In Re: Rene Umali, Debtor, Rene Umali v. Chandulal Dhanani Hemlatabin Dhanani, Rene Umali v. Chandulal Dhanani Hemlatabin Dhanani

Good Law

2003 Daily Journal DAR 11197·345 F.3d 818·41 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 274·51 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 803·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8880

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 3, 200302-15010, 02-16379California1,733 words

Opinion

Rawlinson, J.

In this case we AFFIRM the district court’s holding that a bankruptcy petition filed in violation of a court-imposed 180-day bar is properly excluded from the automatic stay provisions of the bankruptcy code.

I. FACTS/PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Appellant Rene Umali failed to pay approximately $1.2 million in taxes accumulated since 1987 on a 166-unit motel property in Arizona. Maricopa County levied tax certificates of purchase against the motel, and Appellees Chandulal and Hem-latabin Dhanani (collectively, “the Dhanan-is”) acquired these tax certificates from the Maricopa County Treasurer, thereby becoming lienholders against the property. The Dhananis instituted a foreclosure action in Maricopa County Superior Court against the property in April of 2000. Umali responded by filing a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition in the Central District of California. This petition was subsequently dismissed because Umali failed to present a reorganization plan.

Umali filed a second Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition in the Central District of California in August of 2000 (“Second Petition”). After concluding that Umali was ineligible to file a Chapter 13 petition, the bankruptcy court gave…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.