ORDER DENYING DEBTOR'S MOTIONS TO VACATE VOID ORDER AND TO
ALTER OR AMEND JUDGEMENT (DKT. ## 327, 328) THIS MATTER is before the Court on Debtor's motions to vacate or reconsider this Court's Order Denying Motion to Reopen Chapter 13 Case [Dkt. No. 325]. Dkt. Nos. 327, 328. Debtor seeks reconsideration based on allegations that actions of Cadence Bank violated the automatic stay in a later case filed by Debtor [No. 25-51384] while Debtor was under a 180-day bar to refiling. The hearing on Debtor's motion to reopen was held on December 4, 2025. Dkt. No.
322.
Debtor filed this case on October 22, 2024. Dkt. No. 1. It was his second filing. His first case [No. 24-51052] was filed on July 24, 2024, dismissed on September 10, 2024, and closed on November 5, 2024. Within weeks of the filing of the second case, Cadence Bank filed a motion to dismiss asserting fraudulent conduct by Debtor and alleging that the case was filed in bad faith. Dkt. No. 18.
SO ORDERED,
Judge Katharine M. Samson __________________________________________________________________ The Order of the Court is set forth below. The docket reflects the date entered. United States Bankruptcy Judge
__________________________________________________________________ Date Signed: December 22, 2025
Page 2 of 4
On December 27, 2024, the Court entered an order denying Cadence Bank's motion. Dkt. No. 51. The order stated: "Should the Debtor's case be dismissed for any reason, then the automatic will be deemed lifted as to Cadence Bank . . . and the Debtor will be barred from filing for relief under the Chapter 13 bankruptcy code for a period of one hundred and eighty (180) days from the entry of an Order of Dismissal . . . ." Id. at 1-2.
On June 30, 2025, this case was dismissed for failure of Debtor to make monthly payments to the Trustee. Dkt. No. 255. Per the earlier order on Cadence Bank's motion to dismiss, the automatic stay terminated as to the bank on the date of dismissal. The dismissal also triggered a 180-day bar to refiling. The case was closed on October 10, 2025. Dkt. No. 260. Attempting to stop Cadence Bank from foreclosing on its collateral, Debtor filed a third petition for Chapter 13 bankruptcy on September 17, 2025 [No. 25-51384]. Although Cadence Bank had knowledge of the filing, it foreclosed on its collateral. See In re Williams, 533 B.R. 557, 563 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2015) (stay does not protect against foreclosure if the case was filed in violation of a bar to refiling); 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(21)(B). On October 14, 2025, the Court sua sponte dismissed the case because it violated the 180-day bar to refiling. No. 25-51384, Dkt. No.
28.
On October 24, 2025, Debtor filed his motion to reopen this case. Dkt. No. 271. At Debtor's request, a telephonic hearing was held on December 4, 2025. See Dkt. Nos. 311, 314, 322. Debtor's motion sought what can best be characterized as AI generated nonsense regarding authority of counsel for lenders, Persons Entitled to Enforce (PETE), and production of original (presumably wet ink) instruments, among other things. Dkt. No. 271. In a later pleading, Debtor sought nunc pro tunc reinstatement of the automatic stay to September 17. Dkt. No. 291 at 2. At the hearing, Debtor argued that Cadence Bank violated the automatic stay when it foreclosed on its collateral.
Page 3 of 4
The overwhelming majority of courts recognize that reopening a dismissed case does not retroactively impose the automatic stay. Laurel Valley Dev. LLC v. Parker (In re Parker), 624 B.R. 222, 230 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2021); Frank v. Gulf States Fin. Co. (In re Frank), 254 B.R. 368, 374 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2000) (reinstatement of case does not reimpose stay for actions like foreclosure that occurred prior to reinstatement). The Court denied Debtor's motion to reopen because granting it would not reimpose the stay as to Cadence Bank or any other creditor who recovered its collateral while the case was dismissed nor would reopening afford Debtor any of the other relief requested. Dkt. No. 325.
Debtor's motion to vacate is evaluated as a motion to alter or amend judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), applicable by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9023.1 The "correctness of a judgment" is called into question under this rule. Templet v. Hydrochem Inc.,
367 F.3d 473, 478 (5th Cir. 2004). "Under Rule 59(e), amending a judgment is appropriate (1) where there has been an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) where the movant presents newly discovered evidence that was previously unavailable; or (3) to correct a manifest error of law or fact." Demahy v. Schwarz Pharma, Inc., 702 F.3d 177, 182 (5th Cir. 2012) (citing Schiller
v. Physicians Res. Grp. Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 567 (5th Cir. 2003)). A motion for reconsideration is not a proper vehicle for rehashing evidence or legal theories. Anderson v. Martco LLC, 852 F. App'x 858, 859 (5th Cir. 2021).
Debtor has not established any grounds for reconsideration of the order denying his motion to reopen. Therefore, his motions to vacate or to alter or amend will be denied.
Page 4 of 4
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Debtor's Motion to Vacate Void Order and his Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment are DENIED.
##END OF ORDER##