In Re: Stella Siomkos

Background

Stella Siomkos, representing herself, appealed the bankruptcy court’s October 24, 2024 order converting her Chapter 11 bankruptcy case to Chapter 7. The district court had previously denied her request to pause the bankruptcy proceedings while the appeal was pending.

The bankruptcy court later ordered Siomkos to surrender exclusive possession of her apartment to the Chapter 7 Trustee within 30 days after receiving notice. The bankruptcy court denied her request to pause that turnover order. Siomkos then sought emergency relief in the district court, asking it to pause the bankruptcy proceedings and hold an emergency conference or hearing.

Court’s analysis

The Appellees argued that the district court might lack authority to consider Siomkos’s request because she had not filed a separate notice of appeal from the turnover order. The district court agreed that a separate notice would be required to appeal that order directly, but interpreted Siomkos’s filing as a renewed request to pause the bankruptcy proceedings while her appeal of the Chapter 7 conversion order was resolved.

The court applied the four factors for pausing a bankruptcy case during an appeal: whether the requesting party faces actual and imminent harm that money cannot adequately remedy; whether pausing the case would substantially harm other parties; whether the appeal has a substantial possibility of success; and whether pausing the case would serve the public interest.

The court found that Siomkos had not shown irreparable harm. Although losing possession of her apartment was imminent, she had not shown that she could not find another place to live or that she faced homelessness. The court said moving-related financial losses could be compensated with money, including rent and moving expenses. It also noted that Siomkos had advance notice to make moving arrangements and that her proposed Chapter 11 plan had included selling the apartment.

The court further found that Siomkos had not shown that the balance of harms favored a pause. The Appellees argued that a pause would delay administration of the bankruptcy estate and harm creditors, and Siomkos did not meaningfully address that factor.

As to the chance of success, the court said Siomkos ultimately had to show that the bankruptcy court abused its discretion by converting the case to Chapter 7. The district court found that she had not identified a legal or factual error supporting such a conclusion. It also found that her filings mainly contained unsupported allegations of bias, coercion, conspiracy, and misconduct rather than evidence showing a substantial possibility of success.

Finally, the court held that pausing the proceedings would be contrary to the public interest because the public interest favors efficient administration of bankruptcy proceedings. The court found that Siomkos had not provided evidence supporting her allegations of misconduct.

Rulings

The district court denied Siomkos’s renewed motion for a stay pending appeal and denied her request for a hearing on that motion. It also denied her motion to strike the Trustee’s objection and vacate the allegedly fraudulent conversion order because the caption and filing number in that motion referred to the bankruptcy court’s docket, not the district court’s docket. The court directed the Appellees to address whether Siomkos’s remaining requests were properly before the district court and to propose a briefing schedule. It directed the Clerk to close the docket entries for the emergency motion and the motion to strike.