In re Carling

          ORDER ON RELIEF FROM STAY

          PETER W. BOWIE, Chief Judge, United States Bankruptcy Court

         This case was filed as a "barebones" Chapter 11 on December 19, 2010. The balance of the Schedules were filed on January 2, 2011. On Schedule A, debtor listed real estate valued at $2, 699, 000 and securing debt of $1, 973, 003. However, on Schedule D debtor claimed that the debts owed to the first, second and third trust deed holders were contingent, unliquidated and disputed.

         On Schedule J, debtor is listed as single, with pension or retirement income of $3, 330 per month. Schedule J showed expenses of $2, 665, but contained no expenses for any debt service on the over $1.9 million in secured debt.

         The Court conducted a status conference on January 13, 2011 and told the debtor to file an application to employ a real estate broker since it was debtor's goal to sell the property. To the present date, April 8, no application to employ a broker has been submitted to the Court, although counsel has represented one was submitted to the U.S. Trustee, which was returned for revisions, which have not yet been made.

         On February 10, the junior secured creditor, Mr. Struyk, filed and served a motion for relief from stay. Debtor did not timely oppose. Debtor's counsel sought an enlargement of time to oppose, which the Court granted. Debtor then filed his opposition, saying he needed to conduct discovery to show he had a meritorious defense to Mr. Struyk's motion.

         Notwithstanding that debtor's counsel has known of the accepted offer since at least February 28, no motion has been brought to seek authority to sell, to employ the broker, or to dismiss this case. Nor has there been any application to employ counsel, even though counsel has accepted a $5, 000 retainer.

         At a status conference on April 4, the Court was apprised by counsel that debtor's counsel had finally, that day, shared some information on the proposed sale, which Mr. Struyk's counsel had been scrambling to verify. The Court and counsel discussed how the matter might be resolved, whether by dismissal on shortened notice or otherwise. Then, the matter was continued to April 7 for the continued hearing on relief from stay. Counsel for debtor asked for more time and a hearing 3 0 days out. The Court indicated that debtor's time allowed under § 362(e) had all but expired. Debtor's broker discussed the status of the sale, reporting that it is ready to close April 12, and the only-contingency is Court approval. Mr. Struyk asked for an order granting relief from stay on a date certain if the sale does not close.

         Based on all the foregoing, the Court finds and concludes as follows:

         The only opposition to Mr. Struyk's relief from stay came from the debtor, not from any of the 2 0 largest unsecured creditors, or any of the other secured creditors. That allows the Court to conclude that as to them they do not assert an expectancy of excess funds from the real property. The offer is $2, 050, 000, and the debt is $1, 973, 003 or more. Therefore, it makes no difference to those creditors whether the property is gone from the estate by relief from stay and foreclosure, or by sale. Accordingly, the Court hereby authorizes the real property to be sold in accordance with the represented offer. If such sale does not close by April 19, 2011, Mr. Struyk may present an order for relief from stay after serving it on debtor's counsel, only. Debtor may apply to extend the stay for good cause. Absent good cause shown, however, the Court will grant Mr. Struyk relief. Any application by debtor to extend the stay must be filed and served by April 22, 2011.

         A continued status conference hearing date will be separately noticed.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.