Legal Question in Bankruptcy in California

Hi,

I filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy, which was my second one within a 12-month period. Without obtaining a "Relief from Stay" order from the bankruptcy court, the opposing attorney at my Unlawful Detainer (Lower court) eviction hearing used the "No automatic stay after 30-days" bankruptcy law (For a 2nd bankruptcy filing within a 12-month period) in order to get the judge to render a judgment (And issue a writ of possession) against me, ALTHOUGH there is a "grey area" here, in that the opposing attorney also may NEED to get an order from the bankruptcy court for "Relief from the Automatic Stay", simply because my HOME is at issue here (A "real property interest"), instead of an apartment rental, and the real property in question is, technically, now in the possession of the bankruptcy trustee, which may also technically require a "Relief from Stay" order before the plaintiff can proceed against me with any lower court judgment.

At any rate, before I could move Ex-Parte to bring this fact to the judge's attention, in order to be able to set aside (Or vacate) the eviction judgment against me, I received a Notice to Vacate, thereby not giving me enough time to move Ex-Parte before the lockout.

SO ! The plot now thickens:

I then immediately filed for an EMERGENCY bankruptcy 30-day stay, depositing one month's mortgage payment money (Or "rental" money) with the bankruptcy court as required (This was done with my existing bankruptcy -- I.e., the 2nd BK filing within the 12-month period), and the sheriff's office scheduled for the lockout received the paperwork and said that "Absolutely, this will stop the eviction, and that I now have another 30-days time before any lockout can occur, due to the emergency bankruptcy stay" ALL BECAUSE one-month's mortgage / rental amount had now been deposited with the bankruptcy court.

Then, WITHOUT RETURNING MY DEPOSIT MONEY THAT WAS DEPOSITED WITH THE BANKRUPTCY COURT, and which the bankruptcy court clerk also forwarded directly to the landlord (Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, to their corporate address in San Francisco), the opposing attorney, being fully aware of the money I had deposited with the BK court, called the sheriff's office and told the sheriff supervisor to proceed against me with the lockout (The next day), because my bankruptcy "automatic stay" for my "2nd-time in 12-month BK filing was long ago over", and there was now NO automatic stay to prevent me from being locked out, MEANING THAT the attorney had completely ignored the fact that the bankruptcy court had already implemented the 30-day EMERGENCY DEPOSIT MONEY stay by taking my (Monthly mortgage amount) deposit money for the new, upcoming 30-day period ( $2,200 ! ) , and the opposing attorney also had made NO arrangements or effort whatsoever to even have this LAWFUL 30-DAY EMERGENCY STAY MONEY returned to me !

Please help ! Can you advise and quote to me (And give me an internet link, etc.) any applicable federal bankruptcy law that will be favorable to my position so that I can overturn this lockout (Ex-Parte hearing) and receive the remainder of my 30-day stay that was already confirmed (And paid for) with the bankruptcy court ? My entire life is now locked up in my house, and I have no where else to move to, as the "landlord / mortgage company" now has my $2,200 that, otherwise, I needed to find another place !

Also, please note: There is an ex-parte hearing scheduled for this on Monday morning (October 31st), so it will not help me if an answer to this question is simply "Get an attorney", or "You should always have an attorney".

Such "advice" is water under the bridge at this point. What I need are some examples, or case law reference(s) that support the position that a bankruptcy filed with 30-day rental / deposit money accepted by the bankruptcy court clerk fulfill the bankruptcy requirements for "Certification by a debtor who resides as a tenant of residential property", which is found on page 2 of the bankruptcy Voluntary Petition form, and which will help me to overturn the lockout, as it can then be proven to the lower court judge (At the Ex-Parte hearing) that the opposing attorney acted hastily, and in error, and will give me grounds to overturn the lockout.

Thank you very much.

Jim F.

2 Answer from Attorneys

Related Questions & Answers

More Bankruptcy Law questions and answers in California

Looking for something else?