![shanis repo for shanis repo for](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/aqXrHAUkaa0/maxresdefault.jpg)
Every event alleged in the five-count complaint occurred between June 12, 2000, and November 3, 2000.ī. Our concern is not with the merits of that suit, but only with the dates of its underlying events. The complaint alleged 1) fraud, 2) negligence, 3) breach of contract, 4) conversion, and 5) interference with a contract. Shortly thereafter, Arcadia caused the 1998 Ford Expedition to be sold.īowie filed its five-count complaint against Rose Shanis on March 25, 2003. It relinquished possession of that vehicle to Arcadia Financial, Ltd., upon learning that Arcadia was the senior lienholder. Rose Shanis did not sell the 1998 Ford Expedition. On October 31, 2000, the 2000 Ford Excursion was sold at public auction. Rose Shanis advised Bowie of its intent to sell both vehicles. When Bowie failed to make his August and September 2000 payments on the loan, Rose Shanis exercised its contractual right under the terms of the loan agreement and repossessed the two vehicles.
![shanis repo for shanis repo for](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EZ8FpcgWAAAOZSW.jpg)
The loan was secured by two vehicles owned by Bowie, a 1998 Ford Expedition and a 2000 Ford Excursion. On June 12, 2000, Bowie obtained a loan of $30,024.88 from Rose Shanis. The Basis for the Underlying Suit: November 3, 2000 The chronology of events is critically importantĪ. The question of whether the Circuit Court for Baltimore City had subject matter jurisdiction over the underlying suit was essentially the question of whether the plaintiff, Bowie, had standing to bring the suit, to wit, 1) Did the cause of action belong to Bowie when he filed the suit on March 25, 2003? or, more significantly, 2) Did the cause of action belong to Bowie when Judge Allison granted summary judgment motion on January 12, 2004? If the claims of Appellant are property of his Bankruptcy Estate, what procedure should be followed under the circumstances herein? Are the claims of Appellant property of his Bankruptcy Estate and does he have standing to file this action? 2.
#Shanis repo for full
Accordingly, Rose Shanis is entitled to the dismissal of the Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.įollowing a full hearing, including extensive argument by both parties, on January 12, 2004, Judge Kaye Allison granted summary judgment in favor of Rose Shanis on the ground that there was a "lack of subject-matter jurisdiction." This appeal timely followed. Because the alleged claims were neither exempted from the estate nor abandoned by the bankruptcy trustee, Plaintiff is without standing to bring or pursue this action.
![shanis repo for shanis repo for](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/dyDkzQz2488/maxresdefault.jpg)
As a result, the claims alleged against Rose Shanis do not belong to Plaintiff, but rather to his bankruptcy estate. Approximately one year after the alleged events giving rise to this lawsuit occurred, Plaintiff filed for bankruptcy protection on December 21, 2001. The second paragraph of that motion well states the dominant issue before us on this appeal. On December 2, 2003, Rose Shanis filed a Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, a Motion for Summary Judgment. Bowie ("Bowie"), filed a five-count complaint against the appellee, Rose Shanis Financial Services, LLC ("Rose Shanis"), in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. Is ownership in limbo? How, if at all, may a trustee, through inaction, abandon such an asset, thus permitting it to revest in the original debtor? Is there a difference between the fate of a law suit that has been formally scheduled as an asset of the estate and the fate of one that has not? This appeal raises the question of what happens to the ownership of a law suit that once vests in the trustee of a bankruptcy estate after the estate subsequently closes with the law suit yet unpursued. MOYLAN, Jr., Judge, retired, specially assigned.
![shanis repo for shanis repo for](http://greekodi.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Exodus-Smash-19.png)
(retired, specially assigned), JJ.ĬHARLES E. Moffet (Gordon, Feinblatt, Rothman, Hoffberger & Hollander, LLC on the brief), Baltimore, for Appellee. Ayres, Jr., Glen Burnie, for Appellantīrian L.