Troylond Malon Wise
Planet Home Lending (“Planet”), as servicer for Palm Avenue Hialeah Trust (“Lender”), filed a Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay with In Rem Relief and Relief from Co-Debtor Stay (ECF # 24), which came before the Court for hearing on March 16, 2026. Present for the hearing were Troylond Wise, Debtor, and his attorney, Kathleen Wilson, Rachel Breaux, attorney for Planet and Planet’s Bankruptcy Portfolio Manager, Sharon Sargent (appearing remotely), Armistead
BACKGROUND
The facts are straight forward and generally undisputed.1 On December 6, 2010, the Debtor and his then wife, Antwilla Jeanlewis Wise, borrowed $43,791.06 from American General Financial Services of Louisiana (the “Lender”).2 The Loan term was 15 years, with the first payment of $629.99 being due on January 15, 2011, with the remaining 179 payments, in the amount of $553.92, being due on the same day each month. The last payment on the loan came due on December 15, 2025, just five days after this chapter 13 case was filed.
To secure repayment of the loan, the Debtor granted a collateral mortgage over his home in Iberia Parish, Louisiana, which was recorded in the mortgage records of that Parish on or about December 6, 2010. The Debtor also executed a Collateral Mortgage Note payable to Bearer in the amount of $50,000.00 and this Note was paraphed for identification with the collateral mortgage.3 The Debtor’s home has a scheduled value of $370,000.00 and is valued by the Iberia Parish Tax Assessor at approximately $337,390.00. Thus, the Lender enjoyed a large equity cushion in the property at the time the loan was made.
The payment history attached to the Lender’s Proof of Claim shows that the Debtor stopped making monthly payments on the Loan in April 2014.4 For the period from April 15, 2014, through June 15, 2015, only $217.54 was paid.5 The Debtor’s failure to make payments also caused a deficiency in his escrow account, because the Lender was required to advance amounts to cover the annual costs of property taxes and insurance. These advances were added to the Debtor’s Escrow Account as additional amounts due by the Debtor.
The Lender filed a foreclosure action against the Debtor on June 25, 2015, which apparently was the impetus for the Debtor filing his first chapter 13 bankruptcy case in this court on July 16, 2015. This first case was dismissed a mere two months later, on September 25, 2015, because the Debtor failed to make plan payments. On November 18, 2015, just two months after the dismissal of the first case, the Debtor filed his second case, which was also dismissed less than six months later, on May 9, 2016, for failure to make payments. These first two cases were the start of a succession of 10 cases, including this one, filed by the Debtor over a ten year period, (nine were filed by the Debtor and one was filed by his ex-wife and co-owner of his home). All ten cases are set forth in the table below, which shows the date each case was filed, the date of dismissal of each case, and a brief summary of the reasons for dismissal.7 The table also shows the dates on which the Lender had a sheriff’s sale scheduled in the state court foreclosure proceeding, showing a total of seven sheriff sales that were canceled by the Debtor’s various bankruptcy filings.8
| CASE NUMBER | DATE BK FILED | Date Dismissed-with Reasons for Dismissal | Sheriff’s Sale Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 15-50876 | 07/16/2015 | 09/25/2015 – Failure to make plan payments | |
| 2 | 15-51494 | 11/18/2015 | 05/09/2016 – Failure to make plan payments | |
| 3 | 17-50775 | 06/19/2017 | 07/15/2019 – Failure to make plan payments | 06/21/2017 |
| 4 | 20-50021 | 01/09/2020 | 03/12/2021 – Failure to make plan payments | 01/29/2020 |
| 5 | 21-50299 | 05/18/2021 | 07/07/2022 – Failure to make plan payments | 05/19/2021 |
| 6 | 22-50437 | 07/12/2022 | 03/11/2024 – Failure to make plan payments | |
| 7 | 24-50417 Filed pro se | 05/22/2024 | 07/18/2024 – Failure to file a Plan and schedules; failure to make payments | 05/22/2024 |
| 8 | 24-80678 filed by Antwilla Wise (ex-wife) | 11/05/2024 | 04/02/2025 – Failure to make plan payments; failure to file a Plan to treat mortgage arrears; failure to file complete Schedules for liquidation assessment; failure to make payments | 12/04/2024 |
| 9 | 25-50483 | 06/03/2025 | 09/12/2025 – Debtor and Counsel failed to attend 341 meeting; Plan failed to detail how Plan payments were to be distributed to creditors; feasibility | 06/04/2025 |
| 10 | 25-51132 | 12/09/2025 | Active – According to the Trustee, the First filed Plan was “incomprehensible” (ECF # 33) and cannot be administered | 12/10/2025 |
The payment history also shows that during the pendency of each of the bankruptcy cases, the Lender continued to make advances on behalf of the Debtor to cover insurance and taxes on the Debtor’s home. And, while the payment history shows that a portion of the payments made by the Debtor during these cases were applied to the escrow balance, the advances made by the Lender far exceeded the payments received, thus increasing the deficiency in the Debtor’s escrow balance. Moreover, the Debtor testified that he did not pay the annual premiums for insurance on his home, nor the annual property taxes, during the pendency of the Loan.
The record shows that at the time this current case was filed, the deficiency in his escrow account had grown to $70,804.73. Additionally, the accrued interest is $40,162,42, the Recoverable Balance is $18,890.45, and the unpaid principal balance is $38,452.14, which means that in 15 years the Debtor paid approximately $5,338.92 towards the principal of the loan. The grand total currently owed by the Debtor to the Lender is $168,479.64.
Turning to the Debtor’s current chapter 13 case, his schedules show that his home represents the bulk of the value of his assets. As noted, he values his home at $370,000.00. His other assets, which include an old Volvo and a Peterbilt (which is not in running condition) are valued at less than $25,000.00. His only secured Debt
Shortly after the Debtor filed this case, the Lender moved to lift the stay as to the Debtor and Co-Debtor in accordance with
ANALYSIS
The filing of a bankruptcy petition operates as an automatiс stay of any act to “enforce any lien against property of the estate.”10 A secured creditor who wishes to foreclose upon collateral that is property of the estate may seek relief from the automatic stay by filing a motion pursuant to
A. Grounds exist for lifting the stay for cause under § 362(d)(1) .
Even though cause is not defined,
Because adequate protection is a flexible concept, it can lead to the imposition of other duties or conditions which are not directly related to the examples in
section 361 . . . In an appropriate case, adequate protection may be offered by indirect means, suсh as by requiring the
trustee to make payments to senior lienholders or to pay taxes or the expenses of operation of the encumbered property. Adequate protection may also require properly insuring the collateral against loss or damage and taking other steps to protect the collateral against loss or deterioration.17
In this case, the determination of whether the Lender’s interest in the Debtor’s home is adequately protected is complicated by the existence of a large equity cushion. As previously noted, the Debtor valued his home at $370,000.00 in his schedules, and the Lender does not contest this valuation. Given the total amount owed to the Lender at this time of approximately $170,000.00, the Lender appears to enjoy a $200,000.00 equity cushion in the property.
A large equity cushion is often accepted as adequate protection for a secured debt.18 In a typical chapter 13 case, such a large equity cushion likely would provide sufficient adequate protection for the secured creditor’s position. It would allow the court considerable leeway to hold a secured creditor at bay while the debtor works towards confirming a plan that both cures any pre- or post-petition defaults on the secured debt and maintains current payments under the terms of the loan, all as allowed under
This is not the typical chapter 13 case. This is the Debtor’s tenth case since June 2015. While he has enjoyed the benefits of the automatic stay during each of these cases, he has been unable to make any progress in paying down the debt owed to the Lender. Indeed, the opposite has occurred. The Debtor’s obligation to the Lender is now nearly four times more than the amount he originally borrowed. This ballooning obligation exists because the Lender has been forced to come out of pocket to cover the property taxes and the premiums for hazard and flood insurance over the past ten-plus years, and the debtor’s lack of payments has further contributed to the large unpaid accrued interest balance.
Moreover, the loan matured days after this current case was filed. Thus, if the Debtor were allowed to continue in this case with the benefit of the stay, he would be required to pay the entire amount owed to the Lender over the sixty-month life of the chapter 13 plan, while also remaining current in the payment of all taxes and insurance premiums on the property.19 All these plan, tax, and insurance payments would be in addition to the Debtоr’s everyday living expenses.
Given the Debtor’s track record over the past ten years, and his current circumstances, the Debtor has virtually no chance of success in this current case. He was unable to maintain plan payments in any of his other cases, and based on his testimony, his circumstances have not changed. He is still working at the same job he has had over his past four cases, earning essentially the same amount of income. A review of his budget in this case shows he simply cannot afford the payments necessary to pay the Lender and pay his normal living expenses. The Chapter 13 Trustee confirmed the obvious, stating during the hearing that he had reviewed the Debtor’s sсhedules, plan, and income records, and he believed the Debtor could not
This brings the Court back to a discussion of the equity cushion. As discussed above, equity cushions may provide parties and courts leeway for providing a debtor time to sell the home as part of a plan process to preserve some of the equity. Despite the Debtor’s obvious inability to pay the Lender over the past ten years, he has never made such a proposal.
Thus, while an equity cushion does often supply adequate protection of a secured creditor’s interest in property, that is not the case here. If the stay is not lifted, it is likely the Lender will be required to continue funding the costs of the taxes and insurance premiums, given the Debtor’s inability to pay. Moreover, the loan has now fully matured. Under these circumstances, the Court finds the Lender is not adequately protected, and thus cause exists to lift the stay under
But lack of adequate protection is not the only cause for granting relief from the stay. A lack of good faith can also provide cause for lifting the stay to permit foreclosure.20 This determination “depends largely upon the bankruptcy court‘s on-the-spot evaluation of the debtor‘s financial condition, motives, and the local financial realities.”21 The Fifth Circuit, in the matter of In re Little Creek Dev. Co., set out a number of conditions, “[s]everal, but not all [of which] usually exist” where good faith is lacking:22
Findings of lack of good faith in proceedings based on
§§ 362(d) or1112(b) have been predicated on certain recurring but non-exclusive patterns, and they are based on a conglomerate of factors rather than on any single datum. Several, but not all, of the following conditions usually exist. The debtor has one asset, such as a tract of undeveloped or developed real property. The secured creditors’ liens encumber this
tract . . . Typically, there are only a few, if any, unsecured creditors whose claims are relatively small. The property has usually been posted for foreclosure because of arrearages on the debt and the debtor has been unsuccessful in defending actions against the foreclosure in state court. Alternatively, the debtor and one creditor may have proceeded to a stand-still in state court litigation, and the debtor has lost or has been required to post a bond which it cannot afford. Bankruptcy offers the only possibility of forestalling loss of the property.23
Although all these factors are not present here, there are some key similarities. The debtor’s home is by far the Debtor’s most significant asset, representing $370,000.00 of the value of all his assets which total $394,997.00. The Lender’s claim is the only scheduled secured claim. There are no unsecured creditors scheduled by the Debtor. The property has been posted for foreclosure not once or twice, but seven times in the past ten years. Finally, the Debtor has used bankruptcy not once, but ten times to forestall the Lender’s foreclosure action in state court, which has been pending since 2015. The court finds that all these factors evidence a lack of good faith by the Debtor in filing for bankruptcy relief.
Accordingly, the Court finds cause, both for lack of adequate protection and for lack of good faith, to grant relief from the automatic stay in favor of the Lender under
B. Planet has not satisfied the requirements for obtaining relief under § 362(d)(2) .
The Lender also seeks relief from the stay under
§ 362(d)(4) is warranted.
The Lender also seeks in rem relief with respect to the debtor’s home pursuant to
(4) with respect to a stay of an аct against real property under subsection (a), by a creditor whose claim is secured by an interest in such real property, if the court finds that the filing of the petition was part of a scheme to delay, hinder, or defraud creditors that involved either—
(A) transfer of all or part ownership of, or other interest in, such real property without the consent of the secured creditor or court approval; or
(B) multiple bankruptcy filings affecting such real property.25
If an order under
Summarizing the requirements of
Nearly all courts analyze the first and second conditions together—whether the debtor has engaged in a scheme and whether that scheme was for the purpose of delaying, hindering, or defrauding creditors. And the most difficult question to answer is whether the debtor’s conduct may be characterized as a “scheme.”
“Though the Bankruptcy Code does not define the word ‘scheme,’ other bankruptcy courts in the Fifth Circuit have interpreted it using its plain meaning as ‘a plan or program of action.’”30 Other courts outside the Fifth Cirсuit look to the “totality of the circumstances” to determine whether the debtor’s conduct amounts to a scheme.31 While this court agrees that a “scheme” ordinarily will involve “a plan or program of action,” it finds that the “totality of the circumstances” must be assessed to determine the existence of such a plan or program of action. The Court also finds that the seven-factor test set forth in In re Yellowman appropriately focuses a court on the circumstances that may point to a “scheme” or “plan or program of action” to delay, hinder or defraud creditors as contemplated in
(1) serial filings to stop a foreclosure; (2) the timing of the bankruptcy filings relative to each other, to proceedings in the foreclosure action, and to scheduled foreclosure sales; (3) lack of changed circumstances between filings; (4) failure to prosecute bankruptcy cases or to honor the obligations of a debtor in the bankruptcy cases, or other bad faith conduct in connection with the bankruptcy cases; (5) the inability to fund a plan; (6) multiple bankruptcy filings by multiple parties to protect
common property; and (7) failure to make any mortgage payments for a long time.33
All seven of these faсtors are satisfied here. First, the record of this matter shows the debtor has engaged in a series of ten cases that has caused the stay to be in effect as to the property for nearly ten years.34 Second, at least seven of the ten cases were filed on the eve of a foreclosure sale. Third, the Debtor’s testimony confirms that his circumstances have remained consistent, at least over the last four cases, in that he has been employed earning essentially the same income in each of these cases, thus making it unlikely he can maintain payments in this, his tenth case. Fourth, the Debtor has been unable to prosecute any of his nine prior cases by making consistent plan payments, and, at least in the last four cases, the Debtor has not complied with the requirement of filing timely schedules and plans that can be administered by the Chapter 13 Trustee. Fifth, the Debtor has consistently been unable to fully fund a plan, with virtually all his prior cases being dismissed for failure to make plan payments. Sixth, after the Debtor was barred under
Accordingly, the Court finds the Lender has established grounds for relief under
D. Relief from the co-debtor stay is warranted under § 1301 .
The Lender also seeks relief from the co-debtor stay under
Accordingly, relief from the co-debtor stay is warranted under
As noted in the opening paragraph of this opinion, the Debtor, just prior to the start of the hearing on the Lender’s Motion, filed a supplemental opposition to the Motion, raising for the first time Planet’s authority as servicer of Hialeah’s loan to the Debtor.36 To address any potential standing issues, the Court left the record open for one week, until March 23, 2026, to allow Planet an opportunity to supplement the record by filing evidence of its authority as servicer for Hialeah, and to show Planet possessed the original loan documents.
Planet supplemented the record of this matter on March 17, 2026, by filing a Limited Power of Attorney, which evidences the appointment of Planet as the servicer of loans for Hialeah.37 This instrument authorizes Planet to represent Hialeah’s interests in numerous matters, including foreclosure and related proceedings. Planet again supplemented the record on March 19, 2026, by filing certified copies of the original mortgage, note with allonge, loan security agreement, assignment, and reinscription, all of which are filed in the state court foreclosure action that has been pending since 2015; Planet also filed the executory process petition into the record.38 Based on this documentation, the Court finds that Planet is the servicer for Hialeah, and thus has the authority to represent its interests in this action.
CONCLUSION
The record of this matter fully supports lifting the stay as to the debtor and co-debtor, as authorized under
Accordingly, Planet’s Motion (ECF # 24) is granted. Planet shall submit an order in conformity with the Court’s ruling within ten days from the date of this opinion.
JOHN W. KOLWE
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE