Olajuwon Akeem Meadows

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
IN RE: 	| 	CASE NUMBER
| 	25-64063-PMB
OLAJUWON AKEEM MEADOWS, 	|
| 	CHAPTER 13
Debtor. 	|
|
OLAJUWON AKEEM MEADOWS, 	|
|
Movant, 	|
v. 	| 	CONTESTED MATTER
|
VIREN R. PATEL, 	|
|
Respondent. 	|
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEBTOR’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
This matter is before the Court on the Verified Motion for Sanctions for Willful Violation of
the Automatic Stay and Memorandum of Law in Support filed by the above-named pro se Debtor
(the “Debtor”) on February 27, 2026 (Docket No. 33)(the “Motion”). In the Motion, the Debtor
_______________________________________________________________
IT IS ORDERED as set forth below:
________________________________
Paul Baisier
U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge
Date: May 28, 2026
Case 25-64063-pmb Doc 42 Filed 05/28/26 Entered 05/28/26 10:06:01 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 11

2
seeks sanctions against Respondent Viren R. Patel (“Mr. Patel”) for alleged violations of the
automatic stay that occurred before this Chapter 13 case was dismissed.
Procedural Background
The Debtor filed this Chapter 13 case on December 2, 2025 at 11:49 a.m. (Docket No. 1).
The Chapter 13 Trustee (the “Trustee”) subsequently filed an Objection to Confirmation of Plan
and Motion to Dismiss on January 23, 2026 (Docket No. 23)(the “Trustee’s Motion to Dismiss”).
The Trustee’s Motion to Dismiss came before the Court for hearing on February 19, 2026, and
both the Chapter 13 Trustee and the Debtor appeared (the “Dismissal Hearing”). At the Dismissal
Hearing, the Trustee requested that this case be dismissed, mainly for issues related to the funding
of the Debtor’s Chapter 13 Plan. The Debtor opposed the Chapter 13 Trustee’s request for
dismissal. In connection with his opposition, the Debtor alleged that Mr. Patel had foreclosed on
his home and was attempting to dispossess him in violation of the automatic stay, and that the
Debtor wanted an opportunity to file a pleading related to that alleged stay violation. Because
grounds existed to dismiss the case, the Court dismissed this case but explained that the case would
remain open for thirty (30) days to give the Debtor an opportunity to file pleadings related to the
alleged stay violation. On February 23, 2026, the Court entered an Order Dismissing But Not
Closing Case reflecting its ruling at the Dismissal Hearing (Docket No. 27).
After the Dismissal Hearing, on February 20, 2026, Mr. Patel, proceeding pro se, filed an
Emergency Motion for Relief from Stay (the “MFR”). In his MFR, Mr. Patel explained that he had
purchased the Debtor’s home located at 2494 Horse Saddle Way, Dacula, Georgia 30019 (the
“Property”) on December 2, 2025, at a sheriff’s sale in Gwinnett County, Georgia before the Debtor
filed this Chapter 13 case. Mr. Patel, in his MFR, requested either relief from the automatic stay
so that he could pursue a dispossessory action against the Debtor or, alternatively, confirmation
from the Court that the automatic stay did not apply to the Property because it was not property of
Case 25-64063-pmb Doc 42 Filed 05/28/26 Entered 05/28/26 10:06:01 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 11

3
the Chapter 13 estate. On February 25, 2026, the Court entered an Order Denying Motion for Relief
from Stay, denying the MFR as moot because there was no longer an automatic stay since this case
had already been dismissed (Docket No. 30).
On February 27, 2026, the Debtor filed the Motion, alleging that Mr. Patel had violated the
automatic stay when he filed a dispossessory action against the Debtor and when the sheriff’s deed
for the Property was recorded (the “Sheriff’s Deed”).1 In his Motion, the Debtor requests actual
and punitive damages resulting from the alleged stay violation, and that the Court declare the filing
of the dispossessory and the recording of the Sheriff’s Deed void. A week later, on March 3, 2026,
the Court set the Motion for an evidentiary hearing on April 13, 2026 (the “Evidentiary Hearing”).
A few days before the Evidentiary Hearing, on April 9, 2026, the Debtor filed a Motion for Default
Judgment and Voiding of Sale (Docket No. 37)(the “Default Motion”) and a Request for Clerk’s
Entry of Default (Docket No. 38)(the “Default Request”), asserting that because Mr. Patel had not
filed a response to the Motion he had therefore defaulted and requesting the Clerk enter a default
against Mr. Patel, respectively.2
At the Evidentiary Hearing, the Debtor, the Debtor’s wife, Mr. Patel, and the Chapter 13
Trustee appeared. The Court heard testimony from the Debtor, the Debtor’s wife, and Mr. Patel
and admitted into evidence Exhibits D-1 through D-17 offered by the Debtor, before taking the
Motion under advisement.
1 At the Evidentiary Hearing, Mr. Patel testified that the Gwinnett County Sheriff prepared and recorded the Sheriff’s
Deed after Mr. Patel paid a fifty-dollar ($50) fee.
2 At the Evidentiary Hearing, the Court denied the Default Motion and explained to the Debtor that because this matter
is a contested matter rather than an adversary proceeding, Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7012 does not apply
and therefore Mr. Patel did not default by not filing a pleading in response to the Motion.
Case 25-64063-pmb Doc 42 Filed 05/28/26 Entered 05/28/26 10:06:01 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 11

