Deborah Steiner v. Wilmington Savings Fund Soc., 613 B.R. 176

Deborah and Neil Steiner executed a mortgage on a Blue Springs, MO home; the loan matured in April 2011 and has been in default with no payments since then.
Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB (Wilmington) owns the loan and attempted foreclosure on the property five times over two years.
Between 2010 and 2018 the Steiners filed eight Chapter 13 petitions (Deborah seven, Neil one); each prior case was dismissed, principally for failure to make plan payments.
In August 2019 Deborah filed a Chapter 13 petition and Neil filed a separate Chapter 13 petition days later; Wilmington moved for stay relief and dismissal in each case.
After an expedited telephonic hearing the bankruptcy court lifted the stay to allow foreclosure, took dismissal motions under advisement, and the Steiners subsequently filed a joint Chapter 7.
On August 30, 2019 the bankruptcy court dismissed the Steiners’ Chapter 13 cases and imposed a 180-day bar on refiling; the Steiners appealed the Chapter 13 dismissals and the district appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal with a 180‑day refiling bar was proper for serial filings	Steiners argued dismissal was improper given efforts to obtain loan modifications and alleged inability to pay while Wilmington never filed a claim	Wilmington and the bankruptcy court argued the Steiners engaged in repeated, bad‑faith filings to thwart foreclosure and abused the bankruptcy process	Affirmed: bar to refiling upheld as not an abuse of discretion; court found bad‑faith serial filings aimed at delaying foreclosure
Whether prior dismissals were excused because Wilmington didn’t submit a proof of claim or respond to modification requests	Steiners claimed inability to fund a plan when Wilmington didn’t file a claim and modification requests went unanswered	Court noted prior dismissals were for failure to make plan payments (including to Wilmington) and that creditor inaction did not excuse repeated filings	Rejected: creditor’s actions did not negate pattern of nonpayment and bad faith
Whether expedited telephonic hearing denied due process	Steiners contended the expedited schedule and telephonic ruling deprived them of an opportunity to present information	Wilmington and the court pointed to accommodations (notice, telephonic participation) and record showing the Steiners participated	Rejected: no due process violation; Steiners participated and had opportunity to be heard

Marrama v. Citizens Bank of Massachusetts, 549 U.S. 365 (U.S. 2007) (atypical conduct and attempts to manipulate bankruptcy process are relevant to bad‑faith inquiry)
Casse v. Key Bank Nat'l Ass'n (In re Casse), 198 F.3d 327 (2d Cir. 1999) (bankruptcy courts may bar refiling as sanction for serial bad‑faith filings)
Colonial Auto Ctr. v. Tomlin (In re Tomlin), 105 F.3d 933 (4th Cir. 1997) (refiling bar is a severe sanction reserved for egregious misconduct)
City of Duluth v. Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, 702 F.3d 1147 (8th Cir. 2013) (abuse of discretion standard explained)
Molitor v. Eidson (In re Molitor), 76 F.3d 218 (8th Cir. 1996) (debtor's bad faith constitutes cause to dismiss under § 1307(c))