In Re. Guarino et al
District Judge Timothy S. Hillman: ORDER entered denying 6 Motion to Stay. (Castles, Martin)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Bankruptcy Chapter 13
Case No. 17-41487-EDK
ORDER ON APPELLANT’S EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY FORECLOSURE
October 3, 2017
Christine Guarino (“Appellant” or “Debtor”) filed a Notice of Appeal from the following
decisions of the Bankruptcy Court issued on September 7, 2017: (1) the Bankruptcy Court’s
order confirming that that the automatic stay was not in effect as to, Appellee, Haverhill Bank as
a result of its June 29, 2016 Order granting Haverhill Bank in Rem relief from the automatic stay
in a prior bankruptcy case filed by the Appellant (Bankruptcy Case No. 16-40770); and (2) the
Bankruptcy Court’s order granting, in part, a motion by Haverhill Bank that sought an expedited
ruling on its motion to confirm that it is not subject to the automatic stay and requesting that
Debtor be prohibited from filing any further bankruptcy petitions for two years. 1
Appellant has filed an emergency motion to stay foreclosure on her home, which is
currently scheduled for October 5, 2017. See Docket No. 6. However, this Appeal was dismissed
on September 28, 2017, as the result of Appellant’s failure to pay the filing fee. See Bankruptcy
Court Docket No. 17-41487-EDK, Docket No.33.
There being no case before this Court, the Court is without jurisdiction to address the
Appellant[‘s] Emergency Motion To Stay Auction [Of] Her Home (Docket No. 6), which is
/s/ Timothy S. Hillman
TIMOTHY S. HILLMAN
It is not clear what aspect of this ruling the Appellant sought to appeal. The Bankruptcy Court’s only
substantive ruling in this case was in her favor: The court denied Haverhill Bank’s motion to prohibit her from filing
any additional bankruptcy petitions for two years because the court’s June 26, 2016 Order in bankruptcy case No.
16-40770 adequately protects Haverhill Bank.
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?