In re Taal, 520 B.R. 370

Creditor St. Mary’s Bank moves to dismiss debtor’s Chapter 13 case for bad faith, seek in rem relief against the Property, and request sanctions.
Debtor Guylaine Taal and her husband Baboucar Taal own the Property in Bedford, NH; the Bank loan was originated in 2004 secured by a mortgage on the Property.
Mr. Taal previously filed three Chapter 13 cases in the past two-and-a-half years, all dismissed for failure to file documents; Ms. Taal filed one Chapter 13 case, represented by counsel, with proposed plan.
Bank argues the Taals filed serial petitions to obstruct foreclosure; Ms. Taal contends her case is separate and that Bank delayed foreclosure; she points to substantial payments to the Bank.
Court notes Ms. Taal’s testimony about payments and absence of a foreclosure stay relief in Mr. Taal’s cases; the Bank’s evidence shows serial filings and alleged inconsistencies, but no clear “tag-team” scheme proven.
Court defers ruling on confirmation and explains decision will address bad faith and in rem relief under 11 U.S.C. §§ 1307(c) and 362(d)(4).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Taals filed in bad faith under § 1307(c).	Bank asserts lack of good faith as motive.	Ms. Taal argues separate filings; no coordinated scheme or bad faith.	Not proven; petition not filed in bad faith; deny relief under §1307(c).
Whether in rem relief under § 362(d)(4) is warranted.	Bank contends serial filings constitute a scheme to delay foreclosure.	Taals’ filings not part of a deliberate scheme; evidence insufficient.	Not proven; in rem relief denied.
Whether dismissal with prejudice for 180 days under § 109(g) and § 349(a) should be granted.	Bank seeks 180-day bar from refiling.	Ms. Taal argues against broad prejudice or sanctions.	Denied; relief not warranted based on the record.

In re Sullivan, v. Solimini, 326 B.R. 204 (1st Cir. BAP 2005) (bad faith may constitute cause under §1307(c))
In re Dicey, 312 B.R. 456 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2004) (totality of circumstances test for good faith in Chapter 13)
In re Hannigan, 409 F.3d 480 (1st Cir. 2005) (good faith required; mere carelessness insufficient)
In re McCarthy, 488 B.R. 814 (1st Cir. BAP 2013) (reckless disregard may establish bad faith by cumulative mistakes)
In re Henderson, 395 B.R. 893 (Bankr. D.S.C. 2008) (four-part test for in rem relief under §362(d)(4) and abuse of bankruptcy process)
Behrens v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 501 B.R. 351 (8th Cir. BAP 2013) (discussion of §362(d)(4) after 2010 amendments; burden on creditor)
In re Selinsky, 365 B.R. 260 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2007) (describes ‘tag-team’ husband-wife serial filings pattern)
In re Bailey, 321 B.R. 169 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2005) (serial filings to thwart foreclosure by spouses)
In re Felberman, 196 B.R. 678 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1995) (multiple filings near foreclosure; pattern of abuse)
In re Lord, 325 B.R. 121 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2005) (implication of bad faith in abuse of bankruptcy process)