Marshall v. McCarty (In Re Marshall)

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that “[c]ourts in this circuit have barred refiling to allow a creditor to exercise its rights under state law where serial filings abuse the bankruptcy process and cannot be prevented by an injunction under § 109(g)”
• a debtor’s filing of excessive motions throughout various bankruptcy cases with the intention to relitigate past issues constituted bad faith
• egregious misconduct exists when a debtor files a series of bankruptcy petitions, strategically timed to thwart a secured creditor from foreclosing on its collateral
• \ 'Bankruptcy courts invariably derive from § 105(a) and § 349(a) of the Code ... the power to sanction bad-faith serial filers ... by prohibiting further bankruptcy filing for [over] 180 days.' \
• In deciding a motion to dismiss on bad faith, the bankruptcy court dismissed with a one year bar and the appellate court finding that “Bankruptcy courts ‘invariably derive from § 105(a) or § 349(a
• “Bankruptcy courts 4 On June 10, 2021, the debtor complied with the clerk’s notice of non-compliance by providing notice of the plan and setting an objection / resistance deadline under Neb. R. Bankr. P. 3015 and 9013-1. (Doc. #24

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).