In Re: Stella Siomkos

Background

Stella Siomkos, identified as the appellant, filed an emergency motion asking the district court to stay, or pause, the bankruptcy proceedings while her appeal was pending. Trinity Life Insurance Company was identified as the appellee. The opinion states that Cardinal Credit X LLC was Trinity’s successor in interest and that Chapter 7 Trustee Albert Togut joined Cardinal in opposing the motion.

Legal standard

The court applied the standard used for requests to pause a district court order during an appeal. It considered four factors: whether the appellant would suffer irreparable harm without a stay; whether another party would suffer substantial harm if a stay were granted; whether the appellant showed a substantial possibility of success on appeal; and whether the public interest favored a stay. The court emphasized that showing actual and imminent irreparable harm is the principal requirement and that the moving party bears a heavy burden.

Court’s analysis

Siomkos asserted that the Bankruptcy Court had ordered the immediate seizure and forced sale of her home. The district court found that she did not identify such an order in the bankruptcy record. Instead, the record showed that she had agreed to a process under which the home would be marketed for sale and that she had been told the process would take time and that she would not need to move out immediately.

The court also noted the representations by Cardinal and Trustee Togut that, if the Trustee sought authority to liquidate the apartment and obtain related relief, the Bankruptcy Court would have to make an independent decision based on a written application, notice, and an opportunity for Siomkos and others to be heard. The district court found no evidence that Siomkos faced an imminent risk of being forced out. It also said she did not explain why she could not use her real-estate license or consult while the proceedings continued. Any lost rental income, the court said, could be addressed with money damages if she prevailed on appeal and therefore did not constitute irreparable harm.

The court further found that Siomkos did not explain in sufficient detail whether another party would be injured by a stay, whether she had a substantial possibility of success on appeal, or whether the public interest favored a stay.

Disposition

The court denied Siomkos’s motion for a stay pending appeal. This order ruled on the request to pause the bankruptcy proceedings; it did not decide the merits of the underlying appeal.