TRY ME!
Motion To Reopen Case
Summary
A motion to reopen an adversary proceeding can be filed under FRBP Rule 3002(c), Rule 60(b)(4), and Rule 60(b)(6) to address jurisdictional issues and unaddressed claims. The debtor argues that the court lacked jurisdiction due to the failure to file a proof of claim and the assignment of a defaulted mortgage not secured by the promissory note. The motion requests the court to reconsider the previous decision and provide answers to previously submitted questions, as per Rule 52 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.Full Conversation
Could you please make this into a motion for reconsideration and to reopen here follows:To the Honorable Elizabeth D. Katz:
Debtor/Applicant Alton King Jr. hereby moves the Court to reopen this case to move the Court to enter a discharge under * U.S.C. § *. In support of this motion, the Debtor affirms that many concerns were not judicially noticed.
To the Honorable Elizabeth D. Katz:
Debtor/Applicant Alton King Jr. hereby moves the Court to reopen this case and reconsider the previous decision in order to enter a discharge under * U.S.C. § *. In support of this motion, the Debtor asserts that several concerns were not judicially noticed during the initial proceedings.
Respectfully submitted,
Alton King Jr.
Debtor/Applicant Alton King Jr. hereby moves the Court to reopen this case and reconsider the previous decision in order to enter a discharge under * U.S.C. § *. In support of this motion, the Debtor asserts that several concerns were not judicially noticed during the initial proceedings.
Respectfully submitted,
Alton King Jr.
MOTION TO REOPEN ADVERSARY PROCEEDING
NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Alton King Jr., and moves this Honorable Court to reopen the Adversary Proceeding pursuant to FRBP Rule *(c), Rule *(b)(*), and Rule *(b)(*) due to lack of jurisdiction, failure to file proof of claim by the bar date, and submission of an invalid claim. In a Chapter * case, a proof of claim must be filed no later than 70 days after the case is filed, which was on October *, *. In support thereof, Plaintiff states as follows:
- King seeks to reopen the adversary proceeding, which was closed on October *, *, based on the court's oversight in failing to address all claims presented. Uponreopening, he requests that the court provide answers to the previously submitted questions, as per Rule * of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
On November *, *, I requested the court to take judicial notice and answer the following concerns:
It seems like you want to file a motion to reopen an adversary proceeding. Here's a concise template you can use:
---
---
~Motion to Reopen Adversary Proceeding and for Reconsideration
To the Honorable Elizabeth D. Katz,
Debtor/Applicant Alton King Jr. hereby moves the Court to reopen this case to reconsider the previous decision and enter a discharge under * U.S.C. § *. This motion is filed pursuant to FRBP Rule *(c), Rule *(b)(*), and Rule *(b)(*), due to lack of jurisdiction, failure to file proof of claim by the bar date, and submission of an invalid claim.
In support of this motion, the Debtor asserts that several concerns were not judicially noticed during the initial proceedings. Specifically, the proof of claim was due within 70 days of the case filing on October *, *, which was not adhered to. Additionally, the court closed the adversary proceeding on October *, *, without addressing all claims presented.
The Debtor requests the court to take judicial notice of these concerns and provide answers to the previously submitted questions as per Rule * of the Federal Rulesof Civil Procedure.
Respectfully submitted,
Alton King Jr.
---
Would you like to add or modify any specific details?
To the Honorable Elizabeth D. Katz,
Debtor/Applicant Alton King Jr. hereby moves the Court to reopen this case to reconsider the previous decision and enter a discharge under * U.S.C. § *. This motion is filed pursuant to FRBP Rule *(c), Rule *(b)(*), and Rule *(b)(*), due to lack of jurisdiction, failure to file proof of claim by the bar date, and submission of an invalid claim.
In support of this motion, the Debtor asserts that several concerns were not judicially noticed during the initial proceedings. Specifically, the proof of claim was due within 70 days of the case filing on October *, *, which was not adhered to. Additionally, the court closed the adversary proceeding on October *, *, without addressing all claims presented.
The Debtor requests the court to take judicial notice of these concerns and provide answers to the previously submitted questions as per Rule * of the Federal Rulesof Civil Procedure.
Respectfully submitted,
Alton King Jr.
---
Would you like to add or modify any specific details?
*. The defendants, along with their counsel, debt-collecting law firms, knew or had reason to know that an assignment of mortgage executed by a non-party to the promissory note and mortgage contract possesses no rights to enforce the debt obligation pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code, UCC *-*(d).
*. The debt collector, who were not creditors, knew
Please only give me from " *. The debt collector, who were not creditors, knew" onward
see above
Please only give me from " *. The debt collector, who were not creditors, knew" onward
Please only send the conclusion section
Conclusion:
Alton seeks to reopen the adversary proceeding based on the court's oversight in failing to address all claims presented. Upon reopening, he requests that the court provide answers to the previously submitted questions, as per Rule * of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Sure, here is the text from "*. The debt collector, who were not creditors, knew" onward:
*. The debt collector, who were not creditors, knew or should have known that they lacked the legal standing to enforce the debt obligation, as they were not assigned the promissory note and mortgage contract.
Conclusion:
Alton seeks to reopen the adversary proceeding based on the court's oversight in failing to address all claims presented. Upon reopening, he requests that the court provide answers to the previously submitted questions, as per Rule * of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
*. The debt collector, who were not creditors, knew or should have known that they lacked the legal standing to enforce the debt obligation, as they were not assigned the promissory note and mortgage contract.
Conclusion:
Alton seeks to reopen the adversary proceeding based on the court's oversight in failing to address all claims presented. Upon reopening, he requests that the court provide answers to the previously submitted questions, as per Rule * of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
*. The court was without jurisdiction to grant relief to the debt collector, Bank of New York Mellon as Trustee, because they failed to file a proof of claim as required by Rule *.
