Robert Todd Houle
PAUL R. WARREN, U.S.B.J.
Robert Todd Houle commenced this case, pro se, under Chapter 13. (ECF No. 1). The Chapter 13 Trustee quickly moved to dismiss the case because Mr. Houle failed to file a Chapter 13 plan. (ECF No. 21). At the hearing, the Court discussed with the Trustee whether the best interest of creditors would be better served by conversion to Chapter 7, given both the fact that there was no automatic stay (by operation of
For the reasons that follow, the motion of the UST is GRANTED. This case is DISMISSED for cause under
I.
JURISDICTION
The Court has jurisdiction under
II.
FACTS
On April 29, 2004, Mr. Houle borrowed $119,500.00 and executed a promissory note to Aegis Lending Corporation. See Wells Fargo Bank NA v. Houle, Case No. I2008012050, Doc. No. 9 ¶ 3 (Sup. Ct. Monroe Cnty. N.Y. Oct. 4, 2022). The note was secured by a mortgage on the Property located at 1108 Cheese Factory Road, Town of Mendon, New York. Id. at Doc. No. 9 ¶ 4; Doc. No. 11. Mr. Houle defaulted on payment under the note by failing to make payment of the installment due November 1, 2007. Id. at Doc. 13 at 4. A foreclosure action was commenced on August 26, 2008. Id. at Doc. 1. Despite the passage of 17 years, the Property has not been sold at foreclosure. Mr. Houle continues to reside at the Property, while not paying a dime on the mortgage obligation. Consequently, the original debt of $119,500 has ballooned to $349,143.16—
How is it possible for Mr. Houle to have avoided the foreclosure of his ownership interest in the Property for over 17 years? The answer lies in Mr. Houle‘s tactical use of the automatic stay that springs to life with the filing of every bankruptcy petition, by operation of
| Case Number | Date Filed | Date Dismissed |
|---|---|---|
| 08-20330 | February 15, 2008 | March 27, 2008 |
| 08-21155 | May 12, 2008 | June 26, 2008 |
| 10-20258 | February 12, 2010 | March 1, 2010 |
| 18-20995 | September 25, 2018 | January 6, 2020 |
| 23-20578 | November 14, 2023 | February 1, 2024 |
| 24-20229 | May 26, 2024 | October 24, 2024 |
| 25-20223 | March 1, 2025 | Pending |
Each case filed by Mr. Houle was carefully timed to stop a scheduled foreclosure sale of the Property (or some other real estate in which Mr. Houle has an interest). In this case, Mr. Houle repeatedly points to his pro se status to evoke the Court‘s sympathy—claiming to be a “vulnerable
A perfect example of Mr. Houle being the antithesis of a “vulnerable pro se debtor” occurred earlier this year. On January 29, 2025, Mr. Houle transferred title to the Property at 1108 Cheese Factory Road to “Auburn Petroleum, LLC,” by a deed recorded in the Monroe County Clerk‘s Office at Book of Deeds 13058, Page 0244. Auburn Petroleum is a corporation in which Mr. Houle is the sole shareholder and, for all intents and purposes, is Mr. Houle‘s alter ego. The next day, Mr. Houle caused Auburn Petroleum to file a Chapter 11 case in the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of New York. (See Auburn Petroleum, LLC, Case No. 25-30065-5-wak (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. filed Jan. 30, 2025).4 Judge Kinsella dismissed the Auburn Petroleum petition on February 19, 2025. (Id. at ECF No. 24). And, predictably, on March 13, 2025, Mr. Houle then caused Auburn Petroleum to transfer title to 1108 Cheese Factory Road back to Mr. Houle, individually, by a deed recorded in the Monroe County Clerk‘s Office at Book of Deeds 13074, Page 0032. Mr. Houle then filed this case on March 31, 2025.5
| Case Number | Debtor | Dated File | Date Dismissed |
|---|---|---|---|
| 08-20132 | Houle Property Group LLC | January 21, 2008 | March 27, 2008 |
| 08-21017 | Houle Property Group LLC | April 28, 2008 | June 26, 2008 |
| 09-21092 | Keuka Capital Inc. | April 28, 2009 | August 12, 2009 |
Each case filed by Mr. Houle was dismissed shortly after filing, a result that surely did not distress Mr. Houle. After all, he got what he wanted—to derail a pending foreclosure by the calculated use of the automatic stay, forcing the creditor to go through procedural hoops that would necessarily delay a foreclosure sale.
The UST has moved to dismiss this case for cause, under
DISCUSSION
A. Cause Exists to Dismiss this Case
The power to dismiss a Chapter 7 case derives principally from
(a) The court may dismiss a case under [Chapter 7] only after notice and a hearing and only for cause, including—
(1) unreasonable delay by the debtor that is prejudicial to creditors;
(2) nonpayment of any fees or charges required under chapter 123 of title 28; and
(3) failure of the debtor in a voluntary case to file, within fifteen days or such additional time as the court may allow after the filing of petition commencing such case, the information required by paragraph (1) of section 521, but only on a motion by the United States trustee.
A party moving for dismissal under
There are ample reasons supporting dismissal “for cause” here. Mr. Houle repeatedly failed to fulfill his obligation to “submit to examination under oath at the meeting of creditors,” as required by
In light of Mr. Houle‘s history of bankruptcy filings, followed by uncontested dismissals shortly after filing, it is impossible to view this case as anything other than another tactical and calculated attempt by Mr. Houle to manipulate the automatic stay solely as a weapon to thwart and derail Wells Fargo‘s State Court mortgage foreclosure efforts. Mr. Houle‘s bankruptcy cases were all filed on the eve of mortgage or tax foreclosure sales. He has transferred title to 1108 Cheese Factory Road to entities solely owned and controlled by him, and then filed bankruptcy cases in the name of those entities. He has then transferred title back to himself, upon the dismissal of the petition. And, Mr. Houle employs the same manipulation over and over and over again. The pattern of tactical use of the automatic stay without any intention to prosecute a bankruptcy case to its conclusion demonstrates bad faith, and therefore, the Court finds that cause exists to dismiss under
The UST‘s motion to DISMISS is GRANTED.
B. A 2-Year Injunction Barring the Filing of a Bankruptcy Petition is Appropriate
Pointing to Mr. Houle‘s filing of “six prior bankruptcy cases in this Court since 2008,” the UST asks the Court to bar Mr. Houle from filing any further bankruptcy cases for a period of one year. (ECF No. 66 ¶¶ 26-29).
It is well-settled in the Second Circuit that the bankruptcy court is empowered to enjoin a debtor from future filings under
11 U.S.C. § 105(a) and§ 349(a) . The second clause of§ 349(a) permits the Court to order that a dismissal is “with prejudice” to the filing of a subsequent petition by a debtor. In re Casse, 198 F.3d at 334-41. “To bar future filings, an order of dismissal must be with prejudice; and bankruptcy courts look to§§ 105(a) and349(a) for their authority to impose that sanction.” Id. at 335 [(internal quotation marks omitted)]. The Second Circuit has held that the 180-day bar to subsequent filings under§ 109(g) of the Code “does not impose a temporal limitation upon [§ 105(a) and§ 349(a) ].” Id. at 339.
In re Kearns, 616 B.R. 458, 470 (Bankr. W.D.N.Y. 2020) (quoting In re Meltzer, Case No. 19-21110-PRW, 2020 Bankr. LEXIS 80, at *9-10).
Here, the Court finds that Mr. Houle is acting and has acted in bad faith and is abusing the bankruptcy system. The multiple bankruptcy petitions filed by Mr. Houle since 2008 have been filed solely to utilize the automatic stay to prevent a secured creditor from foreclosing its lien on 1108 Cheese Factory Road or some other real property in which Mr. Houle has an interest. The abuse of the bankruptcy system by Mr. Houle is cause for this Court to enjoin and bar Mr. Houle from filing a bankruptcy petition in the future. But how long should Mr. Houle be enjoined from filing another bankruptcy petition?
The UST requests that Mr. Houle be barred from filing a petition in bankruptcy for 1 year. The Second Circuit has endorsed the imposition of a temporary bar to filing of a bankruptcy petition, if imposed for a sufficient period of time to enable a mortgagee an opportunity to complete a foreclosure against a debtor‘s property. In re Casse, 198 F.3d at 333 n.4. The imposition of a 1-year injunction prohibiting Mr. Houle from filing a bankruptcy petition, as requested by the UST, is a step in the right direction, but is likely too short in duration to have its intended effect.
Here, Mr. Houle has demonstrated a clear and persistent practice of filing for bankruptcy protection to frustrate Wells Fargo in its efforts to foreclose its mortgage on the Property. Each
And, the Court deems it necessary to go a step or two further. First, to ensure that Mr. Houle cannot end-run this filing injunction by transferring the Property to a third-party who then files a bankruptcy petition (a move he has pulled in the recent past), the Court further exercises its discretion under
Should Mr. Houle or any debtor claiming an interest in the Property wish to seek relief from the filing injunction and in rem relief imposed by this Order, that party must move for relief in this Court. The movant must serve all affected creditors and the UST with not less than 21-days’ notice of such a motion, with personal service to be made on counsel to Wells Fargo appearing in the mortgage foreclosure action and on the UST. The Clerk of Court is directed to docket any such motion as a “Miscellaneous Proceeding,” with a case caption identifying the movant as John/Jane Doe (or other fictitious name selected by the Clerk) to ensure that creditors are not misled in thinking that the automatic stay applies, unless and until this Court specifically orders otherwise. The filing fee for such a motion must be paid in full upon presentation of such motion, in an amount equal to the filing fee applicable at that time.
