Case Summary:
Though represented by an attorney, Debtors filed two pro se motions requesting various relief, including a motion to stay plan payments and administration, a claim objection, a motion to avoid a lien, and a request for an emergency hearing. The Court summarily denied the motions on several grounds. First, neither motion was accompanied by a notice or opportunity for objection. Second, the request for emergency hearing was not warranted; the basis for the emergency request was that plan payments should not continue until a purported claim objection and lien avoidance disputes are resolved. But the Court reasoned that claim objections and lien avoidance motions are somewhat routine, and other creditors should not be prejudiced by delay in administration simply because the Debtors had a dispute with their mortgage holder. Third, both motions suffered service deficiencies. The certificates of service were unsigned and failed to specify which documents were served, who served them, or by what means. Finally, the Court noted that there were substantive deficiencies, including citations to the federal criminal code, state medical assistance procedures, and the U.C.C., all of which were irrelevant or beyond the scope of the requested relief.

Statute/Rule References:
Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7001
Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9006 -- Time
Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011 -- Signing of Papers
Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9014 -- Contested Matters

Key Terms:
Notice
Relevance
Service