4
Factual Background3
The Debtor purchased the Property sometime prior to 2020, and at some point fell behind
on his homeowner’s association dues to the Del Mar Club at Harbins Homeowners Association,
Inc. (the “HOA”). The HOA filed an action over the unpaid fees in the Superior Court of Gwinnett
County (the “Superior Court”), which resulted in an October 6, 2023, Final Order and Judgment
of Foreclosure in Civil Action File No. 23-A-05071-10 (the “Foreclosure Order”). The Foreclosure
Order authorized the HOA to “judicially foreclose” on the Property for the $14,479.64 judgment
granted in the Foreclosure Order, plus $5,655.35 from a prior judgment against the Debtor, 4 and
for the amount of the HOA’s “statutory lien upon the Property at the time of the judicial foreclosure
sale.”
The Debtor attempted to remedy and pay the arrearage owed to the HOA but was unable
to satisfy the obligation. As a result, the HOA proceeded to exercise the relief it was granted in the
Foreclosure Order and foreclose on the Property. As a result, on the morning of December 2, 2025,
at approximately 11:00 a.m., the Property was sold pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 44-3-232(c) at a
sheriff’s sale conducted at the Gwinnett County Justice Center. At the sheriff’s sale, Mr. Patel made
the highest bid and purchased the Property for $36,100. See Sheriff’s Deed. That same morning at
11:49 a.m., after Mr. Patel had purchased the Property at the sheriff’s sale, the Debtor filed this
Chapter 13 case. Later that day, after the sheriff’s sale and after the Debtor filed this case, Mr. Patel
went to the Property and informed the Debtor that he had purchased it.
3 This Order constitutes findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure
7052 and 9014. Where appropriate in this Order, findings of fact shall be construed as conclusions of law and
conclusions of law shall be construed as findings of fact.
4 The Foreclosure Order states that the $5,655.35 prior judgment against the Debtor was rendered in Superior Court
Civil Action File No. 19-A-06497-10.
Case 25-64063-pmb Doc 42 Filed 05/28/26 Entered 05/28/26 10:06:01 Desc Main
Document Page 4 of 11

5
During his visit to the Property on December 2, 2025, Mr. Patel and the Debtor discussed
the Debtor potentially paying rent to avoid being dispossessed from the Property, and the Debtor
informed Mr. Patel that he had filed this Chapter 13 case. The following day, December 3, 2025,
the Debtor again informed Mr. Patel, this time via text message, that he had filed for bankruptcy
but declined to share the case number for this Chapter 13 case with Mr. Patel. Mr. Patel took no
action to determine whether the Debtor had filed a bankruptcy case, and instead, later on December
3, 2025, initiated a dispossessory proceeding against the Debtor (Case No. 25M56872)(the “First
Dispo”) in the Magistrate Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia (the “Magistrate Court”). When Mr.
Patel filed the First Dispo, he had been advised that this case had been filed and proceeded without
making any effort to confirm or disprove the filing. On January 13, 2026, the sheriff caused the
Sheriff’s Deed for the Property to be recorded in the Gwinnett County real estate records.
The Magistrate Court set the First Dispo for a hearing on February 25, 2026. By then, this
Chapter 13 case had been dismissed and Mr. Patel’s MFR had been denied. At that hearing, the
Magistrate Court transferred the First Dispo to the Superior Court because the Debtor’s
counterclaim exceeded the Magistrate Court’s jurisdiction. Separately, prior to the Evidentiary
Hearing, the Debtor initiated an action against Mr. Patel in the Superior Court to set aside the
foreclosure of the Property (Case No. 26-A-01556-11)(the “Wrongful Foreclosure Case”).5
5 After the Evidentiary Hearing, on May 11, 2026, the Debtor filed an Emergency Motion for Interim Injunction and
Stay of State Court Proceedings (Docket No. 40)(the “Post-Hearing Motion”), and on May 14, 2026, filed an
Emergency Supplemental Notice of Egregious Post-Dismissal Stay Violations and Emergency Threat to Debtor’s
Liberty (Docket No. 41)(the “Supplemental Notice”). In his Post-Hearing Motion, the Debtor requests that the Court
enjoin Mr. Patel from dispossessing the Debtor from the Property. The Debtor also explains that in the Wrongful
Foreclosure Case he commenced, the Superior Court has ordered the Debtor to pay $10,380 into the Superior Court’s
registry, and he requests the Court stay that case. In his Supplemental Notice, the Debtor alleges that Mr. Patel filed a
Motion for Contempt in the Wrongful Foreclosure Case. The events described in the Post-Hearing Motion and the
Supplemental Notice occurred after this Chapter 13 case was dismissed and the stay terminated, and are therefore not
relevant to the Court’s analysis of the stay violations alleged in the Motion. Moreover, as discussed infra, given that
the sale of the Property and the recording of the Sheriff’s Deed are valid and did not violate the automatic stay, the
Post-Hearing Motion should be denied except to the extent that the First Dispo is void ab initio because it did violate
the stay.
Case 25-64063-pmb Doc 42 Filed 05/28/26 Entered 05/28/26 10:06:01 Desc Main
Document Page 5 of 11

