Sign Up for Vincent AI
In re Thomas
Damien Nicholas Tancredi, Flaster Greenberg P.C., Philadelphia, PA, Joshua Louis Thomas, Joshua L. Thomas & Associates, Pocopson, PA, for Debtor.
Holly Smith Miller, Gary F. Seitz, Gellert Scali Busenkell & Brown, LLC, for Trustee.
Joshua Louis Thomas, Esq. ("Thomas") represented Sharon E. Thomas ("the Debtor")1 in this and a previous bankruptcy case, filed approximately sixteen (16) months apart. Both cases have been contentious, largely due to the opposition of a major creditor, Martin Brown, acting individually and through his entity, Brown and Thomas, LLC ("B&T") ("Brown" when referred to collectively).
B&T is a real estate brokerage firm in which the Debtor formerly was a shareholder. Martin Brown owned 51% of the company and the Debtor owned 49%. The Debtor withdrew from B&T on April 22, 2016, which resulted in state court litigation against her that Brown has pursued vigorously.
Currently, the Debtor owns and operates her own real estate company that acts as a sales broker and manages properties, primarily in New Jersey. In addition, the Debtor, acting individually, buys, sells, and rents properties, primarily in Philadelphia.
In the Debtor's first bankruptcy, twenty-two (22) creditors, most of which hold mortgages against the Debtor's Philadelphia properties, filed proofs of claim. Despite this, the schedules filed by Thomas in the Debtor's current bankruptcy case fail to account for or report the existence of numerous secured claims filed in her first bankruptcy case. Instead, the schedules in the Debtor's two (2) bankruptcy cases, both filed with this court by Thomas (the Debtor's counsel) are nearly identical.
Because of the obvious omissions and inaccuracies in the Debtor's schedules in the present case, I issued a sua sponte Order to Show Cause for Thomas to appear and demonstrate why he should not be sanctioned pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9011(b)(3). A hearing on the matter was held and concluded on March 12, 2019.
For the reasons discussed in this Opinion, I find that Thomas violated Rule 9011 in failing to make a reasonable inquiry into the facts averred in the Debtor's bankruptcy schedules that he submitted to this court with the Debtor's second bankruptcy filing.2
Based on this violation of Rule 9011, I will sanction Thomas in three (3) ways.
First, Thomas, who has not received payment in the present bankruptcy case, will be barred from filing a claim for an administrative expense for his services (i.e., he will not receive payment for his work in this matter).
Second, Thomas will be ordered to pay $1,000.00 to the chapter 7 Trustee for the benefit of the Debtor's estate.
Third, this matter will be referred to the Acting U.S. Trustee in order to determine whether a further disciplinary proceeding should be initiated against Thomas in the U.S. District Court.
6. The First Case was precipitated by receipt of a money judgment against the Debtor in favor of Dalin Financial ("Dalin"). The judgment concerned a property for which the Debtor co-signed a loan. (Hearing Transcript, April 15, 2019, at 40-42) (Bky. No. 18-17430, Doc. # 134) (hereafter, "Tr.").4
7. The First Case was filed in order to stay the enforcement of Dalin's judgment against the Debtor. (Tr. at 19, 42).
8. Thomas was aware that Dalin was a creditor of the Debtor. (Tr. at 41-42).
9. Thomas and the Debtor reviewed the Debtor's properties and schedules prior to filing the First Case. (Tr. at 16-17).
10. On August 10, 2017, in the First Case, Thomas filed the Debtor's Schedules A/B, C, D, E/F, G, H, I, J, the Schedule of Financial Affairs ("SOFA"), Disclosure of Compensation of Attorney for Debtor, and Official Form 122C-1.5
11. The Debtor's schedules did not list Dalin as a creditor in the First Case.
12. Vanguard Realty generated gross receipts of approximately $100,000.00 from January to mid-April of 2019, resulting in net income of about $30,000.00. (Tr. at 20-21).
13. The Debtor pays herself wages from Vanguard Realty. Id. Her income fluctuates month to month and year to year. (Tr. at 21, 29-30).
14. The Debtor's reported monthly income of $2,830.47 on Schedule I in the First Case was based solely on her income derived from Vanguard Realty. (Tr. at 18, 65).
15. Schedule I in the First Case did not disclose income derived from the rents of the Philadelphia Properties, even though she discussed this income with Thomas. (Tr. at 18, 36). Nor did this Schedule I disclose her husband's income, even though her husband was either employed or receiving unemployment insurance.6 (Tr. at 18, 19, 36).
16. As summarized in the chart below, a total of twenty-two (22) claims were filed by creditors in the First Case:
Try vLex and Vincent AI for free
Start a free trialExperience vLex's unparalleled legal AI
Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Try vLex and Vincent AI for free
Start a free trialStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting