In Re Chisum, 847 F.2d 597 (9th Cir. 1988). · Go Syfert
Search
In Re Chisum, 847 F.2d 597 (9th Cir. 1988). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“though multiple filings are not per se illegal, see matter of metz , 820 f.2d 1495 , 1497 (9th cir. 1987), ' debtor's history of filings and dismissals is relevant in determining whether a plan has been proposed in good faith.”
89 citation events (12 in the last 25 years) across 36 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: In re Jordan
Treatment trajectory · 1974 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1974 2000 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (quoted) In re Jordan
unknown court · 2019 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
though multiple filings are not per se illegal, see matter of metz , 820 f.2d 1495 , 1497 (9th cir. 1987), ' debtor's history of filings and dismissals is relevant in determining whether a plan has been proposed in good faith.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hackerman v. Demeza
M.D. Penn. · 2017 · confidence medium
See In re Brown, 742 F.3d 1309, 1315 (11th Cir. 2014); In re Crager, 691 F.3d 671, 675 (5th Cir. 2012); In re Smith, 286 F.3d 461, 465 (7th Cir. 2002); In re Young, 237 F.3d 1168, 1172 (10th Cir. 2001); In re LeMaire, 898 F.2d 1346, 1349 (8th Cir. 1990); In re Caldwell, 895 F.2d 1123, 1127 (6th Cir. 1990); In re Chisum, 847 F.2d 597, 600 (9th Cir. 1988).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Leafty v. Aussie Sonoran Capital, LLC (In Re Leafty)
9th Cir. BAP · 2012 · confidence medium
Mart, Inc. v. Rechnitzer (In re Chisum), 847 F.2d 597, 600 (9th Cir.1988) (“ ‘a bona fide change in circumstances’ can justify a finding that successive bankruptcy filings were proper”); see also Carr v. Sec.
cited Cited as authority (rule) In re Smith
Bankr. D. Nev. · 2011 · confidence medium
In re Chisum, 847 F.2d 597, 599 (9th Cir.1988) (holding that when Rule 9011 "is violated, the imposition of sanctions is mandatory, not discretionary”); see also Golden Eagle Dist.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cadle Co. v. Pratt
5th Cir. · 2008 · confidence medium
See In re Highgate Equities, Ltd., 279 F.3d 148, 151 (2d Cir.2002) ("Rule 9011 parallels Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 [('Rule 11’)] ... [accordingly, our review of the lower courts’ application of Rule 9011 is informed by Rule 11 jurisprudence.” (alterations in original) (internal quotation marks omitted)); In re Weiss, 111 F.3d 1159, 1170 (4th Cir.1997) ("In deciding cases based on violations of Rule 9011, courts may look to cases that interpret Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.”); In re Mahendra, 131 F.3d 750, 759 (8th Cir.1997) ("[Cjases interpreting Rule 11 are applicable t…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Foster
Bankr. E.D. Wis. · 2002 · confidence medium
This court does not accept the debtor’s contention that Congress intended to permit serial filings “in most situations.” In re McCoy, 237 B.R. 419, 422 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 1999); In re Chisum, 847 F.2d 597, 600 (9th Cir.1988) (citing In re Metz, 820 F.2d 1495, 1497 (9th Cir.1987)); and In re Steeley, 243 B.R. 421, 435 (Bankr.N.D.Ala.1999), all hold that bankruptcy cases must be filed in good faith and that a debtor’s history of past filings and dismissals may be evidence of a bad faith filing.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Security Farms v. General Teamsters, Warehousemen & Helpers Union, Union, Local 890 (In re General Teamsters, Warehousemen & Helpers Union, Local 890)
9th Cir. · 2001 · confidence medium
Mortgage Mart, Inc. v. Rechnitzer (In re Chisum), 847 F.2d 597, 600 (9th Cir.1988); Downey Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Metz (In re Metz), 820 F.2d 1495, 1497 (9th Cir.1987).
cited Cited as authority (rule) In Re General Teamsters, Warehousemen And Helpers Union, Local 890, Dba Teamsters Local 890, An Unincorporated Association
9th Cir. · 2001 · confidence medium
