Afsar v. Grigsby
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER affirming The Bankruptcy Court's Order; directing the Clerk to close this case. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 3/20/2017. (jf3s, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Case No.: PWG-16-2552
NANCY SPENCER GRIGSBY
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Nurul Afsar appeals the bankruptcy court's denial of his Motion for
of an Order denying conformation of his Chapter 13 Plan without leave to
amend. The appeal is fully briefed. Appellant's Br., ECF No.6; Appellee's Br., ECF NO.7. No
hearing is necessary.
See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8019(b).
Because Afsar failed to appear at the
Confirmation Hearing and does not argue on appeal that the proposed Plan met the Bankruptcy
Code's requirements, I will affirm the bankruptcy court's decision.
On March 23,2016, Appellant-Debtor Nurul Afsar filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy in the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland without legal representation.
ECF No. 4-10.
Trustee. Id. NO.4.
Appellee Nancy Spencer Grigsby was appointed Chapter 13
The court also scheduled a
341 Meeting of Creditors on May 12, 2016,
1324 Confirmation Hearing on June 7, 2016.
Id.; see also 11 U.S.C. 99 341, 1324.
Afsar appeared at the Meeting of Creditors, but the court cancelled the Meeting because he
neglected to bring proof of his social security number, proof of income, or copies of his most
recent tax returns, the latter two of which are items the debtor must file pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
and (e)(2)(A) prior to the Meeting of Creditors.
2016 Entry (unnumbered),
Bankruptcy Docket May 16,
The following month, Afsar failed to appear at the
Confirmation Hearing. See Proceeding Memo, ECF No. 4-1 (marking "NS" for no-show next to
Afsar's name). Accordingly, the court denied confirmation of the Chapter 13 Plan, holding that
it failed to "fulfill the requirements for confirmation set out in 11 U.S.c.
"Debtor is ...
unable to file a Plan that is susceptible of confirmation."
1325" and that the
Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan Without Leave to Amend, ECF No. 4-2.
Shortly thereafter, attorney Kos N. Johns entered an appearance on behalf of Afsar,
Notice of Appearance, ECF No. 4-3, and filed a Motion to Reconsider the court's denial of
Mot. Reconsider, ECF No. 4-4. The Motion urged reconsideration of the Order
by reference to Afsar's failure to bring the necessary items to the Meeting of Creditors but failed
to address Afsar's non-appearance at the Confirmation Hearing. Id. Grigsby filed an Opposition
to Afsar's Motion, in which she argued that the court correctly denied the Plan because of
Afsar's failure to appear and to make payments due under the plan and because, as a repeat
bankruptcy filer, he should have been aware of the items that were necessary for the Meeting of
Trustee's Opp'n ~~ 1-4, ECF No. 4-5. After reviewing the filings, the court denied
Afsar's Motion on June 28, 2017.
Order Denying Motion to Reconsider, ECF No. 4-6. Two
days later, Afsar filed a document styled as a responsive brief addressing the already-decided
Motion to Reconsider, which notified the court that, pursuant to the rejected Plan, he had mailed
a check to court the previous day. ECF No. 4-8. Afsar then filed a Notice of Appeal with this
Court. ECF NO.3.
Standard of Review
The district court reviews a bankruptcy court's findings of fact for clear error and
conclusions of law de novo. In re Dornier Aviation (N. Am.), Inc., 453 F.3d 225, 231 (4th Cir.
"With respect to the bankruptcy court's application of the law to the facts, the district
court reviews for abuse of discretion."
In re Rood, No. DKC-12-1623, 2013 WL 55650, at *2
(D. Md. Jan. 2,2013).
The bankruptcy court denied confirmation of Afsar' s Chapter 13 Plan because it failed to
meet the requirements of 11 U.S.c.
Without Leave to Amend.
1325. Order Denying Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan
The record contains no details about Afsar's proposed Plan, so I
cannot evaluate its alleged deficiencies; however, the debtor bears the burden of demonstrating
that a Plan meets the requirements of
1325. In re Lewis, 170 B.R. 861, 865 (Bankr. Md. 1994)
("The debtor, as plan proponent, bears the ultimate burden to prove that all confirmation criteria
are met."). Afsar failed to appear at his Confirmation Hearing, see Proceeding Memo, so it can
scarcely be said that he carried his burden. Given Afsar's failure to appear at the Confirmation
court was justified
in denying the Plan.
In his Motion
Reconsideration, Afsar failed to even address the reasons that the court denied the Plan, instead
focusing on court's prior failure to hold a Meeting of Creditors due to Afar's failure to bring
required documents to the meeting. Mot. Reconsider.
that the proposed Plan did in fact meet
Moreover, on appeal, Afsar never argues
requirements, contrary to the bankruptcy court's
conclusion. See Appellant's Br. 3-4. Thus, I cannot conclude that the court erred in denying the
Motion to Reconsider.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in this Memorandum Opinion and Order, it is this
day of March, 2017, hereby ORDERED that:
1. The bankruptcy court's Order denying Appellant Nurul Afsar's Motion to Reconsider
Order Denying Confirmation
of Chapter 13 Plan Without Leave to
Amend, ECF No. 4-6, IS AFFIRMED;
2. The Clerk SHALL CLOSE the case.
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?