Reopening Adversary Proceeding Motion

Rule *(b)(*) and (*) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure can potentially be used to seek relief from a judgment or order.
- Rule *(b)(*): For void judgments.
- Rule *(b)(*): For any other reason justifying relief.
Alton should ensure the motion complies with local court rules. Consulting a bankruptcy attorney is advisable.
Does Alton have any additional reasons or new evidence for reopening the case?

It appears Alton has a potentially strong reason to reopen the adversary proceeding under Rule *(b)(*) and (*), especially if the judge failed to address all claims. Here are the key points:
- Rule *(b)(*): Relief for void judgments.
- Rule *(b)(*): Relief for other justifiable reasons.
Alton should ensure his motion aligns with local court rules and may benefit from consulting a bankruptcy attorney for precise guidance.
Does Alton have any additional documentation or evidence that supports his claims?

It might be better for Alton to use the term "request" or "move" rather than "compel" when filing a motion to reopen the case. Courts generally respond more favorably to formal requests rather than demands.
Does Alton have any additional documentation that could support his motion?

In response to your question, if Alton files a request to reopen an adversary proceeding, the clock for filing an appeal generally does not start from the date of the request to reopen. The timeline for an appeal usually starts from the date of the court's final decision on the reopening request.
Does Alton have an attorney to help him with this process?

If Alton filed a motion for reconsideration under Rule *(b)(*) and (*) and it was denied, the clock for filing an appeal typically starts from the date of the court's denial of the reconsideration motion.
Does Alton have legal representation to assist with his appeal process?

Alton can file a motion to reopen his adversary proceeding under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure *, which incorporates Rule * of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This allows him to seek relief for void judgments (Rule *(b)(*)) or any other reason justifying relief (Rule *(b)(*)).
Does Alton have any legal representation to assist him with this motion?

Alton can phrase it like this:
"On [date], I requested the court to take judicial notice and answer the following question: [insert question]. I further requested, if denied, to provide written reasons pursuant to Rule * of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. To date, the court has not provided such written reasons."
Does Alton need help with any further drafting or legal procedures?

Sure, here is a concise conclusion for Alton's motion to reopen an adversary pleading:
"Alton seeks to reopen the adversary proceeding based on the court's oversight in failing to address all claims presented. Upon reopening, Alton requests that the court provide answers to the previously submitted questions, as per Rule * of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."
Does Alton need assistance with any further drafting or legal procedures?

It's great that Alton is taking steps to address his legal issues thoroughly. Please ensure that Alton follows the local court rules meticulously when drafting his motion to reopen the adversary proceeding. If he needs further assistance or a final review of his draft, feel free to reach out.
Is there anything specific Alton would like to include or clarify in his motion?

To the Honorable Elizabeth D. Katz,
Debtor/Applicant Alton King Jr. hereby moves the Court to reopen this case to enter a discharge under * U.S.C. § *. In support of this motion, the Debtor affirms that several concerns were not judicially noticed.
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 submitting 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, 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. Upon reopening, he requests that the court provide answers to the previously submitted questions, as per Rule 52of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
On November *, *, I requested the court to take judicial notice and answer the following concerns:
*. The court lacked 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 lacked 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, transferred that debt solely for the purpose of collecting the debt on behalf of a trust that was not a party to the promissory note and mortgage contract.
*. The defendants and 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 UCC *-*(d).
Alton King Jr. requests that the court reopen the adversary proceeding to address these concerns and provide written reasons pursuant to Rule * of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Respectfully submitted,
Alton King Jr.

Sure, here's a polished version of Alton's motion:
---
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.
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. Upon reopening, 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:
*. 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.
*. 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).
Respectfully submitted,
Alton King Jr.
---
Does Alton need

To the Honorable Elizabeth D. Katz:
Debtor/Applicant Alton King Jr. hereby moves the Court to reopen this case to enter a discharge under * U.S.C. § *. In support of this motion, the Debtor affirms that many concerns were not judicially noticed.
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. Upon reopening, he requests that the court provide answers to the previously submitted questions, as per Rule52 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
On November *, *, I requested the court to take judicial notice and answer the following concerns:
*. 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.
*. 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).
Respectfully submitted,
Alton King Jr.
---
Does Alton need assistance with any further drafting or legal procedures?

Sure, here's a polished version of Alton's motion:
---
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.
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. Upon reopening, 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:
*. 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.
*. 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).
Respectfully submitted,
Alton King Jr.
---
Does Alton need

Sure, here is a polished version of Alton's motion:
---
To the Honorable Elizabeth D. Katz:
Debtor/Applicant Alton King Jr. hereby moves the Court to reopen this case in order 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.
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)(*) for 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.Upon reopening, 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:
*. 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.
*. 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

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.
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. Upon reopening, 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:
*. 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.
*. 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 or should have known that MERS was not a party to the mortgage or

*. The debt collector, who were not creditors, knew or should have known that MERS was not a party to the mortgage or promissory note contract. MERS was solely a nominee for the lender, ComUnity Lending Incorporated (CLI).
*. The bankruptcy court has the sole responsibility to determine the validity of a secured claim irrespective of decisions made by state courts.
*. The purported assignment of my property occurring on December *, *, while the mortgage was in default, unquestionably establishes a status of being unsecured debt.
*. This court stated that it relied upon the decision of the lower court which was based on fraudulent altered certified documents submitted in the summary judgment.
*. What irrefutable perfected evidence has been presented to this court to validate the debt collector's legitimate claim?
*. These are the issues before this court that must be addressed in writing pursuant to Federal Rule *.
I further requested, if denied, to provide written reasons pursuant to Rule * of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court reopen the Adversary Proceeding and grant relief as deemed just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
Alton King Jr.
Does Alton need any additionalassistance with any further drafting or legal procedures?

Sure, here is a polished version of Alton's motion:
---
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.
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:
*. 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.
*. 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

Sure, here is the polished version from the requested point:
*. The debt collector, who were not creditors, knew or should have known that MERS was not a party to the mortgage or promissory note contract. MERS was solely a nominee for the lender, ComUnity Lending Incorporated, CLI.
*. The bankruptcy court has the sole responsibility to determine the validity of a secured claim irrespective of decisions made by state courts.
*. The purported assignment of my property occurring on December *, *, while the mortgage was in default, unquestionably establishes a status of being unsecured debt.
*. This court stated that it relied upon the decision of the lower court which was based on fraudulent altered certified documents submitted in the summary judgment.
*. What irrefutable perfected evidence has been presented to this court to validate the debt collector’s legitimate claim?
*. These issues must be addressed in writing pursuant to Federal Rule *.
I further requested, if denied, to provide written reasons pursuant to Rule * of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court reopen the Adversary Proceeding and grant relief as deemed just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
Alton King Jr.
DoesAlton need any further assistance with this process?

Sure, here is the polished version from point * onward:
---
*. The debt collectors, who were not creditors, knew or should have known that MERS was not a party to the mortgage or promissory note contract. MERS was solely a nominee for the lender, ComUnity Lending Incorporated, CLI.
*. The bankruptcy court has the sole responsibility to determine the validity of a secured claim irrespective of decisions made by state courts.
*. The purported assignment of my property occurring on December *, *, while the mortgage was in default, unquestionably establishes a status of being unsecured debt.
*. This court stated that it relied upon the decision of the lower court which was based on fraudulent altered certified documents submitted in the summary judgment.
*. What irrefutable perfected evidence has been presented to this court to validate the debt collector's legitimate claim?
*. These are the issues before this court that must be addressed in writing pursuant to Federal Rule *.
I further requested, if denied, to provide written reasons pursuant to Rule * of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court reopen the Adversary Proceeding and grant relief as deemed just and proper.
Respectfullysubmitted,
Alton King Jr.
---
Does Alton need any further assistance with this document or any other legal matters?

Sure, here's the requested part:
*. The debt collector, who were not creditors, knew or should have known that MERS was not a party to the mortgage or promissory note contract. MERS was solely a nominee for the lender, ComUnity Lending Incorporated, CLI.
*. The bankruptcy court has the sole responsibility to determine the validity of a secure claim irrespective of decision(s) made by state courts.
*. The purported assignment of my property occurring on December *, *, while the mortgage was in default, unquestionably establishes a status of being unsecured debt.
*. This court stated that it relied upon the decision of the lower court which was based on fraudulent altered certified documents submitted in the summary judgment.
*. What irrefutable perfected evidence has been presented to this court to validate the debt collector's legitimate claim?
*. These are the issues before this court that must be addressed in writing pursuant to Federal Rule *.
I further requested, if denied, to provide written reasons pursuant to Rule * of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court reopen the Adversary Proceeding and grant relief as deemed just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
Alton KingDoes Alton need any further assistance with this motion?

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.

---
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.