6
Against this backdrop, the Court turns to whether the Property became property of the estate upon
the filing of this bankruptcy and whether Mr. Patel violated the automatic stay.
Legal Analysis
I. 	The Foreclosure
In Georgia, most foreclosures of real property are nonjudicial foreclosures conducted
pursuant to a power of sale contained in a deed to secure debt, which are conducted without the
need for judicial involvement. See O.C.G.A. §§ 44-14-160 through 165. Georgia law, however,
separately provides for the foreclosure of homeowners’ association liens under the Georgia
Property Owners’ Association Act, O.C.G.A. §§ 44-3-220 through 44-3-235. Unlike a typical
nonjudicial foreclosure, a homeowners’ association foreclosure requires judicial involvement in
the form of a judgment and order and is conducted through a sheriff’s sale. See O.C.G.A. § 44-3-
232(c)(providing that association liens may be foreclosed “in the same manner as other liens for
the improvement of real property”).6
Under Georgia law, a debtor whose property is sold at a valid nonjudicial foreclosure sale
loses his remaining ownership interest in the property7 upon completion of the foreclosure sale,
not upon the later recording of the deed. See In re Taylor, No. 16-69706-PMB, 2018 WL 1267998,
at *5 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. Mar. 8, 2018)(explaining that a debtor’s “right to redeem terminates as of
the time that the foreclosure sale is cried and the bid is accepted”)(citing Tampa Inv. Grp., Inc. v.
Branch Banking & Tr. Co., 290 Ga. 724, 726, 723 S.E.2d 674, 677 (2012)). As this Court has
previously explained, once a foreclosure sale is concluded and the successful bid accepted, the
6 Georgia law thus treats HOA liens similarly to mechanics’ and materialmen’s liens, which are likewise obtained
through judicial process, see O.C.G.A. §§ 44-14-360 through 44-14-369, and foreclosed by a sheriff’s sale. See Daniel
F. Hinkel, Georgia Construction Mechanics’ and Materialmen's Liens § 11:10 (4th ed.), Georgia Construction
Mechanics’ and Materialmen's Liens with Forms (March 2026 Update); O.C.G.A. §§ 9-13-140 through 9-13-178.
7 A borrower who executes a deed to secure debt transfers title to the lender and retains only a right to redeem the
property.
Case 25-64063-pmb Doc 42 Filed 05/28/26 Entered 05/28/26 10:06:01 Desc Main
Document Page 6 of 11

