J. AUG, Bankruptcy Judge
This matter is before the Court on the Chapter 13 Trustee's motion to dismiss for failure to file the schedules, plan, and statement of financial affairs. (Doc. 12). The Debtor did not file a response.
An overview of the Debtor's bankruptcy filings is telling. The Debtor filed a chapter 7 petition on June 10, 2002, being Case No. 02-14353, and received a discharge on November 1, 2002. She filed her first chapter 13 petition on June 25, being, Case No. 03-14941. That case was dismissed on August 14, 2003 for failure to file the schedules, plan, and statement of financial affairs.
The Debtor filed her second chapter 13 petition on July 22, 2004, being Case No. 04-36279. That case was dismissed on November 16, 2004 for failure to make plan payments.
This case was filed in Dayton rather than in Cincinnati.
Twenty days later, on December 6, 2004, the Debtor filed her third chapter 13 petition, being Case No. 04-19753. That case was dismissed on January 25, 2005 for failure to file the schedules, plan, and statement of financial affairs.
Seven days later, on February 1, 2005, the Debtor filed her fourth chapter 13 petition, being Case No. 05-10594. That case was dismissed on March 16, 2005 for failure to file the schedules, plan, and statement of financial affairs.
Twelve days later, on March 28, 2005, the Debtor filed the instant case, her fifth chapter 13 petition. On April 13, 2005, the Chapter 13 Trustee filed a motion to dismiss for failure to file all schedules, plan, and statement of financial affairs. That motion is pending before this Court.
On May 5, 2005, before the Court ruled on said pending motion to dismiss, the Debtor filed her sixth chapter 13 petition, being Case No. 05-13558.
All of the Debtor's petitions have been filed pro se.
The failure to file a Chapter 13 case in good faith is grounds for dismissal under 11 U.S.C. § 1307(c). See In re Badalyan, 236 B.R. 633, 638 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. 1999) (citing In re Caldwell, 895 F.2d 1123, 1126 (6th Cir. 1990)), aff'd, 221F.3d 1333 (6th Cir. 2000). Good faith is determined on a case by case basis by looking at the totality of the circumstances. In re Barrett, 964 F.2d 588, 591 (6th Cir. 1992) (citing In re Okoreeh-Baah, 836 F.2d 1030, 1033) (6th Cir. 1988)). The frequency of filings is one factor to be considered. In re Barrett, 964 F.2d at 591-92. A serial filing may be proper if there has been a change in circumstances. Id. at 592.
Section § 109(g)(1) creates a 180 day bar to refiling a bankruptcy petition if the prior case was "dismissed for willful failure of the debtor to abide by orders of the court, or to appear before the court in a proper prosecution of the case . . ." This code section was passed to address the filing of meritless petitions in rapid succession. In re Price, 304 B.R. 769, 772 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2004). Section § 349(a) allows the bankruptcy court to sanction a debtor beyond the 180 day period where there are "circumstances that cannot be addressed by § 109(g)." Id.
These cases represent one of the most egregious examples of serial filings that this Court has observed. It is clear from the number of filings as well as from the accelerated pace of the filings that the instant case was not filed in good faith. The Debtor has offered no reason for her multiple filings and has presented no evidence of a change in circumstances. Her multiple filings are prejudicial to her creditors and is a waste of judicial resources. It is also clear that the 180 day bar would be ineffective against this Debtor.
Equally amazing is a similar series of filings by Mildred Nixon, who resides at the same address as this Debtor: Case No. 02-14352; Case No. 04-36526; Case No. 04-18750; Case No. 05-12169; and Case No. 05-13557.
Accordingly, the Chapter 13 Trustee's motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED;
Further, Carlean Nixon is hereby PROHIBITED from filing a petition under any Chapter of the Bankruptcy Code for a period of three (3) years from the entry date of this order, unless she first seeks and receives Court approval to file a petition. See In re Roeben, 294 B.R. 840, 850 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2003).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Comments