JJS Capital Group v. Gassmann — Relief from Automatic Stay Granted

Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document The text of this document was obtained by analyzing a scanned document and may have typos.

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 13, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

In re: Tanya Allison Gassmann; JJS Capital Group, LLC v. Tanya Allison Gassman, Debtor; and Camille Hope, Trustee

United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Georgia

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 26-50121

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (7)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (57.8K)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

Se reNtun “Op
SIGNED this 12 day of March, 2026. 2 ek □
2) Y □
% YS
□□□ ict OF Sy

Robert M. Matson
United States Bankruptcy Judge

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
In re:
Case No. 26-50121-RMM
Tanya Allison Gassmann
Chapter 13
Debtor

JJS Capital Group, LLC
Movant
vs. Contested Matter
Tanya Allison Gassman, Debtor; and
Camille Hope, Trustee
Respondents

MEMORANDUM OPINION ON MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM STAY
Before the Court is the Motion for Relief from Stay and for Further Relief from
Stay on a Prospective Basis Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 362 (d)(4) [Doc. 15]

(“Motion”) filed by JJS Capital Group, LLC (“JJS”). JJS asks that the automatic stay
of 11 U.S.C. § 362 (a) be terminated as to real property located at 1100 Packer Street,
Key West, Florida (“1100 Packer Street Property”). JJS seeks prospective relief under 11 U.S.C. § 362 (d)(4), asserting the filing of this case was part of a scheme to delay,
hinder, or defraud JJS through multiple bankruptcy filings affecting the 1100 Packer
Street Property.
The Court held a hearing on the Motion on February 26, 2026, at 10:30 AM. At
the hearing were JJS’s counsel, Debtor, who appeared pro se, and counsel for the
Chapter 13 Trustee. At the close of evidence and arguments, the Court took the matter

under advisement.1
As explained below, the Court finds the filing of this case was part of a scheme
to hinder or delay JJS involving multiple bankruptcy filings affecting the 1100 Packer
Street Property. This finding requires the Court to grant relief from the automatic
stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362 (d)(4),
I. Jurisdiction
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1334 (b) and the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia’s
Amended Standing Order of Reference, General Order 2012-1 (Feb. 21, 2012). This is
a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157 (b)(2)(G).

1 The audio recording of the hearing is attached to the four documents docketed on February 26, 2026,
as “PDF with attached Audio File,” Docs. 60–63.
II. Findings of Fact
This is the fifth bankruptcy case filed within a year by the debtor Tanya Allison
Gassmann (“Ms. Gassmann”), an entity owned and/or controlled by her, or one of her

close associates. Each case was filed shortly before foreclosure sales to be conducted by
JJS. The Court summarizes each case below.
A. First Bankruptcy Case
On February 12, 2025, Ms. Gassmann filed Chapter 13 Case No. 25-11480-CLS
in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division
(“First Bankruptcy Case”). The First Bankruptcy Case was filed the day before JJS’s

foreclosure sale of real property located at 1104 Packer Street, Key West, Florida
(“1104 Packer Street Property”). Ms. Gassmann was not the owner of record but
obtained a stay of the foreclosure sale by virtue of being a named defendant in the
judicial foreclosure proceeding.2 The owner of record was Katharina Tiffany and
Veritas Gassman, L.L.C., an entity owned and/or controlled by Ms. Gassmann. JJS
sought stay relief to allow the foreclosure to proceed, which Judge Corali Lopez-
Castro granted on March 26, 2025.3

Ms. Gassmann filed the First Bankruptcy Case with a “skeleton” Chapter 13
petition—a petition filed without the schedules, statements, and plan required by the

2 The foreclosure proceeding as to the 1104 Packer Street Property is Titan Funding, LLC v. Katharina
Tiffany and Veritas Gassman, L.L.C., et al., Case No. 23-CA-00841-K in the Circuit Court of the 16th
Judicial Circuit in and for Monroe County, Florida. JJS’s interest in the 1104 Packer Street Property
arose out of an assignment of the foreclosure judgment entered in this foreclosure action.
3 See First Bankruptcy Case Doc. 20.
Bankruptcy Code and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure. She failed to cure the
filing deficiencies, resulting in dismissal on March 26, 2025.4
B. Second Bankruptcy Case

On June 20, 2025, Sinnsearan LLC (“Sinnsearan”) filed Chapter 11 Case No. 25-
16863-RAM in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami
Division (“Second Bankruptcy Case”). Sinnsearan is the same entity as Katharina
Tiffany and Veritas Gassmann L.L.C., which at some point underwent a name change.5
The Second Bankruptcy Case was filed two days before JJS’s rescheduled
foreclosure sale of the 1104 Packer Street Property. Sinnsearan’s petition was filed pro

se and signed by Palani Meador as an authorized member.6 Ms. Gassmann testified at
the February 26, 2026, hearing that Mr. Meador is a longtime family friend as well as
a peer of her daughters. She also testified she was involved with Sinnsearan’s
bankruptcy filing as a member of Sinnsearan. The docket of the Second Bankruptcy
Case confirms Ms. Gassmann’s relationship to Sinnsearan and shows she was heavily
involved in its bankruptcy proceedings.7
JJS again sought stay relief to complete the foreclosure sale of the 1104 Packer

Street Property, this time seeking prospective relief to prevent future bankruptcy

4 See First Bankruptcy Case Doc. 21.
5 See Second Bankruptcy Case 1 at 1.
6 See Second Bankruptcy Case Doc. 1 at 4. Sinnsearan would eventually retain bankruptcy counsel.
7 See, e.g., Second Bankruptcy Case Doc. 29 (filing identifying Ms. Gassmann and Palani Meador as
Sinnsearan’s two members); Doc. 30 (Disclosure of Compensation of Attorney for Debtor identifying
Ms. Gassmann as the source of counsel’s compensation and a member of Sinnsearan); Doc. 35
(dismissal order stating Ms. Gassmann was Sinnsearan’s representative at a July 2, 2025, hearing on
the U.S. Trustee’s motion to dismiss); Doc. 50 (transcript of July 2, 2025, hearing, showing Ms.
Gassmann’s active participation as debtor’s representative at hearing).
filings from staying its foreclosure efforts.8 Judge Robert A. Mark granted that relief
on July 7, 2025, preventing any bankruptcy filings within two years from staying the
foreclosure proceedings as to the 1104 Packer Street Property.9 The Second

Bankruptcy Case was dismissed with prejudice on July 7, 2025, barring Sinnsearan
from filing a bankruptcy petition for six months.10
C. Third Bankruptcy Case
On October 2, 2025, Palani Meador filed Chapter 13 Case No. 25-21661-LMI in
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division (“Third
Bankruptcy Case”). The Third Bankruptcy Case was filed the day before JJS’s

foreclosure sale of the 1100 Packer Street Property.11 Meador filed the case pro se and
with a skeleton petition. At the time of filing, Ms. Gassmann owned the 1100 Packer
Street Property. The borrower and mortgage grantor in the relevant loan documents is
Virginia and Packer Holdings LLC.
Although Meador did not own the 1100 Packer Street Property, was not a
borrower or mortgage grantor in the relevant loan documents, and was not a named
defendant in the foreclosure proceeding, he filed a Suggestion of Bankruptcy in the

foreclosure proceeding identifying himself as an unknown owner/tenant. Meador
claimed to reside in the 1100 Packer Street Property under a prepaid lease.12

8 See Second Bankruptcy Case Doc. 10.
9 See Second Bankruptcy Case Docs. 33 (original order), 52 (amended order).
10 See Second Bankruptcy Case Doc. 35.
11 The foreclosure proceeding as to the 1100 Packer Street Property is JJS Capital Group, LLC v.
Virginia and Packer Holdings, LLC, et al., Case No. 24-CA-153-K in the Circuit Court of the Sixteenth
Judicial Circuit in and for Monroe County, Florida. JJS claims an interest in the 1100 Packer Street
Property by virtue of a Final Summary Judgment of Mortgage Foreclosure entered August 29, 2025.
12 See Third Bankruptcy Case Doc. 31 at 2.
JJS sought relief from the stay to proceed with the foreclosure, which Judge
Laurel M. Isicoff granted on October 17, 2025.13 Meador then moved to set aside the
stay relief order, which the court denied.14 Meador then voluntarily converted the case

to Chapter 7 and appealed the denial of his motion to set aside.15 The appeal was
dismissed on December 12, 2025, for failure to file a record designation or a statement
of issues.16 The Third Bankruptcy Case was dismissed on December 2, 2025, for
Meador’s failure to file documents.17
D. Fourth Bankruptcy Case
On November 21, 2025, Virginia and Packer Holdings LLC (“VPH”) filed