Mortgage Mart, Inc. v. Rechnitzer (In re Chisum), 847 F.2d 597, 600 (9th Cir. 1988); Downey Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Metz (In re Metz), 820 F.2d 1495, 1497 (9th Cir. 1987).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Pacific Rim Investments, LLP v. Oriam, LLC (In Re Pacific Rim Investments, LLP)
D. Colo. · 2000 · confidence medium
Sons & Co., Inc), 212 B.R. 793, 800 (D.N.J.1997) (citing In re Brown, 951 F.2d 564, 567 (3d Cir.1991)); Carolin Corp. v. Miller, 886 F.2d 693, 698 (4th Cir.1989); In re Chisum, 847 F.2d 597, 600 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 892 , 109 S.Ct. 228 , 102 L.Ed.2d 218 (1988).
cited Cited as authority (rule) In Re Craig
Bankr. E.D. Va. · 1998 · confidence medium
Mortgage Mart, Inc. v. Rechnitzer (In re Chisum), 847 F.2d 597, 600 (9th Cir.1988).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Y.J. Sons & Co. v. Anemone, Inc. (In Re Y.J. Sons & Co.)
D.N.J. · 1997 · confidence medium
See In re Brown, 951 F.2d 564, 567 (3d Cir.1991); Carotin Corp. v. Miller, 886 F.2d 693, 698 (4th Cir.1989); In re Chisum, 847 F.2d 597, 600 (9th Cir.), cert. denied 488 U.S. 892 , 109 S.Ct. 228 , 102 L.Ed.2d 218 (1988).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Figter Limited, Debtor. Figter Limited v. Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America
9th Cir. · 1997 · confidence medium
Comstock & Co., Inc. v. United Eng’rs & Constructors Inc., 880 F.2d 219 , 232 (9th Cir.1989) (decision regarding “good faith” for covenant of good faith and fair dealing purposes is reviewed for clear error); Mortgage Mart, Inc. v. Rechnitzer (In re Chisum), 847 F.2d 597, 600 (9th Cir.1988) (for sanctions purposes “good faith” is a key factual determination reviewed for clear error); cf. SKS Die Casting and Machining, Inc. v. NLRB, 941 F.2d 984, 991 (9th Cir.1991) (NLRB decision regarding “good faith” bargaining is a mixed question of law and fact which we review for substantial …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Herrera (2×)
Bankr. N.D. Ill. · 1996 · confidence medium
Metz, 820 F.2d at 1498 ; Johnson v. Vanguard Holding Corp. (In re Johnson), 708 F.2d 865, 868 (2d Cir.1983); Mortgage Mart, Inc. v. Rechnitzer (In re Chisum), 847 F.2d 597, 600 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 892 , 109 S.Ct. 228 , 102 L.Ed.2d 218 (1988); Earl, 140 B.R. at 738 ; McKissie, 103 B.R. at 192 . “ ‘[C]hanged circumstances’ required to justify a successive filing must be positive changes, i.e., debtor’s objective, financial circumstances and ability to perform the plan proposed must have improved between dismissal of the prior case and commencement of the new ease.” In re…
cited Cited as authority (rule) In Re Westin Capital Markets, Inc.
Bankr. D. Or. · 1995 · confidence medium
In re Chisum, 847 F.2d 597, 599 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 892 , 109 S.Ct. 228 , 102 L.Ed.2d 218 (1988).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Roger W. Knight, Debtor, Roger W. Knight v. Washington Department of Social and Health Services U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. Royanne M. Knight (2×) also: Cited "see"
9th Cir. · 1995 · confidence medium
"If the bankruptcy court determines as a factual matter that a debtor's [ ] filings were not proposed in good faith, the court must impose sanctions under Bankruptcy Rule 9011." In re Chisum, 847 F.2d 597, 599 (Bankr. 9th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 892 (1988). 6 In his pro se amended bankruptcy petition, Knight made no provision for the payment of child support payments which he owed.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Carol Freeman Marsch, Debtor (Two Cases). John D. Marsch, Claimant-Appellant v. Carol F. Marsch, (Two Cases) (2×)
9th Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
The bankruptcy court relied on dicta in In re Chisum, 847 F.2d 597, 599 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 892 , 109 S.Ct. 228 , 102 L.Ed.2d 218 (1988), which stated: "If the bankruptcy court determines as a factual matter that a debtor's successive filings were not proposed in good faith, the court must impose sanctions under Bankr.R. 9011." The BAP, however, correctly rejected this reasoning, observing that the term "bad faith" in Chisum "must be read as a shorthand expression for the failure to comply with the Rule 9011 standards and not as a reference to the test for the dismissal of bankr…
