Tiara Symone Bostock

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
In re:
TIARA SYMONE BOSTOCK,
Debtor.
:
Case No. 26-50507
Chapter 7
Judge Nami Khorrami
:
:
:
:
:
ORDER OVERRULING PRO SE RESPONSE AND OBJECTION OF CO-TENANT
KHALIL PIERRE TO MOVANT’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM AUTOMATIC
STAY (DKT. NO. 21) AND GRANTING IN PART MOTION OF CREDITOR, AMH
2014-2 BORROWER LLC, FOR AN ORDER GRANTING RELIEF FROM STAY,
INCLUDING ANY CO-DEBTOR STAY, REGARDING THE LEASED PREMISES
KNOWN AS 1128 TENAGRA WAY, COLUMBUS, OHIO 43228 (DKT. NO. 17)
Before the Court is the Motion Of Creditor, AMH 2014-2 Borrower LLC, For An Order
Granting Relief From Stay, Including Any Co-Debtor Stay, Regarding The Leased Premises Known
As 1128 Tenagra Way, Columbus, Ohio 43228 (Dkt. No. 17) (the “Motion”) filed on May 14, 2026,
by AMH 2014-2 Borrower LLC (“AMH”) requesting that the automatic stay as to the debtor, Tiara
Symone Bostock (the “Debtor”), and non-filing codebtor, Khalil Pierre (“Mr. Pierre”), be modified
________________________________________________________________
This document has been electronically entered in the records of the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 11, 2026
Case 2:26-bk-50507 Doc 24 Filed 06/11/26 Entered 06/11/26 13:31:30 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 4

2
to permit AMH to “activate, complete and/or commence a forcible entry and detainer action as to
the leased premises known as 1128 Tenagra Way, Columbus, Ohio 43228 (the “Property”).” Mot.
1, Dkt. No. 17. On June 3, 2026, Mr. Pierre filed the Pro Se Response And Objection Of Co-Tenant
Khalil Pierre To Movant's Motion For Relief From Automatic Stay (Dkt. No. 21) (the “Response”).
And on June 8, 2026, AMH filed the Reply Of Creditor, AMH 2014-2 Borrower LLC, To Pro Se
Response And Objection Of Co-Tenant, Khalil Pierre, To Movant’s Motion For Relief From
Automatic Stay [Doc. 21] (Dkt. No. 22). Neither the Debtor, counsel for the Debtor, nor any other
party in interest filed a response or otherwise objected to the Motion.
According to the Response, Mr. Pierre is a co-tenant of the Property and requests that the
Motion be denied on the bases that, among other things, “granting the [Motion] would facilitate
ongoing violations of the Federal Fair Housing Act . . . [and] the debt cited as grounds was caused
by [AMH’s] own discriminatory conduct.” 	Resp. 5, Dkt. No. 21. 	In the alternative, Mr. Pierre
requests that the Motion be held in abeyance “pending resolution of [Ohio Civil Rights
Commission 	(“OCRC”)] 	Case 	No. 	COLH1 	(019810)11112025 	and 	OCRC 	Case 	No.
COLH1(025334)05282026 - both involving the same parties, same property, and same underlying
conduct . . . .” Resp. 5, Dkt. No. 21.
Upon the filing of a voluntary petition under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C.
§ 362(a) prohibits:
(1) the commencement or continuation, including the issuance or employment
of process, of a judicial, administrative, or other action or proceeding against the
debtor that was or could have been commenced before the commencement of the
case under this title, or to recover a claim against the debtor that arose before the
commencement of the case under this title[.]
11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) (emphasis added). 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) imposes a stay of virtually all activities
and efforts to collect a debt from a debtor.
Case 2:26-bk-50507 Doc 24 Filed 06/11/26 Entered 06/11/26 13:31:30 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 4

3
As the automatic stay provision may impose an unfair hardship on particular
creditors, Section 362(d) directs the bankruptcy court to grant relief from the stay
(1) "for cause," which includes the inadequate protection of a creditor's interest in
the collateral; or (2) when the debtor has no equity in the property and the property
is unnecessary to an effective reorganization.
Laguna Assocs. Ltd. P’ship v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. (In re Laguna Assocs. Ltd. P’ship), 30 F.3d
734, 737 (6th Cir. 1994) (citing 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1)-(2)). After the commencement of a chapter
7 bankruptcy case, the protections afforded by the automatic stay under § 362(a) are generally not
extended to non-filing codebtors. See COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶362.03 (Richard Levin & Henry
J. Sommer eds., 16th ed. 2026) (“The stay of litigation does not protect nondebtor parties who may
be subjected to litigation for transactions or events involving the debtor.”).
AMH is entitled to relief from the automatic stay to proceed with its forcible entry and
detainer action related to the Property because AMH’s interest in the Property lacks adequate
protection, the Debtor does not have an equity in the Property, the Property is not necessary to an
effective reorganization, and there is no codebtor stay in effect in this case. AMH asserts that the
total post-petition arrearage at the time of the filing of the Motion was $5,743.00. Mot. 3, Dkt.
No. 17. The Debtor did not file any opposition to the Motion disputing the existence or amount of
the post-petition arrearage. Accordingly, AMH has established a lack of adequate protection of its
interest in the Property. In addition, because the Debtor’s interest in the Property is a leasehold
interest, she does not have an equity in the Property. And finally, the Property is not necessary to
an effective reorganization because this case was filed as a chapter 7 bankruptcy which is a
liquidation proceeding as opposed to a reorganization.
With respect to the codebtor stay from which AMH seeks relief and under which Mr. Pierre
objects, the Court finds that no such codebtor stay exists in this case. The Debtor filed a voluntary
petition for relief under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code, and the automatic stay that is in effect
Case 2:26-bk-50507 Doc 24 Filed 06/11/26 Entered 06/11/26 13:31:30 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 4

4
applies to the Debtor and does not prohibit AMH from pursuing any remedies it may have against
Mr. Pierre. 	Subject to certain exceptions not present here, chapter 7 bankruptcy relief does not
provide for a stay of actions against codebtors. While the Court may be sympathetic about Mr.
Pierre’s situation, the Bankruptcy Code does not provide any relief or remedy for him because Mr.
Pierre is not the debtor in this chapter 7 proceeding. Accordingly, Mr. Pierre has failed to state a
sufficient basis for denying the Motion.
Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that the Pro Se Response And Objection Of Co-
Tenant Khalil Pierre To Movant's Motion For Relief From Automatic Stay (Dkt. No. 21) is
OVERRULED.
It is further, ORDERED that the Motion Of Creditor, AMH 2014-2 Borrower LLC, For An
Order Granting Relief From Stay, Including Any Co-Debtor Stay, Regarding The Leased Premises
Known As 1128 Tenagra Way, Columbus, Ohio 43228 (Dkt. No. 17) is GRANTED in part. AMH
2014-2 Borrower LLC is granted relief from the automatic stay imposed by 11 U.S.C. § 362 to
pursue its in rem remedies under non-bankruptcy law regarding the real property known as 1128
Tenagra Way, Columbus, Ohio 43228. The relief from stay is granted for the limited purpose of
pursuing eviction against the Debtor but not for monetary judgment.
It is further ORDERED that the request for relief from the codebtor stay as it relates to
Khalil Pierre is DENIED as no such codebtor stay exists in this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Copies to:
Default List Plus Additional Parties
Khalil Pierre
1128 Tenagra Way
Columbus, OH 43228
Case 2:26-bk-50507 Doc 24 Filed 06/11/26 Entered 06/11/26 13:31:30 Desc Main
Document Page 4 of 4