Chapter 7 Case No. 25-23766-RAM in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern
District of Florida, Miami Division (“Fourth Bankruptcy Case”). Ms. Gassmann signed
the petition as an authorized representative of the debtor, in her capacity as manager
of Key West Holdings Management LLC (“KWHM”).18 VPH filed the case pro se and
with a skeleton petition. VPH eventually filed required schedules and statements.19 Its
disclosures identified Ms. Gassmann as a member of VPH and KWHM as VPH’s
manager.20 VPH scheduled an interest in the 1100 Packer Street Property described

as “None Corrected Deed executed 04/06/25 Leasehold 10 year Term.”21

13 See Third Bankruptcy Case Doc. 17.
14 See Third Bankruptcy Case Docs. 20, 30.
15 See Third Bankruptcy Case Docs. 31, 37.
16 See Third Bankruptcy Case Doc. 48.
17 See Third Bankruptcy Case Doc. 44.
18 See Fourth Bankruptcy Case Doc. 1 at 4.
19 See Fourth Bankruptcy Case Doc. 6.
20 See Doc. 6 at 26, 37.
21 Doc. 6 at 8.
The Fourth Bankruptcy Case was filed one day before JJS’s rescheduled
foreclosure sale of the 1100 Packer Street Property. JJS again sought stay relief to
complete the foreclosure sale, this time seeking prospective relief under 11 U.S.C. §

362 (d)(4) to prevent future bankruptcy filings from staying its foreclosure efforts.22
Judge Robert A. Mark granted stay relief to allow JJS to complete the foreclosure but
denied the request for prospective relief under § 362(d)(4) without prejudice.23
The Fourth Bankruptcy Case was dismissed with prejudice, on December 19,
2025, barring VPH from filing a bankruptcy petition for one year.24
E. Fifth and Current Bankruptcy Case

Ms. Gassmann filed the case currently before this Court on January 27, 2026,
three days before JJS’s rescheduled foreclosure sale of the 1100 Packer Street
Property. She filed a skeleton petition, pro se, listing her current address as 12172
Linton Road, Sparta, Georgia. On January 28, 2026, Ms. Gassmann filed a document
titled Notice of Related Proceedings and Automatic Stay Notification [Doc. 9]. This
document provides notice of various matters, including the 1100 Packer Street
Property foreclosure action, a pending appeal of that action, the foreclosure sale

scheduled for January 30, and Ms. Gassmann’s efforts to notify the state courts of her
bankruptcy filing.
Ms. Gassmann filed the required schedules, statements, and Chapter 13 plan
between February 10, 2026, and February 18, 2026. In her Schedules A/B, she claims

22 See Fourth Bankruptcy Case Doc. 8.
23 See Fourth Bankruptcy Case Doc. 15.
24 See Fourth Bankruptcy Case Doc. 18.
an ownership interest in the 1100 Packer Street Property. See Doc. 41 at 1. In her
Schedules H and I, Ms. Gassmann states she leases the 1100 Packer Street Property
to Palani Meador under a 10-year commercial and residential lease dated September

6, 2022, receiving from Mr. Meador $1,600 per month for rent and an additional
$4,500 per month for a loan repayment. See Doc. 37 at 2; Doc. 38 at 2. This combined
$6,100 from Mr. Meador appears to be Ms. Gassmann’s only monthly income.
According to her Statement of Financial Affairs, Ms. Gassmann moved to Georgia
from the 1100 Packer Street Property on April 1, 2025. See Doc. 43 at 1.
Ms. Gassmann filed a Chapter 13 Plan [Doc. 33] containing no payment

provision for JJS’s secured claim. Rather, Ms. Gassmann proposes to pay all claims
in full except for JJS’s claim. See Chapter 13 Plan at 6, ¶ 6.4. The plan states Ms.
Gassmann has unsecured claims totaling $8,138.06, which Ms. Gassmann intends to
pay in full over approximately 5 months through monthly plan payments of
$1,939.01. See id. Debtor requests an early discharge when these payments are
complete. See id.
JJS filed the Motion currently before the Court on February 3, 2026, seeking

relief from the automatic stay with prospective effect under § 362(d)(4). JJS asserts
this case and the previous four bankruptcy cases were not filed in good faith but
rather to hinder or delay JJS’s foreclosure sale efforts.
Ms. Gassmann has filed numerous documents opposing the Motion and
generally disputing the validity of JJS’s claim to the 1100 Packer Street Property.25

25 See Debtor’s Notice of Reservation of Rights to Object to Anticipated Proof of Claim by JJS Capital
Group, LLC; Assertion of Superior Lien Status; and Reservation of Right to Respond to any Motion
In sum, Ms. Gassmann challenges JJS’s claim based on an assortment of alleged
wrongdoing and deceitful misconduct by JJS and its attorneys and other agents. The
allegations include, among other things, deliberately failing to serve documents (both

in the state court proceedings and bankruptcy cases); obtaining foreclosure
judgments against parties not properly served or joined in the foreclosure actions
(including Ms. Gassmann herself); making misrepresentations in other proceedings;
fabricating a guaranty; concealing a foreclosure judgment from this Court; using a
disbarred attorney in drafting the underlying mortgage on the 1100 Packer Street
Property; making false sworn statements to a Florida state regulator; filing excessive

mortgage liens; altering mortgage pages; making various contradictory and
inconsistent statements; malfeasance by title companies retained by JJS; and an
assortment of improprieties or deficiencies regarding original loan documents and in
recording mortgages. Ms. Gassmann also asserts she has a superior lien on the 1100
Packer Street Property by virtue of a lis pendens recorded in the official records of
Monroe County, Florida, in July 2017 in connection with a probate proceeding and a
related court-approved settlement.26

Doc. 44; Debtor’s Response in Opposition to
Creditor JJS Capital Group LLC’s Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay Doc. 47; Debtor’s Motion for Examination and Production of
Documents Pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2004 Doc. 49; Debtor’s Motion for Discovery,
Sanctions, and Rule 9011 Relief Pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7026, 9011, and 11 U.S.C. § 105 (a) Doc.
50; Notice of Filing of Suggestion of Bankruptcy in State Court Proceedings Doc. 51; Debtor’s Objection to the Claim of JJS Capital Group
LLC Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502 Doc. 56; Amended Debtor’s Motion for Discovery
Pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7026 and 11 U.S.C. § 105 (a) Doc. 57; Debtor’s Supplemental Brief in Opposition to Creditor’s Motion for Relief from
Stay Doc. 66.
26 As identified by Ms. Gassmann, the probate proceeding is the Estate of Felix Aguiar, Sr., Case No.
2005-CP-127-K, Probate Division, Sixteenth Judicial Circuit, Monroe County, Florida.
Ms. Gassmann also alleges JJS failed to serve her with the Motion. She
opposes the Motion on that ground as well.
III. Law & Analysis

A. 11 U.S.C. § 362 (d)(4)(B)
The Court is required to grant relief from the automatic stay as to acts against
real property “if the court finds that the filing of the petition was part of a scheme to
delay, hinder, or defraud creditors that involved … multiple bankruptcy filings
affecting such real property.” 11 U.S.C. § 362 (d)(4)(B). “Parsing the syntax of §
362(d)(4) reveals that all that is required is proof either of a ‘scheme to hinder’ creditors

or a ‘scheme to delay’ creditors. ‘Hinder’ and ‘delay’ are independently sufficient
grounds for such relief against a background of multiple bankruptcy filings. Likewise,
a ‘scheme to defraud’ creditors is a third independent ground that need not be proved.
It suffices to prove either a purpose to hinder or a purpose to delay. In other words,
intent to defraud is not essential.” In re Town & Country Event Ctr. LLC, 673 B.R. 445,
451 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 2025).
The unnumbered concluding paragraph of § 362(d) states an order granting

relief under § 362(d)(4) may have a prospective effect (often referred to “in rem” relief),
such that the order is binding for the next two years in bankruptcy cases filed over that
period:
If recorded in compliance with applicable State laws governing notices of
interests or liens in real property, an order entered under paragraph (4)
shall be binding in any other case under this title purporting to affect
such real property filed not later than 2 years after the date of the entry
of such order by the court, except that a debtor in a subsequent case under
this title may move for relief from such order based upon changed
circumstances or for good cause shown, after notice and a hearing. Any
Federal, State, or local governmental unit that accepts notices of interests
or liens in real property shall accept any certified copy of an order
described in this subsection for indexing and recording. 11 U.S.C. § 362 (d) (hanging paragraph).
B. Relief from the Automatic Stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362 (d)(4)(B) is
Warranted

