B-3 Properties, LLC v. Lasco, 517 B.R. 889

B-3 Properties, LLC owns a single asset, a 200-acre Hobart, Indiana parcel, and repeatedly filed Chapter 11 petitions on the eve of foreclosures to stay state-court sales.
Lasco, a creditor and B-3 member, foreclosed multiple times and sought dismissal and a bar to refiling due to alleged bad faith and repeated stalled sales.
During the second bankruptcy, the court ordered a valid purchase agreement with a $75,000 non-refundable earnest money deposit and exact deadlines.
B-3 submitted incomplete or invalid offers and bounced checks, violating the court’s order and prompting dismissal with a permanent bar to refiling.
The state foreclosure proceeded after dismissal, but the district court stayed the sale pending appeal to avoid mootness.
The district court affirms the bankruptcy court, concluding the bankruptcy was used to impede foreclosure and that a permanent bar to refiling is warranted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the appeal timeliness is proper.	B-3 argues timely under tolling rules.	Lasco contends untimely filing.	Appellate timeliness determined in favor of B-3; clock began after final written order on Feb. 7, 2014, making the appeal timely.
Whether dismissal with a permanent bar to refiling was proper.	B-3 argues no bad faith or proper basis for a bar beyond 180 days.	Lasco contends repeated willful noncompliance and bad-faith conduct justify a bar.	Yes; the court affirmed the permanent bar under §349(a) and §105(a) for cause, given repeated noncompliance and abuse of the process.
Whether the bankruptcy court abused its discretion in dismissing the case for cause.	B-3 claims no cause under §1112(b)(4).	Lasco argues noncompliance with the court’s sale order constitutes cause.	No; dismissal for failure to comply with the sale-order conditions was within the court’s discretion.
Whether an evidentiary hearing was required before dismissal.	B-3 contends the hearing violated the Record No. 66 order.	Lasco argues no mandatory hearing where the court is familiar with facts.	No; the bankruptcy court properly conducted, and the record supported, the dismissal without an additional hearing.

In re Frieouf, 938 F.2d 1099 (10th Cir. 1991) (Frieouf supports restricting refiling absent cause beyond 180 days)
In re Casse, 198 F.3d 327 (2d Cir. 1999) (recognizes §349(a) and §105(a) interplay to bar refilings for cause)
In re Leavitt, 171 F.3d 1219 (9th Cir. 1999) (permits longer-than-180-day bars without express bad-faith findings)
In re Dempsey, 247 F. App’x 21 (7th Cir. 2007) (upholds one-year bar to refiling under §105(a) without bad faith finding)
In re Hall, 304 F.3d 743 (7th Cir. 2002) (dismissals with prejudice reserved for extreme misconduct)
In re Garcia, 479 B.R. 488 (Bankr.N.D. Ind. 2012) (court discusses §349(a) and §109(g) interplay in Indiana bankruptcy)