's Motion. For the reasons described herein, the Court is convinced that the Chapter 13 Trustee has established that dismissal is appropriate and that a two-year bar to refiling is warranted.

Background

On December 6, 2024, the debtor filed her petition under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code.¹ [ECF No. 1]. This is the debtor's eighth bankruptcy filing since 2016. On December 10, 2024, the Clerk of the Court issued a notice setting the Meeting of Creditors for January 16, 2025. [ECF No. 9]. On December 12, 2024, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause Why Case Should Not Be Dismissed, indicating that the debtor did not sign the petition as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 1002-1(a) and requiring the debtor to file a signed petition before December 27, 2024. [ECF No. 12]. The debtor did not correct this deficiency or show cause why the case should not be dismissed.

On December 17, 2024, the Trustee filed the instant Motion. The Meeting of Creditors, initially scheduled for January 16, 2025, was not held because of the Trustee's pending Motion. [ECF No. 24].

Standard for Dismissal – 11 U.S.C. § 1307 and Bad Faith

The Chapter 13 Trustee has moved for dismissal of the debtor's bankruptcy case and the imposition of a two-year bar to filing any subsequent bankruptcy petitions under §§ 105, 109(g), 349(c), and 1307 of the Bankruptcy Code. Involuntary dismissal of a Chapter 13 case is governed by § 1307(c) of the Bankruptcy Code, which provides, in part, that:

Except as provided in subsection (f) of this section, on request of a party in interest or the United States trustee and after notice and a hearing, the court may convert a case under this chapter to a case under chapter 7 of this title, or may dismiss a case under this chapter, whichever is in the best interests of creditors and the estate, for cause, including—

(1) unreasonable delay by the debtor that is prejudicial to creditors; and

(4) failure to commence making timely payments under section 1326 of this title;

11 U.S.C. § 1307(c). Although § 1307(c) contains eleven subsections, the Chapter 13 Trustee has only moved under the two sections identified here. The Fourth Circuit has explained that bad faith can constitute cause for dismissal under § 1307(c). See In re Kestell, 99 F.3d 146, 148 (4th Cir. 1996) (reasons constituting cause for dismissal also include “judicially construed ones such as bad faith”); see also In re Shaheen, 268 B.R. 455, 462 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2001) (“In determining whether the case should be dismissed with prejudice, the court should consider the debtor's good faith․ [T]he finding of bad faith requires a finding of subjective intent and objective futility.”).

The Standard for Establishing a Bar to Refiling a Case

The usual remedy for a bad faith filing is a dismissal pursuant to § 109(g), which prohibits the filing by a debtor of any case under title 11 for a period of 180 days. See In re Tomlin, 105 F.3d 933 (4th Cir. 1997). Section 109(g)(1) provides:

(g) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, no individual ․ may be a debtor under this title who has been a debtor in a case pending under this title at any time in the preceding 180 days if—

(1) the case was dismissed by the court for willful failure of the debtor to abide by orders of the court, or to appear before the court in proper prosecution of the case ․

11 U.S.C. § 109(g)(1). “Willful,” although not defined in the Bankruptcy Code, has been interpreted as meaning “deliberate or intentional.” In re Woods-Dennison, 2019 WL 1431362, at *2 (Bankr. S.D.W. Va. Mar. 29, 2019) (cleaned up). Although “[f]ailing to make a Chapter 13 Plan payment or missing a single hearing or 341 meeting of creditors does not rise to the level of ‘willful,’ ” courts have interpreted repeated conduct as deliberate conduct. Id. Courts also “will infer from a pattern of dismissals and re-filing in unchanged circumstances willful failure to abide by orders of the court and an abuse of the bankruptcy process ․” Id.

The Fourth Circuit has also recognized that § 349 gives the bankruptcy court authority to dismiss a bankruptcy case with a bar preventing a debtor from re-filing in cases of abuse. See In re Weaver, 222 B.R. 521, 522 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 1998) (citing In re Tomlin, 105 F.3d at 937) (“§ 349(a) gives a bankruptcy judge discretion to ‘order otherwise’ for cause and to dismiss a petition with prejudice; this discretion may be exercised either to prohibit the filing of a petition with a set time, or it may preclude the debtor from receiving a discharge in bankruptcy of debts in existence when the case is dismissed”).

Section 349(a) provides, in part, that:

Unless the court, for cause, orders otherwise, the dismissal of a case under this title does not bar the discharge, in a later case under this title, of debts that were dischargeable in the case dismissed; nor does the dismissal of a case under this title prejudice the debtor with regard to the filing of a subsequent petition under this title, except as provided in section 109(g) of this title.

11 U.S.C. § 349(a).

Although multiple filings are not per se prohibited, a debtor's history of filings and dismissals may be evidence of a bad-faith filer. In re Tomlin, 105 at 941-42 (4th Cir. 1997).