The Court finds this case was filed as part of a scheme to delay or hinder JJS
through multiple bankruptcy filings affecting the 1100 Packer Street Property.
“The creditor bears the initial burden of showing cause for relief from the stay
exists under § 362(d)(4). Upon such a showing, the burden shifts to the debtor to
demonstrate the filing of the petition was not part of a scheme to delay, hinder, or
defraud the creditor.” In re Moss, 625 B.R. 305, 307 (Bankr. D.S.C. 2021).
The Court may infer an intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors from serial
bankruptcy filings, particularly when they appear to be strategically timed to protect
the property at issue. See, e.g., In re Bliss, No. 21-50333 (JAM), 2021 WL 3629308, at
*3, 2021 Bankr. LEXIS 2228, at *7 (Bankr. D. Conn. Aug. 16, 2021) (“Bankruptcy
courts ‘may infer an intent to hinder, delay, and defraud creditors from the fact of
serial filings alone.’ Here, the record establishes that the Debtor filed three
bankruptcy cases throughout the pendency of the State Court Foreclosure Action. In
addition to the fact that the Debtor filed multiple bankruptcy filings affecting the
Property, the Debtor's 2019 Bankruptcy Case and the instant case were filed in
relation to pivotal events in the State Court Foreclosure Action.”) (citations omitted)
(quoting In re Procel, 467 B.R. 297, 308 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)); In re Moss, 625 B.R. at 307
(“In determining whether a debtor acted in bad faith to warrant in rem relief, the
Court also considers: ‘1) strategic filing of bankruptcy petitions to prevent collection;
2) multiple petitions by multiple parties to protect common property; 3) lack of

evidence of changed circumstances between filings; and 4) inability to fund a plan.’”)
(quoting In re Henderson, 395 B.R. 893, 901 (Bankr. D.S.C. 2008)); In re Briarwood
Acquisition, LLC, No. 15-20596 (AMN), 2015 WL 5601351, at *2, 2015 Bankr. LEXIS
2649, at *6 (Bankr. D. Conn. Aug. 7, 2015) (“In determining whether a debtor filed a
petition as part of a scheme to delay, hinder or defraud creditors pursuant to 11
U.S.C. § 362 (d)(4), courts may consider the timing and sequence of the filings. Courts

may also consider a debtor's efforts to prosecute the pending case.”) (citation omitted);
In re Hudgens, 662 B.R. 250, 255 (Bankr. D.S.C. 2024) (“The unsuccessful bankruptcy
filings by Hudgens and co-debtor since 2021 that repeatedly ceased foreclosure
proceedings, with no demonstrated change in circumstances, would be enough to
warrant in rem relief.”).
Here, the record shows the following. This is the fifth bankruptcy case filed
within 12 months that appears strategically timed to prevent JJS from enforcing

foreclosure judgments. The first two bankruptcy cases prevented JJS’s foreclosure
sale of the 1104 Packer Street Property while the last three prevented JJS’s
foreclosure sale of the 1100 Packer Street Property. Both properties appear to be
owned (directly or indirectly) by either Ms. Gassmann or an entity owned and/or
controlled by Ms. Gassmann. Two of the five cases were filed by Ms. Gassmann
individually, two were filed by entities Ms. Gassmann directly or indirectly owns
and/or controls, and one was filed by Ms. Gassman’s close associate and family friend
claiming a leasehold interest in the 1100 Packer Street Property. All five cases were
filed with a skeleton petition within days of a foreclosure sale. Each of the previous

four cases resulted in stay relief in favor of JJS followed shortly by involuntary
dismissal.
Given these circumstances, the Court infers this case was filed as part of a
scheme to hinder or delay JJS’s foreclosure efforts as to the 1100 Packer Street
Property.
Ms. Gassmann has attempted to detract from the apparent coordination of the

numerous bankruptcy filings by noting the previous four cases were filed by four
different individuals or entities.27 However, given the common creditor, the
relationship of the debtors, the commonality of the real property involved, and Ms.
Gassmann’s fingerprints across all five cases, the Court considers the variety of filers
as strengthening—not weakening—the already robust circumstantial evidence
supporting the inference of a scheme to hinder or delay JJS’s foreclosure efforts.28
In light of the above, Ms. Gassmann has the burden to demonstrate this

27 See, e.g., Doc. 47 at 13, ¶ 19 (“The bankruptcy filings listed in Gleason's chart were filed by four
separate legal persons: the Debtor (one prior case), Palani Meador, Virginia & Packer Holdings LLC,
and Sinnsearan LLC. These are distinct persons with distinct legal interests, each with independent
cause to seek bankruptcy protection from the same creditor. JJS has offered no evidence of
coordination-no communications, no agreements.”).
28 Additionally, that the first two cases affected the foreclosure of the 1104 Packer Street Property does
not undermine or prevent the inference the present case was filed as part of a scheme to hinder or
delay foreclosure as to the 1100 Packer Street Property. Those first two cases strengthen the inference
in this case as they are evidence of a more general scheme or modus operandi employed by Ms.
Gassmann in response to JJS foreclosure efforts. Regardless, under the circumstances, the Court
would reach the same result even if it were to disregard the first two bankruptcy cases and considered
only the three most recent cases.
bankruptcy case was not part of a scheme to delay or hinder JJS. She failed to carry
that burden. Consistent with the numerous documents and voluminous attachments
Ms. Gassmann filed with the Court, the vast majority of Ms. Gassmann’s arguments

and evidence at the Motion hearing pertained to issues outside the narrow scope of §
362(d)(4). For the most part, Ms. Gassmann used the hearing as an opportunity to
dispute the validity of JJS’s claim and to air various grievances and perceived
injustices. She did not speak to whether she filed this case as part of a scheme to
hinder or delay JJS.
Ms. Gassmann did, however, offer testimony that indirectly shed light on

issues of intent. Ms. Gassmann noted at the hearing, several times throughout her
testimony and closing argument, the impact that JJS’s foreclosure efforts have had,
and would continue to have, on her attempts to build a legacy for her children.29 The
Court finds these statements by Ms. Gassmann highly probative on the impetus for
her actions. Ms. Gassmann’s desire to preserve these properties for her children
provides a simple, unified explanation for the numerous bankruptcy filings and
continued post-judgment litigation over the foreclosures. This potential loss of assets

intended for Ms. Gassmann’s children is, in the Court’s assessment, the likeliest
explanation.

29 See, e.g., Audio Recording of Hearing attached to Doc. 63, at 00:03:25 to 00:03:46 (“My interest in in
in trying to assist Mr. Roher in, in consultation with Mr. Meador, was simply to ensure that property
was not lost so that my children could essentially get the property back and potentially not have ever
lost it in a foreclosure sale.”); 00:26:14 to 00:26:18 (“My, my entire life savings were wrapped up in
these three properties”); 00:26:37 to 00:26:44 (“And my -- my -- my -- my true interest here is to ensure
that the children, um, have a legacy”); 00:46:25 to 00:46:36 (closing argument) (“I have spent the better
part of, um, my lifetime acquiring properties, for my retirement and for my children.”).
The Court also finds probative the following statement from Ms. Gassmann,
made in one of her filings and in opposition to the prospective nature of a § 362(d)(4)
finding: “The two-year prospective injunction JJS seeks would extinguish not only

the Debtor's rights but the rights of innocent third parties to seek bankruptcy
protection with respect to 1100 Packer Street. This extraordinary remedy would
immunize JJS from any legal challenge for two years regardless of what discovery
reveals.” Doc. 47 at 13, ¶ 20. In the present context—a fifth bankruptcy within one
year, filed by four different individuals or entities, each claiming different interests
in common real property—the Court views this statement as tantamount to an

admission that bankruptcy cases will continue to be filed by persons or entities
claiming an interest in the 1100 Packer Street Property unless and until relief is
granted pursuant to § 362(d)(4).
For all the foregoing reasons, the Court finds this case was filed as part of a
scheme to hinder or delay JJS’s foreclosure efforts as to the 1100 Packer Street
Property.
C. Various Issues or Defenses Raised by Ms. Gassmann

