Cheryl Yeboah

1
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
HARTFORD DIVISION
In re:
Cheryl Yeboah,
Debtor.
Chapter 7
Case No. 25-21024 (JJT)
Re: ECF No. 11
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM STAY
Before the Court is the Motion for Relief from Stay (Motion, ECF No. 11) filed
by U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee Successor in Interest to Bank of
America, National Association, as Trustee, Successor by Merger to LaSalle Bank
National Association, as Trustee for Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors Trust,
Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2006-SD1 (Movant). In the
Motion, the Movant asks for relief from the automatic stay to allow the Movant to
complete an eviction of the Debtor at property the Movant previously foreclosed on.
The Movant also asks for in rem relief under 11 U.S.C. § 105(a). The Debtor has not
responded to the Motion.1 For the reasons discussed below, relief from stay will be
granted but in rem relief denied.
According to the Motion, the Movant is the record owner of 39 Ridge
Boulevard, East Granby, CT 06026 (Property), having gained title through a final
judgment in a foreclosure action against the Debtor.2 The Movant then commenced
1 The Debtor has also failed to file several required documents, but the Court has not yet dismissed
the case for these deficiencies.
2 The Court takes judicial notice of both the foreclosure action and the pending summary process
proceeding, both from the Connecticut Superior Court.
Case 25-21024 Doc 23 Filed 11/12/25 Entered 11/12/25 15:46:17 Page 1 of 4

2
a summary process action against the Debtor and her husband. A judgment of
possession in favor the Movant has entered. One day prior to the scheduled lockout,
the Debtor initiated the instant bankruptcy case by filing a barebones petition. The
documentary deficiencies in the filing have been noticed by the Clerk of this Court
(ECF No. 3). No other required documents have been filed in the month that has
passed since the petition date.
The Court held a hearing on the subject Motion on October 21, 2025, at
which time the Court asked the Movant to further brief whether the Court had the
legal authority to grant in rem relief to complete an eviction. The Movant has done
so, and the Court, after review, took the matter under advisement.
Under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d):
On request of a party in interest and after notice and a hearing, the court shall
grant relief from the stay provided under subsection (a) of this section, such as
by terminating, annulling, modifying, or conditioning such stay—
(1) for cause, including the lack of adequate protection of an interest in
property of such party in interest;
(2) with respect to a stay of an act against property under subsection (a)
of this section, if—
(A) the debtor does not have an equity in such property; and
(B) such property is not necessary to an effective reorganization[.]
According to the uncontested facts advanced by the Movant, the Debtor has failed to
provide use and occupancy payments, as required in the summary process action or
in this case. That lack of adequate protection by the Debtor alone constitutes cause
to grant relief under subsection (d)(1). Subsection (d)(2), however, does not apply
because the summary process action is an act against the Debtor, not the Property.
Case 25-21024 Doc 23 Filed 11/12/25 Entered 11/12/25 15:46:17 Page 2 of 4

3
The Movant also asks for in rem relief under 11 U.S.C. § 105(a). In rem relief
is typically requested under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(4), which allows the Court to grant
relief from the automatic stay that is binding in any other case affecting subject
property for two years. That provision, however, applies only to acts against real
property, not persons, so § 362(d)(4) ostensibly does not apply.
The Court cannot afford relief under § 105(a) alone. Although that provision
allows the Court to “tak[e] any action or mak[e] any determination necessary or
appropriate to enforce or implement court orders or rules, or to prevent an abuse of
process[,]” 11 U.S.C. § 105(a), “the power granted to the bankruptcy courts under
section 105 is not boundless and should not be employed as a panacea for all ills
confronted in the bankruptcy case.” 2 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 105.01[2]; see also
Law v. Siegel, 571 U.S. 415, 421 (2014) (“whatever equitable powers remain the
bankruptcy courts must and can only be exercised within the confines of the
Bankruptcy Code”) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court has reviewed the
Movant’s cited authorities in its brief, none of which can sufficiently overcome the
Supreme Court’s admonitions on use of § 105(a). In rem relief is therefore denied.
Having reviewed the Superior Court actions and the docket of this case, it is
clear that the Debtor has abused the process of several courts in order to remain in
possession of the Property far longer than warranted. Therefore, despite not being
able to afford in rem relief, the Court is satisfied by the record that on a preliminary
basis it appears that the Debtor filed this case in bad faith and an appropriate order
Case 25-21024 Doc 23 Filed 11/12/25 Entered 11/12/25 15:46:17 Page 3 of 4

4
to show cause should issue in order to address whether a dismissal with a bar order
is now appropriate.
The Motion is granted in part and denied in part as set forth herein.
IT IS SO ORDERED at Hartford, Connecticut this 12th day of November
2025.
Case 25-21024 Doc 23 Filed 11/12/25 Entered 11/12/25 15:46:17 Page 4 of 4