cited Cited as authority (rule) In Re Roth
Bankr. D.S.D. · 1994 · confidence medium
Id., citing In re Chisum, 847 F.2d 597, 600 (9th Cir.1988).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Viquar Ahmed, Debtor, Viquar Ahmed v. Lorraine Rodriguez (2×) also: Cited "see"
9th Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
See Hilo v. Exxon Corp., 997 F.2d 641, 646 (9th Cir.1993); Mortgage Mart, Inc. v. Rechnitzer, (In re Chisum), 847 F.2d 597, 599-600 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 892 (1988).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Barbara Seith v. Atlantic Financial Savings Bank (2×)
9th Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
Given the history of this litigation, we do not believe that Atlantic's actions were unreasonable. 21 In general, the bankruptcy court is the forum most familiar with the parties and issues involved in a given case, and "is in the best position to assess a debtor's credibility and the legitimacy of the explanations he gives for multiple filings." In re Chisum, 847 F.2d 597, 600 (9th Cir.1988).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Stathatos v. United States Trustee (In Re Stathatos)
N.D. Tex. · 1993 · confidence medium
Mortgage Mart, Inc. v. Rechnitzer (In re Chisum), 847 F.2d 597, 599 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 892 , 109 S.Ct. 228 , 102 L.Ed.2d 218 (1988).
cited Cited as authority (rule) In Re Kidwell
Bankr. E.D. Cal. · 1993 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cf Mortgage Mart, Inc. v. Rechnitzer (In re Chisum), 847 F.2d 597, 599 (9th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 892 , 109 S.Ct. 228 , 102 L.Ed.2d 218 (1988). 7.
cited Cited as authority (rule) In Re Oglesby
E.D. Pa. · 1993 · confidence medium
In re Chisum, 847 F.2d 597, 600 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, Mortgage Mart, Inc. v. *607 Rechnitzer, 488 U.S. 892 , 109 S.Ct. 228 , 102 L.Ed.2d 218 (1988).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re KTMA Acquisition Corp. (2×) also: Cited "see"
Bankr. D. Minn. · 1993 · confidence medium
See In re Gioioso, 979 F.2d at 960 ; Caldwell v. Farris (In re Rainbow Magazine, Inc.), 136 B.R. 545, 550 (Bankr. 9th Cir.1992) (citing In re Chisum, 847 F.2d 597, 599 (9th Cir.1988)); Cinema Svs.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Huerta
Bankr. C.D. Cal. · 1992 · confidence medium
The importance of the concept of “changed circumstances” was later underscored by the Ninth Circuit in In re Chisum, 847 F.2d 597, 600 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 892 , 109 S.Ct. 228 , 102 L.Ed.2d 218 (1988), when it said The primary basis for the bankruptcy court’s good faith determination in this case was its finding of changed circumstances.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Caldwell v. Farris (In Re Rainbow Magazine, Inc.) (2×)
9th Cir. BAP · 1992 · confidence medium
Because the pertinent language of these rules is virtually identical, authorities analyzing Rule 11 are applicable to the Rule 9011 analysis, In re Chisum, 847 F.2d 597, 599 (9th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 892 , 109 S.Ct. 228 , 102 L.Ed.2d 218 (1988), and this opinion will use authorities under Rule 9011 and under Rule 11 interchangeably.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lazo v. Bank of America Nat. Trust and Sav. Ass'n
9th Cir. · 1991 · confidence medium
In re Chisum, 847 F.2d 597, 599 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 892 (1988) (looking to case law interpreting Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 for guidance in reviewing sanctions under Bankruptcy Rule 9011); Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 110 S.Ct. 2447, 2460-61 (1990) (applying abuse of discretion standard in reviewing all aspects of an imposition of sanctions under Rule 11).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Marker v. Marker (In Re Marker)
Bankr. W.D. Pa. · 1991 · confidence medium
In re Chisum, 847 F.2d 597, 599 (9th Cir.1988).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Express America, Inc. v. Tamko Asphalt Products, Inc. (In Re Express America, Inc.)
Bankr. W.D. Pa. · 1991 · confidence medium
In re Chisum, 847 F.2d 597, 599 (9th Cir.1988).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United Capitol Insurance v. Kamakani Services, Inc. (In re Kamakani Services, Inc.)
Bankr. D. Haw. · 1991 · confidence medium
In re Chisum, 847 F.2d 597, 599 (9th Cir.1988); In re Film Ventures Intern., Inc., 89 B.R. 80 , 83 n. 1 (9th Cir.BAP 1988); 9 Collier on Bankruptcy §§ 9011.01-02 (15th ed. 1979).
cited Cited as authority (rule) In Re Shuma
Bankr. W.D. Pa. · 1991 · confidence medium
In re Chisum, 847 F.2d 597, 599 (9th Cir.1988).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Schuldies v. United States (In Re Schuldies)
D.S.D. · 1990 · confidence medium
In re Chisum, 847 F.2d 597, 600 (9th Cir.1988).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Greco (2×) also: Cited "see"
D. Haw. · 1990 · confidence medium
In re Chisum, 847 F.2d 597, 599 (9th Cir.1988).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Tsafaroff v. Taylor (In re Taylor)
9th Cir. · 1989 · confidence medium
In re Chisum, 847 F.2d 597, 599 (9th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom.
cited Cited as authority (rule) In Re: Ezella M. Taylor, Debtor. Dina Tsafaroff Evelyn Simbas v. Ezella M. Taylor, Ezella M. Taylor v. Dina Tsafaroff Evelyn Simbas William Little, William Little v. Ezella M. Taylor David A. Gill, Trustee in Bankruptcy
9th Cir. · 1989 · confidence medium
In re Chisum, 847 F.2d 597, 599 (9th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Walker
Bankr. N.D. Ohio · 1989 · confidence medium
“Filing a bankruptcy petition to prevent foreclosure if undertaken pursuant to a legitimate effort at reorganization is not reprehensible and is in accord with the aim of the Bankruptcy Code.” Mortgage Mart, Inc. v. Rechnitzer (In re Chisum), 847 F.2d 597, 598 (9th Cir.1988), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 228 , 102 L.Ed.2d 218 (1988).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Kosenka
Bankr. N.D. Ind. · 1989 · confidence medium
In another Ninth Circuit case, Mortgage Mart, Inc. v. Rechnitzer (In re Chism), 847 F.2d 597, 600 (9th Cir.1988), the Court found changed circumstances that justified a Bankruptcy Court’s finding of good faith in successive filings of two Chapter 13 petitions followed by a Chapter 7 filing, and upheld the denial of Bankruptcy Rules of Practice and Procedure in Bankruptcy Rule 9011 sanctions requested by a mortgagee. *50 The Seventh Circuit has long recognized the distinction between the good faith required in the filing of a bankruptcy petition and the proposal of a plan.
cited Cited as authority (rule) In Re Garsal Realty, Inc.
Bankr. N.D.N.Y. · 1989 · confidence medium
See In re McDermott, supra, 78 B.R. at 651 ; Mortgage Mart, Inc. v. Rechnitzer (In re Chisum), 847 F.2d 597, 600 (9th Cir.1988) (citing In re Metz, supra, 820 F.2d at 1497 ).
cited Cited "see" 1500 Mineral Spring Associates, LP v. Gencarelli
D.R.I. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re Chisum, 847 F.2d 597, 600 (9th Cir.1988), cert. denied 488 U.S. 892 , 109 S.Ct. 228 , 102 L.Ed.2d 218 (1988).
discussed Cited "see" In Re Solomon
Bankr. E.D. Tex. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re Chisum, 68 B.R. 471 (9th Cir. BAP 1986), aff'd 847 F.2d 597 , certiorari denied 488 U.S. 892 , 109 S.Ct. 228 , 102 L.Ed.2d 218 [“Bankruptcy court has inherent power to impose sanctions on parties and counsel who willfully abuse judicial process.” Chisum, Ibid at 473.] Regardless of Debtor’s good or bad faith in connection with the preparation of these totally inaccurate schedules, this Court believes that Creditors are entitled to have accurate bankruptcy schedules and full disclosure of Debtor’s actual financial condition.
discussed Cited "see" Richard E. Schwartz v. James Kujawa
