Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Derek Milo Couture v. Burlington Hous. Auth.
No. 97-CV-127 (D. Vt. July 27, 1998). ; Clearinghouse Number: 52210
Description
Bankruptcy Court Erred When It Lifted Automatic Stay and Allowed Eviction of Public Housing Residents
Abstract
The district court held that the bankruptcy court was wrong when it
found that debtor-appellant public housing residents had no
possessory interest in tenancy when they filed for Chapter 7
bankruptcy. Appellant residents in public housing were served with
a notice to vacate their home when they fell behind in rent
payments. Housing authority filed an ejectment action, but the
parties settled and set up a repayment schedule. When appellants
again fell behind, the state Department of Social Welfare (DSW)
paid their current rent and the arrearages due with
appellants’ Aid to Families with Dependent Children grant.
Housing authority several months later nonetheless served a writ to
repossess the apartment. Approximately a week later, appellants
filed for bankruptcy to stay an eviction automatically. DSW
continued to pay appellants’ current rent obligations but
stopped payments for the rent in arrears. Housing authority filed
for relief from the automatic stay; the bankruptcy court, finding
that the settlement agreement established that the lease had been
terminated, granted the relief. Tenants appealed, and the district
court found that the lease reverted to the debtor when the housing
authority did not assume the lease after appellants filed for
bankruptcy and that housing authority’s nonassumption of the
lease was not the same as lease termination. The court ordered that
appellants be restored to public housing. Section 525 of the
Bankruptcy Code, the court added, protected appellants from housing
authority pursuing eviction for the discharged debt.
[Editor’s note: According to appellants’ counsel, this
case should buttress arguments for preserving the automatic stay of
public housing tenants who seek Chapter 7 protection.]
