The opinion of the court was delivered by: Ronald L. Buckwalter, S. J.
SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM / ORDER
On February 8, 2011, Appellee/Intervenor filed a motion entitled "Emergency Motion for Clarification" which I will treat as a timely filed Motion for Reconsideration of this Court's Memorandum and Order dated February 1, 2010.
Essentially, Appellee/Intervenor is concerned that the February 1, 2011 Order only disposes of the appeal filed to 07-cv-4236 and not the one filed to 09-cv-1984.
It is understandable why Appellee/Intervenor feels this way, since my intent to dismiss both appeals is not clear from the opinion itself, although the order reflects that intent.
Because I concluded that my decision affirming Judge Frank's September 5, 2007 bench order of September 5, 2007 finding the Appellant's Chapter 13 Plan was not confirmable and therefore denied the 07-4236 appeal, it was my thinking that this also was decisive of the 09-cv-1984 appeal, which was only of concern if I found that the Chapter 13 Plan was indeed confirmable.
In addition, my analysis of Judge Frank's reasoning in dismissing AP08-0058 (the appeal from which was before Judge Fullam both in 08-cv-4873, remanded to Judge Frank, and in 09-cv-1984, the appeal from Judge Frank's April 8, 2009 order regarding Judge Fullam's remand) is that he was correct in determining that no stay was in effect during the time Appellee/Intervenor commenced its foreclosure action.
Based on the foregoing, the Motion of Appellee/Intervenor is GRANTED, and this Supplemental Memorandum is filed to the Memorandum and Order dated February 1, 2011, and the Order entered by that Memorandum is AMENDED as follows:
AND NOW, this 10th day of February, 2011, it is hereby ORDERED that the order of Judge Eric L. Frank dated September 5, 2007 denying confirmation of Appellant's plan is AFFIRMED. The order of Judge Eric L. Frank granting Appellee/Intervenor's Motion to Dismiss AP08-0058 with prejudice is AFFIRMED. The appeals filed to civil action numbers 07-4236 and 09-1984 are DENIED. Accordingly, both of these cases are CLOSED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw ...