In re Williams (Oct. 30, 2025)

Case details
Full caption
In re: Pamela Williams
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decided
Oct. 30, 2025
Disposition
Motion Denied
© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.IN RE: PAMELA WILLIAMS, aka Pamela Stewart aka PamelaGraham aka Pamela Loraine Stewart aka Pamela Loraine WilliamsDebtor.United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division. | October 30, 2025 | Slip Copy |2025 WL 3039332Document Detailsstandard Citation:IN RE: PAMELA WILLIAMS, aka Pamela Stewart aka Pamela Grahamaka Pamela Loraine Stewart aka Pamela Loraine Williams Debtor., No.24-62693-LRC, 2025 WL 3039332 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. Oct. 30, 2025)All Citations:Slip Copy, 2025 WL 3039332Search DetailsSearch Query:adv: (openai "artificial intelligence" chatgpt "google gemini" "westlawcocounsel" "large language model") (hallucinat! fake fictitious spuriousnonexistent "non-existent" "made up" imagined /p (gpt ai "artificialintelligence" chatgpt chaton perplexity openai copilot "google gemini""google bard" grok "mata v. avianca" claude llm llms)) (hallucinat! fakefictitious spurious nonexistent "non-existent" "made up" imagined) +3(precedent case "legal authority" "legal case") & DATE(aft 1/1/2023)Jurisdiction:GeorgiaDelivery DetailsDate:November 1, 2025 at 7:49 AMDelivered By: Client ID:NOCLIENTIDOutlineCHAPTER 13(p.1)All Citations (p.2)
IN RE: PAMELA WILLIAMS, aka Pamela Stewart aka Pamela..., Slip Copy (2025) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12025 WL 3039332Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.United States Bankruptcy Court,N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division.IN RE: PAMELA WILLIAMS, akaPamela Stewart aka Pamela Grahamaka Pamela Loraine Stewart akaPamela Loraine Williams Debtor.CASE NUMBER: 24-62693-LRC|Filed 10/30/2025CHAPTER 13ORDERLisa Ritchey Craig U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge*1 On October 16, 2025, the Court entered anorder denying the Motion to Strike UnauthorizedPleadings, Disregard Improper Appearances, and forRelated Relief (the “Motion to Strike,” Doc. 103),filed by Pamela Williams (“Debtor”). See Doc. 104,the “Order”). In the Motion to Strike, Debtor askedthe Court to strike from the record pleadings andarguments presented by attorney John Taylor Weitz,arguing that Mr. Weitz never made a proper appearancein the case because he did not file a notice ofappearance and, without a proper appearance, Mr.Weitz’ clients (the “Clients”) lacked standing andtheir participation was unauthorized. In the Order,the Court reasoned that, under the Court's localrule, Mr. Weitz had made a proper appearance byfiling a written response to Debtor's Amended Motionto Reinstate and Extend the Automatic Stay (Doc.19, the “Motion to Reinstate”) and the Debtor'sMotion for Reconsideration (Doc. 54, the “Motion toReconsider”). And, even if he had not done so, theremedy under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure9010(b) for failure to make a proper appearance isnot to strike pleadings filed or arguments made afterthe fact, but to bar the attorney “from representingthe party at trial or in any other proceeding,” BLR9010-4(a), and no further matters were pending in thiscase, which stands dismissed. Accordingly, the Courtdenied the Motion.On October 24, 2025, Debtor filed a motion toreconsider the Order (Doc. 106, the “Motion”). Inthe Motion, Debtor argues that the Court should havestruck the pleadings and arguments made by Mr. Weitzbecause the Clients lacked standing and were notparties in interest, within the meaning of § 1109(b)of the Bankruptcy Code,1 when they appeared inopposition to the Motion to Reinstate and the Motion toReconsider. Debtor asserts that only entities that havea “title interest” or a secured claim, or who appearon the creditor matrix are entitled to notice and toparticipate in a bankruptcy case.2 That is not the law.Debtor sought imposition of a stay for the purpose ofpreventing the Clients from regaining possession ofproperty in which they asserted an ownership interest.Regardless of whether Debtor added them to thecreditor matrix, they were proper respondents to theMotion to Reinstate and the Motion to Reconsiderand, as such, were entitled to appear and protecttheir property interest. A defendant need not establishstanding. In re Moore, 2018 WL 1057834, at *5 (B.A.P.9th Cir. Feb. 26, 2018). Debtor has failed to raise anybasis upon which the Court could reconsider the Order.*2 In the Motion, Debtor also requests a declarationthat a foreclosure sale of Debtor's property was voidab initio as having been conducted in violation ofthe automatic stay. Although Debtor acknowledgesin the Motion that no automatic stay arose in thiscase, pursuant to § 362(c)(4), Debtor argues that theCourt erred when it refused to impose a stay and,had such a stay been imposed, it would have hadretroactive effect. In this regard, Debtor essentiallyrequests reconsideration of the Court's order entered onFebruary 12, 2025 (Doc. 51, the “Stay Denial Order”),which Debtor appealed on February 24, 2025 (see Doc.63). As the appeal remains pending, this Court lacksjurisdiction to reconsider the Stay Denial Order. See Inre Wylie, 664 B.R. 351, 356 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2024)(noting that it would lack authority to rule on a Rule9024 motion that was filed after a timely notice ofappeal was filed); In re Baldwin, 2024 WL 4378990,at *1 (Bankr. D. Or. Oct. 1, 2024) (holding that itlacked jurisdiction to consider an untimely motion toreconsider filed after a timely notice of appeal).3 Forthese reasons,
IN RE: PAMELA WILLIAMS, aka Pamela Stewart aka Pamela..., Slip Copy (2025) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED.END OF DOCUMENTAll CitationsSlip Copy, 2025 WL 3039332Footnotes1In this Chapter 13 case, § 1109(b)’s definition of “party in interest” does not, technically, apply. See 11 U.S.C.§ 1109(b) (“A party in interest, including the debtor, the trustee, a creditors’ committee, an equity securityholders’ committee, a creditor, an equity security holder, or any indenture trustee, may raise and may appearand be heard on any issue in a case under this chapter.”) (emphasis added).2For authority on this point, Debtor cites White v. Bank of America, 291 Ga. 367 (2012). The Court was unableto locate this case. The citation appears to be incorrect and, perhaps, is the product of an artificial intelligence“hallucination.” See In re Martin, 670 B.R. 636, 649 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2025) (stating that “blindly relying ongenerative AI and citing fake cases” violated Bankruptcy Rule 9011 “and will be sanctioned”; sanctioninglawyer and his law firm $5,500); In re Richburg, 671 B.R. 918, 919 (Bankr. D.S.C. 2025); In re Ford, CaseNo. 25-57617-SMS, Doc. 58 (Aug. 1, 2025) (setting a show cause order as to why a pro se debtor shouldnot be sanctioned under Rule 9011 for filing motions with “hallucinated” case law).3To the extent the Motion is considered a “timely” motion within the meaning of Rule 8008, the Court deniesthe motion on the basis that it fails to state a basis to reconsider the legal conclusions made in the StayDenial Order. From the beginning, Debtor has acknowledged that she was not seeking retroactive impositionof a stay. See Doc. 83 (noting that, during the hearing on the Motion to Extend, Debtor “acknowledged that,if the Court granted the Motion for Stay, imposition of the stay would come too late to ‘undo’ the foreclosuresale”). Further, the statute is clear that a stay imposed under § 362(c)(4) is not retroactive. See 11 U.S.C.§ 362(c)(4)(C) (“[A] stay imposed under subparagraph (B) shall be effective on the date of the entry of theorder allowing the stay to go into effect.”).End of Document© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S.Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access