*. The court was without jurisdiction because Bank of New York Mellon was assigned a defaulted charged-off mortgage that was not secured by the promissory note and mortgage obligation that was conveyed to the refinance lender.
*. Bank of New York Mellon as Trustee, BNYMT, transferred that debt for the sole purpose of collecting the debt on behalf of a trust that was not a party to the promissory note and mortgage contract.
It sounds like you want to file a motion to reopen an adversary proceeding and reconsider the court's previous decision. Here’s a concise template based on your points:
---
---
Motion to Reopen Adversary Proceeding and for Reconsideration
To the Honorable Elizabeth D. Katz,
Debtor/Applicant Alton King Jr. hereby moves the Court to reopen this case to reconsider the previous decision and enter a discharge under * U.S.C. § *. This motion is filed pursuant to FRBP Rule *(c), Rule *(b)(*), and Rule *(b)(*). In support of this motion, the Debtor asserts the following:
- The court lacked jurisdiction to grant relief to the debt collector, Bank of New York Mellon as Trustee, due to failure to file a proof of claim as required by Rule *.
- The court lacked jurisdiction because the Bank of New York Mellon was assigned a defaulted charged-off mortgage that was not secured by the promissory note and mortgage obligation.
- Bank of New York Mellon as Trustee transferred the debt for the sole purpose of collecting it on behalf of a trust that was not a party to the promissory note and mortgage contract.
Additionally,the proof of claim was due within 70 days of the case filing on October *, *, which was not adhered to. The court closed the adversary proceeding on October *, *, without addressing all claims presented.
The Debtor requests the court to take judicial notice of these concerns and provide answers to the previously submitted questions as per Rule * of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Respectfully submitted,
Alton King Jr.
---
Would you like to add or modify any specific details?
To the Honorable Elizabeth D. Katz,
Debtor/Applicant Alton King Jr. hereby moves the Court to reopen this case to reconsider the previous decision and enter a discharge under * U.S.C. § *. This motion is filed pursuant to FRBP Rule *(c), Rule *(b)(*), and Rule *(b)(*). In support of this motion, the Debtor asserts the following:
- The court lacked jurisdiction to grant relief to the debt collector, Bank of New York Mellon as Trustee, due to failure to file a proof of claim as required by Rule *.
- The court lacked jurisdiction because the Bank of New York Mellon was assigned a defaulted charged-off mortgage that was not secured by the promissory note and mortgage obligation.
- Bank of New York Mellon as Trustee transferred the debt for the sole purpose of collecting it on behalf of a trust that was not a party to the promissory note and mortgage contract.
Additionally,the proof of claim was due within 70 days of the case filing on October *, *, which was not adhered to. The court closed the adversary proceeding on October *, *, without addressing all claims presented.
The Debtor requests the court to take judicial notice of these concerns and provide answers to the previously submitted questions as per Rule * of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Respectfully submitted,
Alton King Jr.
---
Would you like to add or modify any specific details?
please send it without the outlinje
Sure, here's the text without the outline:
---
Motion to Reopen Adversary Proceeding and for Reconsideration
To the Honorable Elizabeth D. Katz,
Debtor/Applicant Alton King Jr. hereby moves the Court to reopen this case to reconsider the previous decision and enter a discharge under * U.S.C. § *. This motion is filed pursuant to FRBP Rule *(c), Rule *(b)(*), and Rule *(b)(*). In support of this motion, the Debtor asserts the following:
- The court lacked jurisdiction to grant relief to the debt collector, Bank of New York Mellon as Trustee, due to failure to file a proof of claim as required by Rule *.
- The court lacked jurisdiction because the Bank of New York Mellon was assigned a defaulted charged-off mortgage that was not secured by the promissory note and mortgage obligation.
- Bank of New York Mellon as Trustee transferred the debt for the sole purpose of collecting it on behalf of a trust that was not a party to the promissory note and mortgage contract.
- The debt collector, who were not creditors, knew or should have known that they lacked the legal standing to enforce the debt obligation,as they were not assigned the promissory note and mortgage contract.
Conclusion:
Alton seeks to reopen the adversary proceeding based on the court's oversight in failing to address all claims presented. Upon reopening, he requests that the court provide answers to the previously submitted questions, as per Rule * of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Respectfully submitted,
Alton King Jr.
---
Motion to Reopen Adversary Proceeding and for Reconsideration
To the Honorable Elizabeth D. Katz,
Debtor/Applicant Alton King Jr. hereby moves the Court to reopen this case to reconsider the previous decision and enter a discharge under * U.S.C. § *. This motion is filed pursuant to FRBP Rule *(c), Rule *(b)(*), and Rule *(b)(*). In support of this motion, the Debtor asserts the following:
- The court lacked jurisdiction to grant relief to the debt collector, Bank of New York Mellon as Trustee, due to failure to file a proof of claim as required by Rule *.
- The court lacked jurisdiction because the Bank of New York Mellon was assigned a defaulted charged-off mortgage that was not secured by the promissory note and mortgage obligation.
- Bank of New York Mellon as Trustee transferred the debt for the sole purpose of collecting it on behalf of a trust that was not a party to the promissory note and mortgage contract.
- The debt collector, who were not creditors, knew or should have known that they lacked the legal standing to enforce the debt obligation,as they were not assigned the promissory note and mortgage contract.
Conclusion:
Alton seeks to reopen the adversary proceeding based on the court's oversight in failing to address all claims presented. Upon reopening, he requests that the court provide answers to the previously submitted questions, as per Rule * of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Respectfully submitted,
Alton King Jr.
Start a new chat