The relevant Fourth Circuit authority governing the Court's review of the debtor's good faith is the balancing test set forth in Neufeld v Freeman, 794 F.2d 149 (4th Cir. 1986), which cites Deans v O'Donnell, 692 F.2d 968, 972 (4th Cir. 1982), and provides that good faith is determined by the totality of the circumstances including: type of debt sought to be discharged; whether the debt would be non-dischargeable under Chapter 7; the debtor's motivation and sincerity in seeking Chapter 13 relief; the debtor's accuracy in stating his debts and expenses; the debtor's honesty in the bankruptcy process; and whether the Bankruptcy Code is being unfairly manipulated. See Neufeld, 794 F.2d at 151–152.

Application of the Standards to this Case

In the Motion, the Chapter 13 Trustee moves to dismiss the debtor's bankruptcy case for bad faith, with prejudice, and requests a two-year bar to refiling. In support of this request, the Chapter 13 Trustee avers, and later argued at the hearing, that the debtor is acting in bad faith because, among other things, the debtor:

• failed to sign the petition;

• failed to produce documents;

• failed to commence plan payments;

• failed to appear at hearings;

• failed to prosecute numerous cases beyond the mere act of its filing on numerous occasions;

• repeatedly failed to make post-petition mortgage payments resulting in relief from the automatic stay in this case; and

• and her family members filed repetitive, successive bankruptcy cases in an effort to prevent her creditors from pursuing their rights;

See Motion, at ¶¶ 2–6, 13, 15–18.

At the hearing, counsel for the Chapter 13 Trustee clarified that the debtor:

• has filed a nominal plan that does not propose to pay the entirety of the mortgage holder's secured claim;

• the Meeting of Creditors could not be held under § 341 of the Bankruptcy Code because the debtor failed to supply the documents she is required to supply under § 521;

• has continued to fail to provide documentation to the Trustee; and

• is nonresponsive to the Trustee.

This is the debtor's eighth bankruptcy filing. The debtor's seven prior cases are:

• Case Number 16-19808, Chapter 7 filed in Maryland Bankruptcy Court on 07/22/2016, Dismissed for Other Reason on 04/12/2017;

• Case Number 17-20185, Chapter 13 filed in Maryland Bankruptcy Court on 07/27/2017, Dismissed for Other Reason on 05/31/2018;

• Case Number 19-11897, Chapter 13 filed in Maryland Bankruptcy Court on 02/13/2019, Dismissed for Failure to File Information on 05/10/2019; • Case Number 19-18036, Chapter 13 filed in Maryland Bankruptcy Court on 06/13/2019, Dismissed for Other Reason on 10/01/2019; • Case Number 20-12176, Chapter 13 filed in Maryland Bankruptcy Court on 02/20/2020, Standard Discharge on 08/17/2021;

• Case Number 22-11787, Chapter 13 filed in Maryland Bankruptcy Court on 04/05/2022, Dismissed for Failure to File Information on 06/22/2022;

• Case Number 23-17374, Chapter 13 filed in Maryland Bankruptcy Court on 10/13/2023, Dismissed for Other Reason on 03/27/2024.

The debtor's spouse, Primnath Seeram, who is not a party to this case but who is a co-owner with the debtor of the real property, has filed five bankruptcy cases. Because of his interest in the real property, Primnath Seeram's filings gave rise to a stay of actions by the lienholder. Primnath Seeram's five cases are as follows:

• Case Number 17-10175, Chapter 7 filed in Maryland Bankruptcy Court on 01/05/2017, Standard Discharge on 04/18/2017;

• Case Number 18-19867, Chapter 13 filed in Maryland Bankruptcy Court on 07/26/2018, Dismissed for Other Reason on 02/20/2019;

• Case Number 19-25558, Chapter 13 filed in Maryland Bankruptcy Court on 11/21/2019, Dismissed for Failure to File Information on 01/03/2020;

• Case Number 21-14623, Chapter 13 filed in Maryland Bankruptcy Court on 07/14/2021, Dismissed for Failure to File Information on 10/14/2021;

• Case Number 24-15619, Chapter 13 filed in Maryland Bankruptcy Court on 07/03/2024, Dismissed for Dismissed for Failure to File Information on 09/13/2024.

Additionally, the debtor's daughter, Michelle Seeram, who is not a party to this case but who has claimed an interest in the real property and has used its address as hers, has filed six bankruptcy cases (also giving rise to a stay), including one in which this Court entered a two-year bar to refiling, which are as follows:

• Case Number 16-25575, Chapter 7 filed in Maryland Bankruptcy Court on 11/28/2016 , Dismissed for Failure to File Information on 02/21/2017;

• Case Number 17-21226, Chapter 13 filed in Maryland Bankruptcy Court on 08/21/2017 , Dismissed for Other Reason on 12/06/2017;

• Case Number 20-13182, Chapter 13 filed in Maryland Bankruptcy Court on 03/10/2020 , Dismissed for Other Reason on 05/25/2021;

• Case Number 22-14203, Chapter 13 filed in Maryland Bankruptcy Court on 08/02/2022 , Dismissed for Failure to File Information on 10/07/2022;

• Case Number 23-17898, Chapter 13 filed in Maryland Bankruptcy Court on 11/01/2023, Dismissed with Prejudice and Bar to Refiling for Two Years on 03/29/2024;

• Case Number 24-20313, Chapter 13 filed in Maryland Bankruptcy Court on 12/06/2024, Dismissed for Other Reason on 02/18/2025.

Further, the daughter's spouse, Kalidass Gunness, who is not a party to this case but who has claimed an interest in the real property and has used its address as his, has filed five bankruptcy cases (creating a stay), which are as follows:

• Case Number 17-14077, Chapter 7 filed in Maryland Bankruptcy Court on 03/24/2017, Standard Discharge on 07/07/2017;

• Case Number 18-10922, Chapter 13 filed in Maryland Bankruptcy Court on 01/23/2018;

• Case Number 22-11788, Chapter 13 filed in Maryland Bankruptcy Court on 04/05/2022 , Dismissed for Failure to File Information on 06/08/2022.

• Case Number 22-16641, Chapter 13 filed in Maryland Bankruptcy Court on 11/30/2022, Dismissed for Other Reason on 06/27/2023;

• Case Number 24-14704, Chapter 13 filed in Maryland Bankruptcy Court on 06/03/2024, Dismissed for Failure to Pay All Requires Court Fees on 10/03/2024

The Court finds that “cause” exists to convert or dismiss this case pursuant to § 1307(c) of the Bankruptcy Code under:

• (c)(1) for the debtor's unreasonable delay prejudicial to creditors as evidenced by the debtor's failure to produce documents that are the debtor's duty to produce under § 521;

• (c)(4) for the debtor's failure to commence plan payments, as evidenced by the debtor's failure to make any plan payments;

• the debtor's failure to appear at hearings; and

• her failure to prosecute her numerous cases beyond the mere act of its filing on numerous occasions.

The Court further finds there is sufficient evidence, considering the totality of the circumstances, to determine the debtor's bad faith. The repetitive filings of the debtor, with this being the debtor's eighth filing since 2016, in tandem with her spouse's and extended family members’ repeated filings, in an apparent effort to forestall foreclosure and eviction proceedings on their home, as well as the failure of the debtor to: (1) produce documents to the Chapter 13 Trustee; (2) commence plan payments; (3) make post-petition mortgage payments; (4) attend hearings; (5) attend the Meeting of Creditors all show a pattern refuting the debtor's good motivation and sincerity in seeking Chapter 13 relief and the debtor's honesty in the bankruptcy process.

Once a party calls into question a petitioner's good faith, as the Chapter 13 Trustee has done here, the burden shifts to the debtor to prove her good faith. In re Tamecki, 229 F.3d 205, 207 (3rd Cir. 2000). The debtor did not respond to the Motion and did not appear at the March 4, 2025 hearing. Accordingly, the debtor did not provide any facts or argument in support of her good faith.

The Court finds that the debtor's conduct constitutes bad faith and an abuse of the Bankruptcy Code and bankruptcy process, and has decided that a two-year refiling bar is appropriate in this case. See In re Carpenter, 2013 WL 1194865, at *1 (Bankr. M.D.N.C. Mar. 22, 2013) (dismissing chapter 13 case and imposing a one-year bar to re-filing where debtor filed four petitions within nine months); In re Latovljevic, 343 B.R. 817 (Bankr. N.D. W. Va. 2006) (dismissing chapter 13 case and imposing 180-day bar to filing where the debtor filed six deficient bankruptcy petitions within four years); In re Oliver, 322 B.R. 769 (Bankr. M.D. Ala. 2005) (dismissing the bankruptcy case and imposing a two-year bar to refiling where the debtor filed seven cases within nine years); In re Brogdon, 2001 WL 1699687 (Bankr. M.D.N.C. Sept. 7, 2001) (dismissing a bankruptcy case and imposing a one-year bar to re-filing where debtor filed two cases in three years and misrepresented facts in her petition).

Having decided that relief is appropriate under § 1307, the Court has considered, as it must, whether conversion or dismissal is in the best interest of creditors and the estate. 11 U.S.C. § 1307(c). In this case, the Court is convinced by the record, and by the argument of the Chapter 13 Trustee, that dismissal would better serve these interests. The debtor's case (and the leapfrogging filings by her relatives) appear to be concerned with the debt on her residence and calculated to forestall foreclosure and ouster. The principal creditor affected in this case is the mortgage holder, who was granted relief from the stay on January 29, 2025. [ECF No. 25]. In its Motion for Order Granting Relief from Automatic Stay and Co-Debtor Stay [ECF No. 21], the creditor represented that a foreclosure sale was ratified by court order entered on March 3, 2023, and that the creditor elected to proceed with eviction to obtain possession of the real property. Dismissal serves that creditor's interest, as does the term of the filing bar being imposed by the Court.

For the foregoing reasons, it is, by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland,

ORDERED, that the Trustee's Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice and Notice of an Opportunity for a Hearing is GRANTED; and it is further

ORDERED, the debtor's case is DISMISSED; and it is further

ORDERED, that the debtor shall not file a case under any chapter of the Bankruptcy Code in any jurisdiction for a period of two (2) years.

END OF MEMORANDUM ORDER

FOOTNOTES

1.   11 U.S.C. § 101, et seq. (the “Bankruptcy Code”).

NANCY V. ALQUIST U.S. BANKRUPTCY JUDGE