Sasha Delores Veal

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
HARTFORD DIVISION
In re:
Sasha Delores Veal,
Debtor.
Chapter 13
Case No. 26-20184 (JJT)
Re: ECF Nos. 23, 54
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER
DISMISSING CASE FOR FAILURE TO CURE DEFICIENCY
On March 2, 2026, Sasha Delores Veal (“Debtor”) filed a Chapter 13
voluntary petition. (ECF No. 1) The Debtor appeared at a hearing on April 23, 2026,
where she explained that her primary goal in filing for relief under Chapter 13 was
to stay an eviction proceeding that has already gone to judgment in the Superior
Court. See Fifteen Realty LLC v. Veal, Sasha et al, HFH-CV25-6034263-S (Conn.
Super. Ct. 2025).
On March 2, 2026, the Debtor filed a Motion to Extend Automatic Stay. (ECF
No. 4) On March 13, 2026, the Debtor filed an Amended Motion to Extend
Automatic Stay. (ECF No. 26) On April 23, 2026, this Court issued an Order
Denying Amended Motion to Extend the Automatic Stay (ECF No. 26), explaining
therein that the Debtor did not enjoy an automatic stay of a judgment of eviction
and that the Debtor had not taken the requisite steps under the Bankruptcy Code
to instate such a stay.
On March 13, 2026, the Debtor filed a Chapter 13 Plan. (ECF No. 23) On
April 28, 2026, Roberta Napolitano, the Chapter 13 Trustee, filed an Objection to
Case 26-20184 Doc 68 Filed 05/26/26 Entered 05/26/26 17:05:42 Page 1 of 5

Confirmation of Plan. (ECF No. 54) There, the Chapter 13 Trustee raised a number
of objections to confirmation of the Plan, including that:
1. 	The Debtor has failed to maintain plan payments;
2. 	The Debtor has failed to provide the Trustee with necessary documentation
to determine if the Plan is feasible or represents the Debtor’s best efforts,
including payment advices or other evidence of income, bank statements, tax
returns, and documentation of the Debtor’s identity and social security
number;
3. 	The Debtor has failed to provide the Trustee with necessary documentation
to determine if the Plan complies with 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(4);
4. 	The first meeting of creditors pursuant to Section 341 of the Bankruptcy
Code has not been concluded because of the Debtor’s failure to provide the
necessary documentation;
5. 	The Plan fails to conform to the claims filed; and
6. 	The Debtor has not filed a Certificate of Service evidencing service of the
Plan on all creditors as required by Rule 3015(d) of the Federal Rules of
Bankruptcy Procedure.
On May 14, 2026, a hearing was held on the Chapter 13 Plan and the
Objection. The Debtor did not appear. There, the Chapter 13 Trustee reported to the
Court that the Debtor never made payments to the Chapter 13 Trustee and that the
Debtor was delinquent by $354.00, representing two monthly payments; that the
Chapter 13 Trustee had still not received the necessary documentation as detailed
in the Objection; that the feasibility of the Plan therefore cannot be ascertained; and
that the Plan does not conform to claims filed. The Chapter 13 Trustee further
reported that she has been unable to reach the Debtor and that she is not confident
that the Debtor wishes to continue the case.
Case 26-20184 Doc 68 Filed 05/26/26 Entered 05/26/26 17:05:42 Page 2 of 5

Given the manifest deficiencies described above, confirmation of the Chapter
13 Plan is denied.
Furthermore, this Court concludes, based on the aforementioned facts
and circumstances, that dismissal of this Chapter 13 case is warranted.
Dismissal is warranted under 11 U.S.C. § 1307(c)(4), as the Debtor has
failed “to commence making timely payments under section 1326 of this title”
to the Chapter 13 Trustee. Dismissal is also warranted under 11 U.S.C. §
1307(c)(5), as the Debtor’s Chapter 13 plan has been denied and no request
was made for additional time for the filing of another plan or modification of
the plan.
Furthermore, in addition to those reasons stated above, dismissal is also
warranted under 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) to prevent an abuse of process.
. . . . [Section] 105(a) provides that “[n]o provision of this title shall be
construed to preclude the court from, sua sponte, taking any action or
making 	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; see also In re Oi Brasil Holdings Cooperatief U.A., 578 B.R.
169, 201 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2017) (“Section 105(a) is understood as
providing courts with discretion to accommodate the unique facts of a
case consistent with policies and directives set by the other applicable
substantive provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.”). Thus, Section 105(a)
empowers the Court to act as necessary to prevent an abuse of the
bankruptcy process.
Id. Among the actions that Courts can take under 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) to prevent
abuse of the bankruptcy process is dismissal. In re Tennant, 318 B.R. 860, 869
(B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2004) (citing In re Meints, 222 B.R. 870, 871–72 (D.Neb.1998); In re
Campbell, 266 B.R. 709, 712 (Bankr.W.D.Ark.2001); In re Greene, 127 B.R. 805,
Case 26-20184 Doc 68 Filed 05/26/26 Entered 05/26/26 17:05:42 Page 3 of 5

807–808 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 1991); In re Welling, 102 B.R. 720, 722 (Bankr.S.D.Iowa
1989)). See also In re Emiabata, 642 B.R. 481, 483–84 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2022)
(citing In re G.L.A.D. Enterprises, LLC, 19-50604, 2019 WL 5586962, at *4 (Bankr.
D. Conn. Oct. 28, 2019) (Manning, J.)).
Having reviewed the totality of the facts and circumstances herein, the Court
concludes that permitting the Debtor’s bankruptcy case to continue would
constitute an abuse of process. The Debtor has failed to comply with the Code in the
filing of her Chapter 13 Plan, and in proceeding through this case. This case was
filed over two months ago and the Debtor has yet to file a confirmable plan, prepare
for and appear at the first meeting of creditors pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 341,
properly serve her creditors, and otherwise comply with the Bankruptcy Code.
Furthermore, the Court concludes that, given that the Debtor stated that her
reason for filing for bankruptcy was to stay an eviction proceeding, and given that
the Debtor was unable to secure such a stay of that proceeding, the Debtor has
seemingly decided not to proceed with her petition, as evidenced by her failure to
communicate with the Chapter 13 Trustee, her failure to appear in support of her
Chapter 13 Plan, and her failure to make plan payments.
The Court concludes that permitting this case to persist, involving the waste
of judicial resources and the resources of the Chapter 13 Trustee without the
Debtor’s apparent intention to proceed (or even appear), would constitute an abuse
of process.
In light of these findings, the Chapter 13 Case is DISMISSED.
Case 26-20184 Doc 68 Filed 05/26/26 Entered 05/26/26 17:05:42 Page 4 of 5

Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED: Confirmation of the Debtor’s Plan is DENIED; and further it is
ORDERED: The Debtor’s Chapter 13 Case is DISMISSED; and further it is
ORDERED: Upon dismissal, unpaid filing fees become due immediately. The
amount due and owing is $156.50. The Debtor shall remit a cashier's check or
money order in the amount of $156.50, payable to:
United States Bankruptcy Court
District of Connecticut
450 Main Street, 7th Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
Payment may also be made online at Pay.gov (https://pay.gov/public/form/
start/73185821). Note that the court will not accept as payment the personal check
or credit card of the person filing the petition. Payment by debit card may be made
at any of the divisional offices.
IT IS SO ORDERED at Hartford, Connecticut this 26th day of May 2026.
Case 26-20184 Doc 68 Filed 05/26/26 Entered 05/26/26 17:05:42 Page 5 of 5