In re Johnson

No. 07-33312-KRH (2008)

From our private database of 47,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

In re Johnson

United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
No. 07-33312-KRH (2008)

Facts

Dorothy Johnson and her son, Joseph Johnson, owned two properties about to go into foreclosure. Peter Balas held the note on one property. Dorothy and Joseph hired Virginia attorney Andrew Adams to file multiple bankruptcy actions on their behalf, relying on the automatic stays to delay foreclosure. These filings were intended only to delay the foreclosures, via the automatic bankruptcy stay. The court dismissed each of these invalid actions. Adams violated multiple court orders, with each violation further delaying the foreclosures. On at least two occasions, the bankruptcy court threatened to sanction Adams for violating the rules of professional conduct. To avoid sanctions, Adams agreed to take continuing-education classes and have his business audited by the Virginia state bar, but he repeatedly missed the deadlines to complete these remedial actions. When Dorothy and Joseph could not get another automatic stay of the foreclosures by filing their own bankruptcy, Joseph brought his 18-year-old daughter, Jessica Johnson (debtor), to meet Adams. Jessica had just graduated from high school and had no real debt, bank account, or employment history. Dorothy and Joseph transferred the two properties into Jessica’s name and asked Adams to file bankruptcy for her. The scheme was designed to trigger another automatic stay while Jessica’s bankruptcy proceeded. Adams did not inform Jessica that she would gain nothing from the bankruptcy, that it would harm her credit for years, or that it was intended to defraud Balas and other creditors. After Adams filed Jessica’s bankruptcy, Balas moved for relief, alleging fraud. Adams represented Jessica in the fraud hearing and charged her for it—but Adams offered no arguments in her defense. The court ordered Adams to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for his conduct relating to Jessica’s bankruptcy.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Huennekens, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 899,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 47,000 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership