Jean v. Suntrust Bank (In Re Jean) , 508 F. App'x 939 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •            Case: 12-13333   Date Filed: 02/13/2013        Page: 1 of 4
    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    ________________________
    No. 12-13333
    Non-Argument Calendar
    ________________________
    D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cv-00979-AT; 11-bk-82852-MHM
    In re:
    SANON JEAN,
    lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllDebtor.
    _______________________________________
    SANON JEAN,
    llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff-Appellant,
    versus
    SUNTRUST BANK,
    llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllDefendant-Appellee.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Georgia
    ________________________
    (February 13, 2013)
    Case: 12-13333     Date Filed: 02/13/2013    Page: 2 of 4
    Before TJOFLAT, HULL and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Sanan Jean, a debtor in bankruptcy proceeding pro se, appeals the District
    Court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of the order affirming the
    Bankruptcy Court’s order confirming that the automatic stay provided by 
    11 U.S.C. § 362
     did not come into effect upon the filing of Jean’s latest bankruptcy
    petition. In his brief on appeal, Jean does not acknowledge that this appeal is of
    his motion for reconsideration, and makes no argument regarding that motion.
    Rather, he argues that the District Court erred in ruling that the automatic stay was
    not in effect and, therefore, SunTrust did not have to move the Bankruptcy Court
    to lift the stay. Jean argues that the automatic stay was in effect because he had
    not filed more than two bankruptcy petitions within the same year. We are not
    persuaded and therefore affirm.
    I.
    We review de novo the determinations of law by a bankruptcy court and a
    district court, whether decided initially or in the latter’s appellate capacity, and
    defer to the factual determinations of the bankruptcy court unless they are clearly
    erroneous. In re Davis, 
    314 F.3d 567
    , 570 (11th Cir. 2002).
    Pursuant to 
    11 U.S.C. § 362
    (a), a debtor who has filed for Chapter 7 or
    2
    Case: 12-13333     Date Filed: 02/13/2013    Page: 3 of 4
    Chapter 11 bankruptcy enjoys an automatic stay against actions to enforce, collect,
    assess or recover claims against the debtor or against property of the estate. 
    11 U.S.C. § 362
    (a); see also United States v. White, 
    466 F.3d 1241
    , 1244 (11th Cir.
    2006). However, § 362(c) sets out exceptions to the operation of the automatic
    stay. See 
    11 U.S.C. § 362
    (c). Section 362(c)(4)(A) provides:
    (A)(i) if a single or joint case is filed by or against a debtor who is an
    individual under this title, and if 2 or more single or joint cases of the
    debtor were pending within the previous year but were dismissed,
    other than a case refiled under a chapter other than chapter 7 after
    dismissal under section 707(b), the stay under subsection (a) shall not
    go into effect upon the filing of the later case; and
    (ii) on request of a party in interest, the court shall promptly enter an
    order confirming that no stay is in effect.
    
    11 U.S.C. § 362
    (c)(4)(A).
    Contrary to Jean’s argument, whether the automatic stay comes into effect
    upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition does not hinge on whether two cases have
    been filed within the year, but rather, whether two cases had been pending within
    one year. Because Jean had been a debtor in two prior cases that were both
    dismissed within the one-year period preceding the filing of the instant case, and
    neither of these prior cases was a Chapter 7 case dismissed pursuant to 
    11 U.S.C. § 707
    (b), the automatic stay under § 362(a) did not go into effect upon the filing of
    Jean’s latest bankruptcy case.
    3
    Case: 12-13333    Date Filed: 02/13/2013   Page: 4 of 4
    II.
    We review a district court order denying a motion for reconsideration raised
    under Rule 59 for abuse of discretion. Lockard v. Equifax, Inc., 
    163 F.3d 1259
    ,
    1267 (11th Cir. 1998). A legal claim or argument that is not briefed is deemed
    abandoned. Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co., 
    385 F.3d 1324
    , 1330
    (11th Cir. 2004). Jean’s brief presents no argument regarding the denial of his
    motion for reconsideration; hence, he has abandoned this issue.
    AFFIRMED.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-13333

Citation Numbers: 508 F. App'x 939

Judges: Tjoflat, Hull, Marcus

Filed Date: 2/13/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024