In Re: Jose Sandy Buco

Background

Jose Sandy Buco, the debtor and appellant, represented himself in an appeal from the Bankruptcy Court’s denial of his motion to vacate the dismissal of his Chapter 13 petition and the order discharging the trustee. The Bankruptcy Court had dismissed the petition on September 23, 2024, and later denied reconsideration. Buco filed an emergency motion in the District Court seeking to stop a foreclosure sale scheduled for July 23, 2025. The District Court construed the motion as a request to stay, meaning pause, the bankruptcy dismissal while the appeal was pending.

Procedural Requirement

The court held that the motion was procedurally improper under Bankruptcy Rule 8007. Ordinarily, a party must first ask the Bankruptcy Court for a stay. A party may instead ask the court hearing the appeal only if the party shows that applying first in the Bankruptcy Court would be impracticable, or explains the result of any earlier request. Buco had not sought a stay from the Bankruptcy Court and had not explained why doing so would be impracticable. The court held that this failure alone supported denying the motion.

Stay Factors

The court also considered the factors for a stay pending appeal and concluded that Buco had not met his burden. First, Buco argued that allowing the foreclosure sale would cause irreparable harm through the permanent loss of his primary residence. The court said that a property sale does not automatically constitute irreparable harm and noted that Buco had not claimed the sale would leave him without a place to live.

Second, the court found that Buco had not shown a substantial possibility of success on appeal. The Bankruptcy Court had determined that Buco had $6,395,647.89 in noncontingent, liquidated debt when he filed his petition, exceeding the debt limit for Chapter 13 eligibility under Bankruptcy Code § 109(e). The District Court explained that disputed debt is not necessarily contingent or unliquidated and found that Buco had not provided an argument showing that the Bankruptcy Court’s reasoning would be overturned.

Third, Buco offered no argument that creditors would avoid substantial injury from a stay. The court reasoned that, because Buco was unlikely to succeed, a stay would prolong the bankruptcy proceeding without a foreseeable offsetting benefit and would injure creditors. Fourth, the court found that the public interest favored the prompt administration of bankruptcy proceedings and therefore did not support a stay.

Ruling

Judge Margaret M. Garnett denied Buco’s motion for a stay pending appeal. The court also ordered Buco to show cause by August 6, 2025, why the appeal should not be dismissed entirely. The opinion itself does not state that the appeal was dismissed; it directs Buco to provide an explanation before that issue is resolved.