7
debtor no longer retains a legal or equitable interest in the property sufficient to bring it into the
bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541. See Id.
The Debtor argues that because the Sheriff’s Deed was recorded post-petition, the
foreclosure sale was not final until January 13, 2026, when the Sheriff’s Deed was recorded. From
this, the Debtor contends that the Property became property of the estate when he filed this
bankruptcy case and that the post-petition recording of the Sheriff’s Deed violated the automatic
stay, rendering both the recording and the foreclosure sale void. The flaw in the Debtor’s argument
is that it assumes his ownership interest in the Property survived the foreclosure sale and continued
until the Sheriff’s Deed was recorded.
Nothing in Georgia law suggests that a foreclosure conducted by sheriff’s sale pursuant to
Georgia Property Owners’ Association Act operates differently from a nonjudicial foreclosure sale
in terms of determining when a debtor’s ownership interest is extinguished.8 To the contrary, the
Court finds no basis to conclude that the timing of the extinguishment differs merely because the
sale occurs because of a judgment and order and is conducted through a sheriff’s sale rather than
under a power of sale. Accordingly, the sheriff’s sale conducted on December 2, 2025,
extinguished the Debtor’s ownership interest in the Property when the sale was cried and Mr.
Patel’s bid was accepted, which occurred before the Debtor filed this Chapter 13 case. Because the
Debtor held no legal or equitable ownership interest in the Property at the time the petition was
filed, the Property did not become property of the estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541(a), and the post-
petition recording of the Sheriff’s Deed did not violate the automatic stay and is not void.9
8 In fact, the process for conducting a nonjudicial foreclosure sale and a sheriff’s sale in Georgia are remarkably similar
because a nonjudicial foreclosure sale “shall be advertised and conducted at the time and place and in the usual manner
of the sheriff’s sales in the county in which such real estate . . .is located.” O.C.G.A. § 44-14-162(a)(emphasis added).
9 The Debtor also relies on O.C.G.A. § 23-4-35 and argues that the foreclosure sale was not final because it was never
judicially confirmed. The Debtor’s reliance is misplaced—O.C.G.A. § 23-4-35 provides that sales conducted pursuant
to decrees in equity are subject to judicial confirmation, and Georgia courts have recognized that the statute applies to
Case 25-64063-pmb Doc 42 Filed 05/28/26 Entered 05/28/26 10:06:01 Desc Main
Document Page 7 of 11

8
II. 	The Violation of the Automatic Stay
The law in this area is quite clear. Under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), the automatic stay comes into
effect when a bankruptcy case is filed. That stay is intended to provide the debtor with a “breathing
spell” from creditor activity. E.g., In re Thomas, 319 B.R. 910, 912 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 2004).
Virtually all creditor activity is prohibited by the automatic stay. The stay applies whether creditors
know about it or not, and in this Circuit, actions taken in violation of the stay are void. In re Albany
Partners, Ltd., 749 F.2d 670, 675 (11th Cir. 1984); Thomason v. Chestatee Cmty. Ass’n (In re
Thomason), 493 B.R. 890, 896 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2013).
That brings the Court to the Debtor’s remaining request—that he be awarded damages for
Mr. Patel’s alleged stay violation. Section 362(k) of the Bankruptcy Code authorizes damages for
willful violations of the automatic stay and provides that an individual injured by such a violation
“shall 	recover 	actual 	damages, 	including 	costs 	and 	attorneys’ fees, 	and, 	in 	appropriate
circumstances, may recover punitive damages.” 11 U.S.C. § 362(k)(1). In the Eleventh Circuit, a
violation is willful if the creditor “(1) knew the automatic stay was invoked and (2) intended the
actions which violated the stay.” Jove Eng’g, Inc. v. IRS, 92 F.3d 1539, 1555 (11th Cir. 1996). The
debtor bears the burden of proving a willful violation by a preponderance of the evidence. Spinner
v. Cash In A Hurry, LLC (In re Spinner), 398 B.R. 84, 94–95 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2008). Importantly,
a debtor need not show that the creditor specifically intended to violate the stay; it is enough that
the creditor knew of the bankruptcy filing and intentionally committed the act that violated the
equitable foreclosure proceedings and similar equitable sales. See Brackett v. Allison, 119 Ga. App. 632, 634, 168
S.E.2d 611, 613 (1969); see e.g., Pack v. Mahan, 294 Ga. 496, 500 n.2 (2014)(noting that “sales under decrees in
equitable partition proceedings” are subject to O.C.G.A. § 23-4-35). This case, however, did not involve an equitable
foreclosure decree. Rather, the Property was sold pursuant to a statutory foreclosure mechanism authorized under the
Georgia Property Owners’ Association Act and conducted through a sheriff’s sale. Accordingly, O.C.G.A. § 23-4-35
has no application here.
Case 25-64063-pmb Doc 42 Filed 05/28/26 Entered 05/28/26 10:06:01 Desc Main
Document Page 8 of 11

9
stay. See e.g. In re Caffey, 384 F. App’x 882, 885 (11th Cir. June 23, 2010)(holding that a creditor
violated the stay after receiving notice of the bankruptcy filing).
Even where a debtor no longer holds legal title to real property, a debtor’s continued
possessory interest is protected by the automatic stay. See In re Coates, 108 B.R. 823, 825-26
(Bankr. M.D. Ga. 1989)(citing In re Schewe, 94 B.R. 938 (Bankr.W.D.Mich.1989)). Accordingly,
a purchaser at a foreclosure sale may not dispossess a debtor without first obtaining relief from the
automatic stay, even where the debtor’s ownership interest has already been extinguished.
In this case, although the Property itself was not property of the estate when this case was
filed, the Debtor nevertheless retained a possessory interest in the Property after the foreclosure
sale.10 On December 2, 2025, Mr. Patel learned from the Debtor that this bankruptcy case had been
filed. The following day, despite again being advised of the bankruptcy filing, Mr. Patel initiated
the First Dispo without taking any action to confirm whether a bankruptcy case had in fact been
filed or seeking relief from stay from this Court. Therefore, Mr. Patel willfully violated the
automatic stay when he filed the First Dispo even after receiving notice that the Debtor had filed
bankruptcy. Although Mr. Patel may have believed that the Property was no longer property of the
estate, that belief did not excuse him from obtaining relief from stay before pursuing dispossession
of the Debtor’s possessory interest in the Property. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the filing
of the First Dispo constituted a willful violation of the automatic stay and is void ab initio.
10 The Debtor’s possessory interest was at least as a tenant at sufferance. His interest may have become more than
that of a mere tenant at sufferance through the actions of Mr. Patel. Under Georgia law, “[i]t takes very little to convert
a tenancy at sufferance into a tenancy at will,” including a demand for rent or permission to remain. In re Bowman,
555 B.R. 918, 923 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 2016)(quoting Willis v. Harrell, 118 Ga. 906, 909, 45 S.E. 794 (1903)). Here, post-
petition, Mr. Patel discussed with the Debtor the prospect of paying rent in exchange for remaining at the Property.
The Court need not conclusively resolve whether the Debtor was a tenant at sufferance or a tenant at will, however,
because even a holdover possessory interest is sufficient to invoke the protections of the automatic stay. See In re
Cook, 614 B.R. 635, 647 n.4 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2020).
Case 25-64063-pmb Doc 42 Filed 05/28/26 Entered 05/28/26 10:06:01 Desc Main
Document Page 9 of 11

10
Conclusion
The Debtor’s ownership interest in the Property terminated when the sheriff’s sale
concluded and Mr. Patel’s bid was accepted on December 2, 2025, prior to the filing of this
bankruptcy case. As a result, the Property did not become property of the estate under 11 U.S.C.
§ 541(a), and the post-petition recording of the Sheriff’s Deed did not violate the automatic stay.
The Debtor, however, remained in possession of the Property after the foreclosure sale and
therefore retained a possessory interest protected by the automatic stay. By filing the First Dispo
after receiving notice of the bankruptcy filing and without first obtaining relief from stay, Mr. Patel
willfully violated the automatic stay.
Accordingly, in light of the foregoing, and after review of the Motion and docket in this
matter, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as
follows:
1. 	The Default Motion is denied.
2. 	The Property was not property of the estate as defined in 11 U.S.C. § 541 at the time
this case was filed.
3. 	Because the Property was not property of this bankruptcy estate, the recording of the
Sheriff’s Deed did not violate the automatic stay.
4. 	The filing and prosecution of the First Dispo nevertheless violated the automatic stay
of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), as the Debtor still maintained a holdover possessory interest in
the Property at the time of the filing of the First Dispo, and the First Dispo is thus void.
5. 	Mr. Patel filed the First Dispo in willful disregard of the filing of this case and thus is
subject to a punitive sanction. In view of Mr. Patel’s background, the Court does not
Case 25-64063-pmb Doc 42 Filed 05/28/26 Entered 05/28/26 10:06:01 Desc Main
Document Page 10 of 11

11
find his assertions credible that he was unaware that his actions might violate the stay.
The Court finds that an appropriate sanction is the sum of $10,380 (the “Sanction”).
6. 	Mr. Patel shall either pay the Sanction to the Debtor or shall offset it against any rent
he asserts the Debtor owes him for occupancy of the Property. If Mr. Patel does not
make an election between these two remedies and communicate same to the Debtor in
writing (by letter, text, or email) within ten (10) days of the date of the entry of this
Order, he shall be deemed to have elected the latter remedy.
7. 	The Post-Hearing Motion is denied except that, as otherwise determined herein, the
First Dispo is void ab initio and thus cannot be further prosecuted.
The Clerk’s Office is directed to serve a copy of this Order upon the Debtor, the
Respondent, and the Chapter 13 Trustee.
[END OF DOCUMENT]
Case 25-64063-pmb Doc 42 Filed 05/28/26 Entered 05/28/26 10:06:01 Desc Main
Document Page 11 of 11