1. Validity of JJS’s Claim As noted above, Ms. Gassmann’s opposition to the Motion is driven primarily by disputes relating to the validity JJS’s claim against the 1100 Packer Street Property. The Court stated at the hearing the validity of JJS’s claim and the merits of Ms. Gassmann’s various objections to the claim were not issues to be decided in connection with the Motion. The Court takes this opportunity to elaborate on its statements at the hearing. “Congress intended that hearings under Section 362 should be expedited,

summary proceedings.” In re Regency Woods Apartments, Ltd., 686 F.2d 899, 902 (11th Cir. 1982). See also, e.g., Grella v. Salem Five Cent Sav. Bank, 42 F.3d 26, 33 (1st Cir. 1994) (“a hearing on a motion for relief from stay is merely a summary
proceeding of limited effect”). As such, “[a] hearing on a motion for relief from stay is
not designed to resolve substantive claims between parties. Its purpose is to permit
a creditor who asserts a colorable claim to obtain relief from stay to adjudicate its

rights elsewhere pursuant to nonbankruptcy law.” In re Hepburn, No. 25-57411-
PWB, 2025 WL 2808651, at *2, 2025 Bankr. LEXIS 2482, at *5–6 (Bankr. N.D. Ga.
Sept. 30, 2025). See also, e.g., Strickland v. Wells Fargo Bank, No. 5:14-CV-00186
CAR, 2014 WL 7003772, at *2, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170661, at *5 (M.D. Ga. Dec.
10, 2014) (“A ‘hearing on a motion for relief from stay is meant to be a summary
proceeding, and the validity or merits of claims and defenses are not litigated during
the hearing.’ Rather, the purpose of the hearing is simply to determine whether a

creditor has a colorable claim to property of the estate.’”) (quoting In re Fontaine, No.
10-98793, 2011 WL 1930620, at *1, 2011 Bankr. LEXIS 1864, at *3 (Bankr. N.D. Ga.
Apr. 14, 2011)).
In other words, in the context of stay relief under § 362, Ms. Gassmann’s
numerous arguments attacking the validity of JJS’s claim are beside the point. JJS
is neither required nor expected to address all of those arguments, let alone disprove
them, in a stay relief proceeding. JJS need only show a colorable claim to the 1100
Packer Street Property to seek relief from the automatic stay. Here, JJS’s claim arises
from a final judgment of foreclosure entered by the Circuit Court of the Sixteenth

Judicial Circuit in and for Monroe County, Florida. JJS has met its burden of showing
a colorable claim. See, e.g., In re Montgomery, 262 B.R. 772, 776 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2001)
(“[T]he bankruptcy court should not entertain and decide a respondent's challenge to
a movant's underlying post-foreclosure position in the context of a motion for relief
from stay, where the movant has a ‘colorable’ claim of ownership after a completed
foreclosure sale and the challenge would sound under nonbankruptcy foreclosure law

or under 11 U.S.C. §§ 544, 547, or 548.”).
2. Service of Motion
Ms. Gassmann also opposes the Motion on grounds of lack of service. Attached
to the Motion is a certificate of service reflecting service on Ms. Gassmann at two
locations: (1) her address of record as listed in the bankruptcy record, 12172 Linton
Road, Sparta, Georgia, and (2) the 1100 Packer Street Property. See Doc. 15 at 9.
“There is a presumption that a letter that is properly addressed and placed in

the mail will be delivered to the addressee in a timely manner. However, this
presumption is rebuttable.” In re Hobbs, 141 B.R. 466, 468 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1992)
(citations omitted). “The mere denial of receipt, without more, is insufficient to rebut
the presumption. But direct testimony of nonreceipt, combined with other evidence,
may be sufficient to rebut the presumption.” In re Farris, 365 F. App'x 198, 200 (11th
Cir. 2010) (citations omitted).
Here, there is a presumption that Ms. Gassmann received the Motion because
the Motion’s certificate of service reflects service via mail addressed to Ms. Gassmann
at her home address as provided in her bankruptcy petition. See, e.g., id. (“Here, the