8th Cir. BAP · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re Chisum, 847 F.2d 597 (9th Cir. 1988) (imposition of sanctions when there is a violation of Rule 9011 is mandatory and not discretionary); Ebersold v. DeLaughter (In re DeLaughter), 213 B.R. 839, 841 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 1997) 10 Because we have determined that the prior version of Rule 9011 applies, Schwartz’s reliance on cases such as Hutchinson v. Pfeil, 208 F.3d 1180 (10th Cir. 2000), for both the proposition that he was entitled to a show cause hearing and the proposition that the Court could not award the two different types of sanctions, is misplaced.
discussed Cited "see" Schwartz v. Kujawa (In Re Kujawa)
8th Cir. BAP · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re Chisum, 847 F.2d 597 (9th Cir.1988) (imposition of sanctions when them is a violation of Rule 9011 is mandatory and not discretionary); Ebersold v. DeLaughter (In re DeLaughter), 213 B.R. 839, 841 (8th Cir. BAP 1997) (“[violations of [Rule 9011] mandate sanctions thereunder, and discretion, in this respect, is entirely removed from the court”).
cited Cited "see" Cub Cadet Corp. v. Rosage (In Re Rosage)
Bankr. W.D. Pa. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re Chisum, 847 F.2d 597, 599 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 892 , 109 S.Ct. 228 , 102 L.Ed.2d 218 (1988).
cited Cited "see" In Re VIII South Michigan Associates
Bankr. N.D. Ill. · 1994 · signal: accord · confidence high
Accord In re Chisum, 847 F.2d 597 , 599 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 892 , 109 S.Ct. 228 , 102 L.Ed.2d 218 (1988); In re Leigh, 165 B.R. 203, 231 (Bankr.N.D.Ill. 1993). 14 .
cited Cited "see" In Re Hall
9th Cir. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re Chisum, 847 F.2d 597, 599 (9th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom.
cited Cited "see" Oaks of Woodlake Phase III, Ltd. v. Hall, Bayoutree Associates, Ltd. (In re Hall, Bayoutree Associates, Ltd.)
9th Cir. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re Chisum, 847 F.2d 597, 599 (9th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom.
discussed Cited "see" Raymond L. Asher v. Film Ventures International, Inc. (In Re Film Ventures International, Inc.) (2×)
9th Cir. BAP · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
Hudson v. Moore Business Forms, Inc., 836 F.2d 1156 , 1159 (9th Cir.1987); In re Lewis, 79 B.R. 893, 895 (9th Cir. BAP 1987); See In re Chisum, 847 F.2d 597, 599 (9th Cir.1988).
cited Cited "see" In re Taborsky
C.C.P.A. · 1974 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re Murch, 464 F.2d 1051 , 59 CCPA 1277 (1972) and In re Fay, 847 F.2d 597 , 52 CCPA 1483 (1965).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In Re Earl
Bankr. N.D. Ind. · 1992 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See e.g., In re Chisum, 847 F.2d 597, 600 (9th Cir.1988), cert. denied, sub nom, Mortgage Mart, Inc. v. Rechnitzer, 488 U.S. 892 , 109 S.Ct. 228 , 102 L.Ed.2d 218 (1988) (multiple filings permissible because of changed circumstances).
cited Cited "see, e.g." In Re McKissie
Bankr. N.D. Ill. · 1989 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare In re Chisum, 847 F.2d 597 (BAP 9th Cir.1988) cert. denied, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 228 , 102 L.Ed.2d 218 (1988) (bona fide change in circumstances justified the debt- or’s multiple filings).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Matter of Hagberg
Bankr. W.D. Wis. · 1988 · signal: compare · confidence medium
Compare In re Chisum, 847 F.2d 597, 600 (9th Cir.1988) (after noting that “ ‘[a] debtor’s history of filings and dismissals is relevant in determining whether a plan has been proposed in good faith,’ ” (quoting In re Nash, 765 F.2d 1410 , 1415 (9th Cir.1985)) court holds that bona fide change in circumstance justified the debtor’s multiple filings); Metz II, supra, 820 F.2d at 1497 (no per se rule against successive filings; however, “successive filings may be examined together and the result achieved by such filings reviewed against the statutory requirements”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Bankr. L. Rep. P 72,330 in Re Toney Chisum, Debtor. Mortgage Mart, Inc.
v.
Martin Rechnitzer, Trustee in Bankruptcy, Toney Chisum, Debtor, and Julia C. Coleman
87-5513.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
May 26, 1988.
847 F.2d 597
Cited by 51 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 76%

