Carolyn M. Fankhanel - Page 28

                                       - 28 -                                         
          support * * * [sanctions]”.  Petitioner was discharged as a                 
          debtor on April 2, 1997.  On July 2, 1997, we lifted the stay in            
          these proceedings and restored the case to the general docket for           
          trial or other disposition.  Subsequently, on August 12, 1997,              
          the case was set for trial on January 20, 1998, in Tampa,                   
          Florida.                                                                    
               Between August 12, 1997, and January 20, 1998, petitioner              
          twice moved to stay this case due to loss of jurisdiction to the            
          bankruptcy court.  We denied her motion once, explaining that the           
          stay had been lifted, and then, on her motion to reconsider, we             
          denied it again, stating that the motion for reconsideration                
          restated the arguments made in the original motion and considered           
          by the Court in issuing its order in response to the original               
          motion.  In denying her motion for the second time, we stated:              
                    To assist petitioner in understanding our order of                
               October 24, 1997, we point out that certain taxes are                  
               not discharged in bankruptcy.  See, e.g., 11 U.S.C.                    
               523(a)(1).  The automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. 362(a)(8)                  
               was terminated on April 2, 1997, allowing this Court to                
               proceed to redetermine the deficiencies as petitioned.                 
               See, e.g., United States v. Wilson, 974 F.2d 514 (4th                  
               Cir. 1992.  * * *                                                      
          On January 20, when the case was called for trial, petitioner               
          again moved to stay proceedings because of the bankruptcy                   
          proceeding.  We again denied the motion.                                    
               Petitioner failed to file a trial memorandum, as called for            
          by our pretrial order.                                                      







Page:  Previous  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011