In re Efron, 535 B.R. 516

Debtor filed Chapter 11 and failed to make post-petition domestic support obligation (DSO) payments and comply with court orders; the court abstained and dismissed the case under 11 U.S.C. § 305(a)(1) and, alternatively, § 1112(b)(4)(E) and (P).
Debtor appealed the dismissal and moved for a stay pending appeal under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8005; creditor Madeline Candelario (Candelario) opposed the stay.
The court applied the four-factor stay test (likelihood of success, irreparable harm, harm to other parties, public interest) and noted the movant’s heavy burden.
Debtor’s arguments focused primarily on contesting the DSO determination (jurisdiction, notice/hearing, and liability), but did not rebut other grounds for dismissal (two‑party dispute, prolonged state litigation) or his failure to comply with orders.
Court found Debtor’s claims of irreparable harm speculative, noted creditors’ long delay in payment and that continued delay would harm creditors (including Candelario), and emphasized public policy favoring enforcement of DSO obligations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Likelihood of success on the merits	Debtor: DSO order erroneous — lack of jurisdiction, no notice/hearing, and he owes nothing	Candelario: DSO set to maintain her; federal law governs DSO; debtor failed to address other dismissal grounds	Denied — debtor failed to show strong likelihood of success; other dismissal grounds remain unchallenged
Irreparable harm	Debtor: Without a stay creditors will execute/jump to courthouse, impeding reorganization and reinstating claim objections	Candelario: Alleged run to courthouse is speculative; economic injury is not irreparable	Denied — harm alleged is speculative and economic injury is not irreparable
Harm to other parties	Debtor: No party harmed; creditors will receive 100% of claims if stayed	Candelario: Stay would prevent collection of needed DSO payments; creditors already delayed nearly three years	Denied — stay would further harm creditors and extend delay of payments
Public interest	Debtor: Bankruptcy policy favors equal distribution and reorganization	Candelario: Public policy prioritizes DSO payment and efficient use of judicial resources	Denied — public interest supports enforcing DSO obligations and avoiding delay

Acevedo-Garcia v. Vera-Monroig, 296 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2002) (articulates standards for evaluating stays pending appeal)
Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (U.S. 2009) (first two stay factors — likelihood of success and irreparable harm — are most critical)
Respect Maine PAC v. McKee, 622 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2010) (movants must show a strong likelihood of success and likely irreparable injury)