In re: Buhl, 453 F.Supp.3d 529

Property at 12 Casner Road (owned by Luce Buhl) was subject to foreclosure by Liberty Bank; Bankruptcy Court previously lifted the automatic stay and recorded an order binding subsequent filers for two years.
Luce Buhl filed three Chapter 13 petitions that were dismissed; one dismissal included a 180-day filing ban and the court directed recording of the lift-stay order.
Paul Buhl filed serial Chapter 13 petitions (2015, 2016, 2019) timed just before scheduled foreclosure sales or an eviction; prior petitions were dismissed and the property was ultimately sold.
Paul Buhl brought parallel federal and adversary actions (including § 1983 claim); a prior federal suit was dismissed under Rooker–Feldman and appeals were unsuccessful.
In the 2019 Chapter 13, Buhl proposed a plan contingent on a court ruling that the foreclosure violated the automatic stay, but he made no plan payments.
The Bankruptcy Court dismissed the 2019 Chapter 13 for cause (bad-faith serial filings and failure to make § 1326(a) plan payments) and imposed a one-year filing bar; the District Court affirmed on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Bankruptcy Court abused its discretion in dismissing Buhl's Chapter 13 as filed in bad faith based on serial filings timed to impede foreclosure/eviction	Buhl: filings were legitimate attempts to protect rights and plan was viable; not pursued in bad faith	FNMA/Trustee: filings were tactical, serial, and timed to delay secured creditors; constituted bad faith	Court: No abuse of discretion; factual findings of bad faith were not clearly erroneous and supported dismissal
Whether failure to make Chapter 13 plan payments justified dismissal	Buhl: plan would resolve debt if court found stay violation; payments pending that determination	FNMA/Trustee: Buhl made no plan payments and offered no adequate excuse, supporting dismissal	Court: Independent, adequate basis for dismissal—Buhl admitted nonpayment; no clear error
Whether imposition of a one-year filing bar was an abuse of discretion	Buhl: bar unwarranted given asserted intent to repay and offer to repurchase	FNMA/Trustee: bar appropriate given pattern of tactical filings to delay foreclosure	Court: One-year bar not an abuse of discretion given serial, strategically timed filings and delay in pursuing prior remedies

In re Anderson, 884 F.3d 382 (2d Cir. 2018) (standards: factual findings for clear error; legal questions de novo)
In re Toor, 477 B.R. 299 (D. Conn. 2012) (bad-faith findings from serial filings reviewed for clear error)
In re Casse, 198 F.3d 327 (2d Cir. 1999) (factors bearing on bad-faith bankruptcy filings)
In re Smith, 507 F.3d 64 (2d Cir. 2007) (scope of bankruptcy court discretion review)
Mercury Capital Corp. v. Milford Connecticut Assocs., L.P., 354 B.R. 1 (D. Conn. 2006) (discretionary decisions of bankruptcy court reviewed deferentially)
In re Murray, 565 B.R. 527 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (dismissing for cause reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Tracy v. Freshwater, 623 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 2010) (pro se solicitude principles)