In Re: Ronald Joseph Tenore

Background

Ronald Jospeh Tenore appealed the Bankruptcy Court’s December 12, 2024 order dismissing his Chapter 13 bankruptcy case. The Bankruptcy Court dismissed the case after finding that Tenore had not complied with several bankruptcy requirements, including filing a Chapter 13 plan, beginning plan payments to the trustee, and appearing for examination at the meeting of creditors.

Tenore then filed a motion in the District Court titled “Motion to Stay The Eviction.” The District Court construed that filing as a request for a stay pending appeal—a temporary pause while an appeal is being considered. Tenore attached a fourteen-day eviction notice stating that the eviction was set for January 8, 2025. The opinion states that Tenore represented himself.

Procedural requirement

Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8007 generally requires a party to seek a stay first from the bankruptcy court. A party may request a stay directly from the district court only by showing that first seeking relief in the bankruptcy court would have been impracticable.

The court found that Tenore had not requested a stay from the Bankruptcy Court and had not explained why doing so would have been impracticable. The court held that this failure alone was sufficient to deny the motion. Although the court read Tenore’s filing liberally because he represented himself, it said he still had to comply with the applicable procedural and substantive rules.

Four stay factors

The court also considered whether a stay would be justified under the four factors used for stay requests pending appeal:

1. Irreparable harm. Tenore argued that an eviction would leave him without housing and make it difficult to find alternative housing. The court stated that an eviction can constitute irreparable harm when there is a real threat of homelessness, but found that Tenore had not made that showing. The court also noted that he had known the eviction was reasonably imminent since at least September 7, 2023.

2. Substantial possibility of success on appeal. The court found that Tenore had not addressed the grounds for dismissal or explained how the Bankruptcy Court had erred. The record showed that the Chapter 13 trustee had moved to dismiss the case for Tenore’s failures to comply with his duties, and that Bankruptcy Judge Cecelia G. Morris held a hearing before dismissing the case. The District Court concluded that the available record did not indicate that the dismissal order was likely to be reversed.

3. Substantial injury to other parties. Tenore did not explain why the Chapter 13 trustee and creditors would not be substantially harmed by a stay. The court stated that a stay could prevent the trustee from carrying out duties required after dismissal and could prolong the bankruptcy proceeding, injuring creditors.

4. Public interest. The court stated that the public interest generally favors the prompt administration of bankruptcy proceedings. It found that delaying the proceedings and obstructing the trustee’s work would not serve that interest.

Disposition

The court concluded that none of the four factors supported a stay. Judge Seibel denied Tenore’s motion for a stay pending appeal and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motion. The order did not decide the ultimate merits of Tenore’s appeal from the Bankruptcy Court’s dismissal order.