668 B.R. 222
Bankr. W.D. Mo.2025Background
- Deborah G. Steiner filed twelve personal bankruptcy cases over ~13 years (plus multiple filings by her husband); nearly all were Chapter 13 and were dismissed. Prior dismissal orders imposed refiling bars (180 days, one year).
- Recurrent conduct: filing on eve of foreclosure, inaccurate/incomplete schedules, failure to make plan payments, frivolous motions/objections, attempts to relitigate state-court judgments about three properties (87 Green Turtle; NW 36th; 410 SW 10th).
- This case was filed Oct. 11, 2023. The U.S. Trustee moved to dismiss for abuse and sought a two-year bar. The Court and UST afforded Ms. Steiner multiple opportunities and a conditional settlement (confirm a plan within 90 days, later extended).
- Ms. Steiner obtained a trial loan modification but refused to sign a permanent modification, filed multiple unconfirmable plans, missed payments, and repeatedly made inconsistent disclosures.
- Court found pervasive bad-faith conduct and breach of the settlement/conditions, granted the UST’s motion, dismissed the case, and barred Steiner from filing any bankruptcy petition for two years (order dated Feb. 14, 2025).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (UST/creditors) | Defendant's Argument (Steiner) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Should the Chapter 13 case be dismissed for cause (bad faith/abuse)? | Serial filings were delay tactics, inaccurate disclosures, refusal to comply—constitute bad faith and cause to dismiss under §1307(c). | Case filed in good faith to obtain loan modification; errors due to form confusion; not all filings were in bad faith. | Dismissed for cause: Court found pervasive bad faith on totality of circumstances. |
| 2) Was a multi-year refiling bar warranted (sanction beyond 180 days)? | Prior shorter bars failed to deter repeated abuse; Steiners’ conduct was egregious and merits a two-year bar to prevent further abuse. | No legal limit on number of filings; sanction excessive and unwarranted. | Two-year bar imposed as appropriate remedy for egregious, repeated serial filings and abuse. |
| 3) Did Steiner breach the March 6 settlement/conditional continuance requiring confirmation within 90 days? | Settlement required filing accurate schedules and obtaining confirmation within the agreed timeframe (UST flexible but expected progress). | Steiner claimed good-faith efforts and requested leniency; asserted intent to cooperate and save homestead. | Court found she breached the agreement by failing to timely file a confirmable plan and by backsliding; breach supported dismissal. |
| 4) Did the existence of a trial loan modification and stated intent to obtain a permanent modification show good faith? | Trial modification alone insufficient given pattern of contradictory positions, refusal to execute permanent modification, and continued obstruction. | Steiner relied on loan-modification process as evidence of genuine intent to save property. | Court credited initial sincerity at hearing but concluded later conduct (refusal to sign permanent mod, contradictory filings) negated good faith. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Steiner, 613 B.R. 176 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2020) (prior B.A.P. decision finding a long-running scheme to abuse the bankruptcy system and affirming a refiling bar)
- In re Molitor, 76 F.3d 218 (8th Cir. 1996) (debtor bad faith is "cause" to dismiss under §1307(c))
- Marrama v. Citizens Bank of Mass., 549 U.S. 365 (2007) (bad-faith conduct bears on a bankruptcy court’s conversion/dismissal authority)
- In re Marshall, 407 B.R. 359 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2009) (egregious serial filings and relitigation justify extended refiling bars)
- In re Rusher, 283 B.R. 544 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 2002) (serial filings to thwart foreclosure support multi-year refiling prohibition)