560 B.R. 365
Bankr. D.N.M.2016Background
- Debtors Edward and Andrea Henderson filed a voluntary Chapter 7 petition on February 13, 2015 and did not list any lease with the Whites on Schedule G.
- The Whites claim they and the Hendersons signed an "Extension of Lease Agreement" on March 6, 2015 extending tenancy from April 15, 2015 to July 15, 2015 for $2,200/month.
- The Hendersons failed to pay July 2015 rent; the Whites sued in Bernalillo Metropolitan Court (state court) for unpaid rent and amended that complaint in August 2015.
- The Hendersons brought an adversary proceeding alleging violations of the automatic stay and discharge injunction; the Whites moved for summary judgment.
- The bankruptcy court found undisputed facts show the Extension Agreement is a post-petition lease (no unexpired pre-petition lease was scheduled), so the Whites’ enforcement of post-petition rent claims did not violate the automatic stay or discharge injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an unexpired pre-petition lease existed on petition date | Hendersons: prior lease continued, so landlord enforcement violates stay/discharge | Whites: prior leases had expired; the March 6 document is a separate post-petition lease for Apr–Jul 2015 | Held: No pre-petition unexpired lease; Extension is post-petition lease; enforcement did not violate stay/discharge |
| Whether enforcement of the post-petition lease constituted collection of a pre-petition debt | Hendersons: enforcement is collection activity barred by §362/§524 | Whites: rent at issue is post-petition, so not stayed or discharged | Held: Rent claims were post-petition; §362 and §524 do not apply |
| Whether debtor’s schedules can be treated as admissions | Hendersons: (implied) schedules incomplete or ambiguous | Whites: Hendersons’ omission of lease on Schedule G is a judicial admission that no unexpired lease existed | Held: Schedules are admissions; failure to schedule lease supports finding no pre-petition lease |
| Adequacy of Whites’ affidavit evidence of pre-petition expirations | Hendersons: (implied) contest affidavits or facts | Whites: Affidavits show prior leases expired before petition | Held: Even if affidavits were thin, combined with the debtors’ unscheduled lease, no genuine dispute remained |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden and standards)
- In re Gruntz, 202 F.3d 1074 (9th Cir.) (automatic stay is self-executing)
- In re Baetz, 493 B.R. 228 (Bankr. D. Colo.) (stay/discharge affect only pre-petition claims and estate property)
- In re Paul, 534 F.3d 1303 (10th Cir.) (discharge injunction prohibits collecting discharged debts)
- In re Kuehn, 563 F.3d 289 (7th Cir.) (sections 362 and 524 apply only to pre-petition/discharged debts)
- Reed v. Bennett, 312 F.3d 1190 (10th Cir.) (court must verify movant met initial burden on summary judgment)