847 F.2d 597

Bankr. L. Rep. P 72,330
In re Toney CHISUM, Debtor.
MORTGAGE MART, INC., Plaintiff/Appellant,
v.
Martin RECHNITZER, Trustee in Bankruptcy, Toney Chisum,
Debtor, and Julia C. Coleman, Defendants/Appellees.

No. 87-5513.

United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted March 9, 1988.
Decided May 26, 1988.

Leon L. Vickman, Encino, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant.

Julia C. Coleman, Compton, Cal., for defendants-appellees.

Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panels of the Ninth Circuit.

Before FARRIS, BOOCHEVER and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges.

REINHARDT, Circuit Judge:

Chisum filed a Chapter 13 petition on February 22, 1983. A voluntary dismissal was entered May 13. On July 21 of the same year, Chisum filed a second Chapter 13 petition, which was dismissed on August 29. A third Chapter 13 petition was filed on December 5 of the same year. A creditor gained relief from the automatic stay on January 27, 1984. Chisum dismissed his third petition on February 1. On the same day, Mortgage Mart bought Chisum's home at a foreclosure sale. The next day, February 2, Chisum filed, pro per, a Chapter 7 petition. Mortgage Mart filed for relief from the automatic stay in order to pursue an action for unlawful detainer.

Mortgage Mart filed a complaint against Chisum and his attorney, Julia Coleman, for sanctions, punitive damages, and attorney's fees. Mortgage Mart argued that Chisum's multiple filings constituted an abuse of the bankruptcy process. It argued that the petitions were filed solely to prevent foreclosure, an objective Mortgage Mart claimed to be improper. The bankruptcy court found for the defendants on all claims. On appeal, the bankruptcy appellate panel affirmed. In re Chisum, 68 B.R. 471 (9th Cir. BAP 1986).

The bankruptcy court found that Chisum's petitions had been filed in good faith and that the successive petitions were justified by changed circumstances in Chisum's financial situation. The court found that the first two Chapter 13 filings had been voluntarily dismissed because of Chisum's belief that he had obtained a loan sufficient to pay off his creditors; on each occasion, however, the loan arrangements fell through. The third Chapter 13 petition was filed in good faith "in that Debtor was prevented from performing only because of a new court ruling requiring post-petition mortgage payments which Debtor could not make, even though he was prepared to make post-petition mortgage payments required as of date of filing." The court excused the fourth filing, a filing under Chapter 7, by stating that "the Court as a matter of law advises debtors who are unable to perform in Chapter 13, that Chapter 7 is available as a means of saving equity in their real property."[1] Finally, the court added an extended, and persuasive, quotation from a concurring opinion in Talamini v. Allstate Ins., 470 U.S. 1067, 1070-72, 105 S.Ct. 1824, 1827-28, 85 L.Ed.2d 125 (1985) (Stevens, J., concurring), regarding why courts should hesitate to impose sanctions on persons filing actions or other proceedings.

[*~597]1

The bankruptcy appellate panel affirmed. The panel first rejected the argument that the filings had been for an improper purpose: "Filing a bankruptcy petition to prevent foreclosure if undertaken pursuant to a legitimate effort at reorganization is not reprehensible and is in accord with the aim of the Bankruptcy Code." In re Chisum, 68 B.R. at 473. The panel also held that since there had been credible evidence of changed circumstances and of Chisum's good faith in filing multiple petitions, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to impose sanctions.

2

The primary legal basis for a bankruptcy court's imposition of sanctions is Bankruptcy Rule 9011(a).[2] The bankruptcy appellate panel in this case applied an abuse of discretion standard in reviewing the bankruptcy court's decision not to impose sanctions. Chisum, 68 B.R. at 473. However, in a subsequent case, the bankruptcy appellate panel noted:

3

The standard of review for sanction cases appears to have changed recently. In the past we have simply reviewed a trial court's decision to impose sanctions for an abuse of discretion. See, e.g., In re Chisum, 68 B.R. 471, 473 (9th Cir. BAP 1986). The Ninth Circuit has recently stated, however, that "[b]ecause Rule 11 mandates sanctions when it is violated, the prevailing view of the courts of appeals is that whether specific conduct violated the Rule is a legal question which must be reviewed de novo." Golden Eagle Dist. Corp. v. Burroughs Corp. 801 F.2d 1531, 1538 (9th Cir.1986).

4

In re Lewis, 79 B.R. 893, 895 (9th Cir. BAP 1987). In a footnote, the court added:

5

The cases cited here involve sanctions imposed under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("FRCP 11"). The language of that rule, however, and of Bankruptcy Rule 9011 are virtually identical. Cinema Serv. Corp. v. Edbee Corp., 774 F.2d 584, 585 (3d Cir.1985). Thus, courts considering sanctions under Rule 9011 have relied extensively on cases considering sanctions under FRCP 11. See id.; In re Chisum, 68 B.R. 471, 473 (9th Cir. BAP 1986); In re Eighty South Lake, Inc., 63 B.R. 501, 506-507 (Bankr.C.D.Cal.1986).

