3:05-ap-03141•Alexander et al v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.
Alexander et al v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.
3:05-ap-03141Ohsb17 de mai. de 2005
Texto completo
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON In re: RICHARD ALEXANDER ALICIA HALL , Debtors Case No. 03-38875 Adv. No. 05-3141 RICHARD ALEXANDER ALICIA HALL , Plaintiffs v. I RWIN HOME EQUITY, ET AL ., Defendants Judge Waldron Chapter 13 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DATED AT DAYTON, OHIO this 17th Day of May, 2005: Counsel for the Debtor recently filed a Motion For Summary Judgment (Doc. 13) in this pending adversary, which seeks to avoid a mortgage as wholly unsecured. 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: May 17, 2005 ____________________________________________________________ Case 3:05-ap-03141 Doc 14 Filed 05/17/05 Entered 05/18/05 08:54:20 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 2
The Court notes that this Motion (Doc. 13) was not accompanied by any memorandum [See LBR 9013-1(a)], nor any affidavits, documents or any other filings contemplated by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7056. Although motions for summary judgment, with or without supporting affidavits and other documents, provide the opportunity for an expedited determination of some, or all, of the issues in a case or proceeding, appropriate attention must be paid to any such filing. Additionally, although the Motion For Summary Judgment (Doc. 13) refers to an appraisal which “is a matter of record with this Court” the Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1) neither attached such an appraisal, nor identified where such an appraisal exists in the “record of this Court.” Most significantly, without regard to whether such an appraisal exists in the Court records, the Defendant’s answer (Doc. 10) denies the Plaintiff’s essential allegations concerning the value of the real property and the existing liens, and, at this stage, would require an evidentiary hearing The Court suggests that counsel for the Debtor consider any such future filings more carefully to avoid the Court’s scrutiny of such filings in connection with Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9011. Accordingly, the Motion For Summary Judgment (Doc. 13) is DENIED. SO ORDERED. c: Richard R. Alexander and Alicia D. Hall, 622 Hollyhock Court, Trenton, Ohio 45067 (Plaintiffs) Lester R. Thompson, Esq., 1340 Woodman Drive, Dayton, Ohio 45432 (Atty. for the Debtors/Plaintiffs) Edward A. Bailey, Esq., PO Box 968, Twinsburg, Ohio 44087 (Atty. for Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems) Jeffrey M. Kellner, Esq., (Chapter 13 Trustee), Scott G. Stout, Esq., (Staff Attorney for the Chapter 13 Office), 131 North Ludlow Street, Suite 900, Dayton, Ohio 45402 ### Case 3:05-ap-03141 Doc 14 Filed 05/17/05 Entered 05/18/05 08:54:20 Desc Main Document Page 2 of 2
Continue sua pesquisa no ChatGPT ou Claude
Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.