C. Mr. Houle‘s Demand that the Mortgage and Note Be Cancelled Because of Irregularities with the Assignments Is Without Any Legal Support Under Second Circuit Precedent, and Is Barred by Res Judicata
It is beyond cavil that each of the 8 bankruptcy petitions filed by Mr. Houle, listing 1108 Cheese Factory Road as an asset of the estate, was filed for the purpose of preventing a scheduled foreclosure sale of the Property by operation of the automatic stay. The fact that the foreclosure action has been pending for over 17 years is a testament to the fact that the automatic stay can operate as a monkey wrench, thrown into the gears of a state court foreclosure action, when wielded by a determined serial filer. Unless this Court removes the monkey wrench from Mr. Houle‘s toolbox, abuse of the bankruptcy system will continue to hamstring the State Court from seeing the foreclosure action to its conclusion—the sale of 1108 Cheese Factory Road. And, in addition to the task of lightening Mr. Houle‘s toolbox by the imposition of a filing injunction, the
This case was originally filed by Mr. Houle under Chapter 13. The Court entered an Order converting the case to Chapter 7. (ECF No. 36). And, since that time, Mr. Houle has bombarded the Court with a series of filings, styled as “motions,” all of which were procedurally improper so they were not scheduled for a hearing. (ECF Nos. 40, 53, 54, 57, 65, 69). Because the assertions made by Mr. Houle are identical to those made before the State Court in the foreclosure action9 and before the District Court, this Court will address Mr. Houle‘s demands for relief. See Wells Fargo Bank NA v. Houle, Case No. I2008012050 (Sup. Ct. Monroe Cnty. N.Y. filed Aug. 26, 2008); see also Houle v. Wells Fargo Bank NA, Case No. 6:23-cv-06053-FPG (W.D.N.Y. filed Jan. 24, 2025); Houle v. Wells Fargo, NA, Case No. 6:25-cv-06634-FPG (W.D.N.Y. filed Nov. 6, 2023).
Mr. Houle‘s main claims are that: (1) Wells Fargo is not the holder of the note and mortgage on the Property, and the mortgage should be cancelled, because an assignment of the mortgage was signed by Leticia Arias, an alleged robo-signer, and (2) by filing a proof of claim that included the allegedly robo-signed or forged assignment, Wells Fargo violated Title 18 of the United States Code. Mr. Houle‘s first claim has been pressed by him in the State Court, the District Court, and this Court. Mr. Houle‘s second claim has been pressed by him in the District Court and in this Court. See Houle v. Wells Fargo Bank NA, Case No. 6:23-cv-06053-FPG at ECF No. 4.
1. Mr. Houle Lacks Constitutional and Prudential Standing to Challenge the Mortgage Assignments
In response to the housing crisis that followed the financial crisis of 2008, mortgagors facing foreclosure began arguing that the mortgage burdening their property should be cancelled because assignments of the mortgage had been robo-signed or forged. The issue reached the Second Circuit in 2013, where the Circuit emphatically held that mortgagors lack both constitutional and prudential standing to challenge the validity of a mortgage assignment. Rajamin v. Deutsche Bank Nat‘l Trust Co., 757 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2014). The Circuit has followed Rajamin in squarely rejecting subsequent attempts by mortgagors to avoid foreclosure by claiming that alleged defects in the mortgage assignments, including alleged forgery, should render the mortgage void. Redmond v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon Corp., 697 F. App‘x 23, 26 (2d Cir. 2017) (“it is insufficient, for constitutional standing purposes, for a plaintiff to allege merely that the wrong party foreclosed on him or her“); Obal v. Deutsche Bank Nat‘l Trust Co., 670 F. App‘x 10 (2d Cir. 2016).
Most recently, the Second Circuit again followed Rajamin in rejecting an attempt by mortgagors to have their mortgage to Wells Fargo declared void because of allegedly fraudulent mortgage assignments. Levin v. American Doc. Servs., LLC, 828 F. App‘x 788 (2d Cir. 2020). In rejecting the mortgagors’ attempt to avoid their mortgage obligation, the Circuit held:
Id. at 792.
Under well-settled Second Circuit precedent, Mr. Houle does not have constitutional or prudential standing to challenge the allegedly forged mortgage assignments in this Court or any other court applying New York law. The so-called “motions” filed by Mr. Houle (ECF Nos. 40, 53, 54, 57, 65, 69) are DENIED on the merits.
2. Mr. Houle‘s Attempt to Re-litigate the Validity of the Mortgage Assignments is Barred by the Doctrine of Res Judicata
In the long-in-the-tooth State Court foreclosure action, Mr. Houle sought to vacate the Judgment of Foreclosure, arguing that the allegedly forged and robo-signed mortgage assignments deprived Wells Fargo of standing to initiate a foreclosure action. See Wells Fargo Bank NA v. Houle, Case No. I2008012050, Doc. Nos. 6, 7 (Sup. Ct. Monroe Cnty. N.Y. May 2, 2022). In denying Mr. Houle‘s motion, the State Court held:
Houle previously raised the issue of standing and robosigning in a prior order to show cause dated May 31, 2017 which was rejected by the court. (see NYSCEF dtk 24 motion/otsc; dkt 25 decision dated september 10, 2018). The decision was not appealed nor was the judgment of foreclosure and sale which was signed on June 12, 2018 [NYSCEF dtk 27]). The prior orders constitute the law of the case which provides that when a party has a full and fair opportunity to litigate an issue, a determination by a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction can not be re-litigated expect in extraordinary circumstances such as new evidence or a change in the law.
The State Court went on to observe that “Houle claims that the new evidence was discovered through a book he purchased in 2019 titled the Chain of Title which alerted him to the massive fraud regarding foreclosures.” Id. at Doc. No. 54 at 5. The State Court rejected Mr. Houle‘s “new evidence” claim. The State Court has twice rejected Mr. Houle‘s claims that the mortgage assignments were forged, in declining to vacate the judgment of foreclosure. Mr. Houle‘s attempts to drag his time-worn claims of fraud and forgery before this Court are barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Mr. Houle‘s claims are identical to those put to, and flatly rejected by, the State Court. In an attempt to avoid the preclusive effect of the State Court judgment, Mr. Houle points to a proof of claim filed by Wells Fargo in his 2018 bankruptcy case, attached to which are allegedly forged mortgage assignments, as grounds for Mr. Houle to seek relief under Title 18 of the United States Code.
Mr. Houle has commenced two civil actions before the District Court for the Western District of New York, seeking to enjoin Wells Fargo from foreclosing on 1108 Cheese Factory Road, arguing that the mortgage assignments were forged and fraudulent. Houle v. Wells Fargo Bank NA, Case No. 6:25-cv-06634-FPG (W.D.N.Y. filed Jan. 24, 2025); Houle v. Wells Fargo, NA, Case No. 6:23-cv-06053-FPG (W.D.N.Y. filed Nov. 6, 2023). As with the res judicata effect of the State Court rulings, here the District Court has ruled that: (1) no private right of action exists under Title 18 (Houle v. Wells Fargo, NA, Case No. 6:23-cv-06053-FPG, at ECF No. 8); and (2) Houle‘s assertion that the mortgage assignment was the product of fraud or forgery, rendering the assignment invalid, has been squarely rejected by courts—pointing to decisions “reject[ing] the notion that an assignment can be invalidated by the signature of an alleged ‘robo signer.‘” Houle v. Wells Fargo Bank NA, Case No. 6:25-cv-06634-FPG, at ECF No. 2 at 3. Mr.
To the extent that Mr. Houle‘s recent filings (ECF Nos. 65, 69) could be read as a motion requesting that this Court take up Mr. Houle‘s robo-signing campaign, the Court flatly DENIES Mr. Houle‘s entreaties, with prejudice and on the merits. There is not a shred of Second Circuit precedent that even marginally supports Mr. Houle‘s claims. Quite the opposite, in fact. And, Mr. Houle‘s repeated use of the automatic stay as a weapon to derail the State Court foreclosure action must and (by this decision) will stop for a sufficient period of time to enable the State Court to see the foreclosure action to its conclusion.
IV.
CONCLUSION
The motion of the Trustee is GRANTED. This case is DISMISSED for cause, under
In the exercise of the Court‘s discretion, Mr. Houle is ENJOINED from filing a bankruptcy petition for a period of 2 years from the date of entry of this Order, under
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 21, 2025
Rochester, New York
__________________/s/________________
HON. PAUL R. WARREN
United States Bankruptcy Judge