6

Lewis, 79 B.R. at 895 n. 2.

7

The bankruptcy appellate panel in Lewis correctly stated the law in this circuit regarding Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 and Bankr. R. 9011: when the rule is violated, the imposition of sanctions is mandatory, not discretionary. The standard governing review of sanctions is the same under both rules.

8

Under Bankr.R. 9011, sanctions are required if the petitioner's actions are not "warranted by ... law." Whether a bankruptcy filing is warranted by law may depend upon factual determinations. That is the case here. Multiple Chapter 13 bankruptcy filings are legally justified "as long as each new plan is proposed in good faith." In re Nash, 765 F.2d 1410, 1415 (9th Cir.1985). Good faith is a factual question. Matter of Metz, 820 F.2d 1495, 1497 (9th Cir.1987). If the bankruptcy court determines as a factual matter that a debtor's successive filings were not proposed in good faith, the court must impose sanctions under Bankr.R. 9011. However, if the court's factual finding is that the filings were proposed in good faith, sanctions are not appropriate.

9

On appeal, the bankruptcy court's findings regarding good faith are reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard. Matter of Metz, 820 F.2d at 1497. This is true even in the context of a review of a decision involving sanctions because the finding of good faith is the key factual determination underlying the bankruptcy court's refusal to impose sanctions. See Golden Eagle, 801 F.2d at 1538 ("If there is any dispute as to factual determinations concerning the conduct [which allegedly violated Rule 11], the determinations would be reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard.").

[*~597]10

Though multiple filings are not per se illegal, see Matter of Metz, 820 F.2d at 1497, "[a] debtor's history of filings and dismissals is relevant in determining whether a plan has been proposed in good faith." In re Nash, 765 F.2d at 1415. As we noted in Nash:

11

Under the 1978 [Bankruptcy] code, unwary creditors may suffer losses at the hands of debtors who abuse the multiple filing opportunities provided by Chapter 13. We are disturbed by the potential inequity of this result, but ... we are constrained by the express language of the Code.

12

Id. at 1414.

[*~598]13

The primary basis for the bankruptcy court's good faith determination in this case was its finding of changed circumstances. We have earlier explicitly stated that "a bona fide change in circumstances" can justify a finding that successive bankruptcy filings were proper. Matter of Metz, 820 F.2d at 1498. The bankruptcy judge is in the best position to assess a debtor's credibility and the legitimacy of the explanations he gives for multiple filings. Here, there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the judge's conclusion that Chisum's successive filings were justified by changes in circumstances. Accordingly, the bankruptcy court's finding of good faith was not clearly erroneous.

[*~599]14

AFFIRMED.

1

The bankruptcy court also found that there was insufficient evidence that Chisum had committed perjury in filing his Chapter 7 petition. Chisum's Chapter 7 papers stated that his lawyer Julia Coleman assisted in the preparation and that she was paid $100 for her services, even though the petition was actually pro per, and he listed only one of his three prior Chapter 13 petitions. Chisum explained that Coleman's assistance and fee referred to an earlier Chapter 13 filing. As noted, the bankruptcy court held that the misstatements and omissions did not constitute perjury and were not sufficient to warrant the conclusion that Chisum intended to commit perjury. We see no reason to disturb these findings

2

Bankr.R. 9011(a):

Every petition, pleading, motion and other paper served or filed in a case under the Code on behalf of a party represented by an attorney, except a list, schedule, statement of financial affairs, statement of executory contracts, Chapter 13 Statement, or amendments thereto, shall be signed by at least one attorney of record in his individual name, whose office address and telephone number shall be stated. A party who is not represented by an attorney shall sign all papers and state his address and telephone number. The signature of an attorney or a party constitutes a certificate by him that he has read the document; that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law; and that it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass, to cause delay, or to increase the cost of litigation. If a document is not signed, it shall be stricken unless it is signed promptly after the omission is called to the attention of the person whose signature is required. If a document is signed in violation of this rule, the court on motion or on its own initiative, shall impose on the person who signed it, the represented party, or both, an appropriate sanction, which may include an order to pay to the other party or parties the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred because of the filing of the document, including a reasonable attorney's fee.