Angela Peaks

1 	The court has previously ordered debtor’s counsel to
refrain from filing documents electronically because of the
numerous errors that counsel has committed in attempting to file
documents in this matter. 	In re Anamefule, Case No. 05-01291,
slip order at 2 (Bankr. D.D.C. Nov. 6, 2006); In re Burrell, Case
No. 06-00160, slip order at 1-2 (Bankr. D.D.C. June 13, 2006).
These errors can have serious consequences for counsel’s client,
particularly in light of certain changes to the Bankruptcy Code
made by the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection
Act of 2005, Pub. L. 109-8 (generally effective Oct. 17, 2005)
(“BAPCPA”). 	See note 3, infra.
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
In re
ANGELA PEAKS,
Debtor.
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 07-00044
(Chapter 7)
MEMORANDUM DECISION REGARDING
MOTION TO STRIKE CASE AS VOID AB INITIO
The debtor has filed a motion requesting that this case be
“canceled” because the petition was filed in error by the
debtor’s counsel after the debtor had already commenced a case
captioned as In re Peaks, Case No. 07-00031 (D.E. No. 3, filed
January 24, 2007). 1 	Because the filing was a mistake and served
no purpose at the time of its filing, the court will treat it as
The decision below is signed as a decision of
the court.
Signed: March 07, 2007.
_____________________________
S. Martin Teel, Jr.
United States Bankruptcy Judge
Case 07-00044 Doc 4 Filed 03/07/07 Entered 03/07/07 15:15:43 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 3

2 	See In re Russell, 348 B.R. 441, 448 (Bankr. S.D. Tex.
2006) (holding that simultaneous cases are not allowed). 	This
rule, sometimes referred to as the “single estate” rule, is not
codified in the Bankruptcy Code per se, but rather arises from
practical considerations of estate administration and the general
statutory requirement that a petition for relief under any
chapter of title 11 be filed in “good faith.” 	In re Delray
Associates Ltd. P’ship, 212 B.R. 511, 515 (Bankr. D. Md. 1997).
Consequently, many courts concluded prior to the enactment of
BAPCPA that the propriety of simultaneous cases should be
considered on a case-by-case basis. 	See, e.g., In re Whitmore,
225 B.R. 199, 202 (Bankr. D. Idaho 1998) (case filed while prior
case filed by same debtor remained open would not be dismissed
where cases overlapped for six days due to delay in entry of
order dismissing 	original case); 	In re Delray Associates Ltd.
P’ship, 212 B.R. at 515-16 (case filed while prior case filed by
same debtor remained open should not be dismissed if the second
case has a “legitimate purpose”); Transamerica Credit Corp. v.
Bullock (In re Bullock), 206 B.R. 389, 393-94 (Bankr. E.D. Va.
1997) (case filed while prior case filed by same debtor remained
open should not be dismissed if “the equities of a case so
dictate” and the second case will not “materially hinder the
administration of the estate”); Norwalk Savings Soc’y v. Peia (In
re Peia), 204 B.R. 310, 313 (Bankr. D. Conn. 1996) (declining to
“adopt a per se rule against successive or simultaneous
filings”). 	Here, the second case had no legitimate purpose, as
the debtor already had a petition pending that gave rise to the
right of the automatic stay.
2
a nullity, and dismiss the case as void ab initio. 	The court
need not decide when, in the case of a case intentionally filed
while another case is still pending, it is appropriate not to
dismiss the new case, 2 and whether the BAPCPA amendments to the
Bankruptcy Code in 2005 demonstrate that no such new filing
should be permitted while an earlier case of the debtor is still
Case 07-00044 Doc 4 Filed 03/07/07 Entered 03/07/07 15:15:43 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 3

3 	It is unclear whether the reasoning set forth in the
opinions cited in the preceding footnote is still valid in light
of the changes to § 362 of the Bankruptcy Code wrought by the
BAPCPA. 	Section 362(c) now provides that the automatic stay will
terminate “with respect to a debt or property securing such debt
or with respect to any lease” thirty days after the filing of the
case if a case filed by the same debtor was dismissed within the
prior year (with one exception not relevant here). 	11 U.S.C.
§ 362(c)(3)(A). 	The stay will not go into effect at all if the
debtor has filed two cases in the previous year. 	Id. at
§ 362(c)(4)(A)(i). 	Even a debtor who files a further case in
good faith while her previous case is still pending would
frustrate the operation of these provisions: because the pending
case has not been dismissed, it would literally not count under
§ 362(c)(3) or § 362(c)(4) even though it is dismissed shortly
after the filing of the new case. 	This calls into question the
propriety of permitting the new case to go forward at all.
Here, however, the filing was not trying to accomplish
anything. 	It was just an error, and the court has the inherent
authority to strike it as void ab initio because it was a mistake
that added nothing beyond the effects of the case that was
already pending. 	The court need not address whether, upon
dismissing any new case filed while another case is still
pending, the court may in appropriate circumstances be required
not to dismiss it as a nullity.
3	O:\Andrew Fausett Temp Docs\Decisions with Related Orders\decision_striking case_Peaks v2(judge edits).wpd
pending. 3
An order follows.
[Signed and dated above.]
Copies to: Debtor’s counsel; chapter 7 trustee; Office of U.S.
Trustee.
Case 07-00044 Doc 4 Filed 03/07/07 Entered 03/07/07 15:15:43 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 3