court's notice of the hearing was accompanied by a certificate of service showing that
the notice was mailed to Farris at his home address as provided in the bankruptcy
petition. This mailing complied with the Bankruptcy Rules and the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure for completing service. Thus, it is presumed that the notice was
received.”).
Ms. Gassmann testified at the hearing she did not receive a copy of the Motion

at her address of record in Sparta, Georgia, and that she received notice of the Motion
through her tenant at the 1100 Packer Street Property.30 The Court considers this
testimony as “mere denial of receipt, without more,” such that it “is insufficient to
rebut the presumption” of receipt. In re Farris, 365 F. App'x at 200.
Additionally, Ms. Gassmann’s testimony on this point lacks credibility. In the
Court’s experience, in the face of an attorney’s certification of mailing, the more likely
explanation for a pro se party’s denial of having received a piece of mail is a lack of

diligence or candor by the pro se party. In this case and across the various other
bankruptcy cases and state court appeals, allegations of lack of service or notice

30 Audio Recording of Hearing attached to Doc. 63, at 00:04:16 to 00:04:37 (“So essentially my -- my
response to the creditor’s claim is based on some fundamental arguments. One was just the -- the --
the defective service. As a preliminary matter the creditor didn't ever serve me with this motion. He
mailed it to 1100 Packer in Key West.”); 00:04:49 to 00:05:06 (“They proceeded to send the mail to 1100
Packer. I don't know there if is a certificate of service on the creditor’s motion but I can testify today
that no mail was ever received by me at my address here in Hancock County.”); 00:47:31 to 00:47:44
(“I swear to God I did not receive any mail in Linton. I received a notice from my tenant that there was
mail that was delivered in in Key West.”).
abound.31 The numerosity of allegations suggest a persistent and ubiquitous failure
to serve and false certifications by several attorneys across different law firms and
different states in different courts. The more likely scenario, in the Court’s

assessment, is a lack of diligence or candor on the part of those making the
allegations. This is particularly true here, where the physical addresses and legal
names of the pro se parties are numerous and appear to be moving targets.32 The
Court has little basis to conclude with any confidence that Ms. Gassmann’s Georgia
address is her current address or a stable residence, so the Court gives little weight
to the contention that she failed to receive a piece of mail at that address.

31 See, e.g., Doc. 50 at 18, ¶ 41(d) (“Multiple appeals by multiple parties are pending ... in the foreclosure
case relating to 1100 Packer .... The appeals raise issues including whether courts had personal
jurisdiction over parties who were not personally served, including Ms. Gassmann and Palani
Meador[.]”); Doc. 47 at 2, ¶ 4 (the “Motion was never served on the Debtor at her address of record ….
Instead, counsel mailed it to 1100 Packer Street, Key West, Florida—a property occupied by a tenant,
Palani Meador, not the Debtor.”).Second Bankruptcy Case Doc. 48 at 4, ¶¶ 20–21 (alleging that in the
First Bankruptcy Case, Ms. Gassmann’s bankruptcy attorney “did not provide Gassmann with notice
of the filing of the Creditor’s motion for relief from the automatic stay” and “did not provide Ms.
Gassmann with notice of the hearing”); Second Bankruptcy Case Doc. 48 at 5–6, ¶ 28 (stating the
foreclosure judgment as to the 1104 Packer Street Property was obtained by, among other means,
“Titan failing to serve the owner of record”); Third Bankruptcy Case Doc. 20 at 2, ¶ 7 (“Debtor is filing
a grievance with the Florida Bar concerning [JJS’s counsel’s] unethical act of falsely certifying service
done for the purpose of obtaining Short Notice Relief against a Pro Se Debtor.”); Fourth Bankruptcy
Case Doc. 13 at 3, ¶¶ 11–12 (stating multiple notices of appeal were filed as to the 1104 Packer Street
Property foreclosure judgment because “[t]here is no record of service” as to Ms. Gassmann and Mr.
Meador).
32 See, e.g., Doc. 1 at 1, 2 (bankruptcy petition filed January 27, 2026, by Tanya Allison Gassmann,
with an address of 12172 Linton Road, Sparta, Georgia); Doc. 51-2 at 3 (appeal brief filed by Allison
Tanya Gassmann on January 22, 2026—five days before this case was filed—stating her address is
638 Rockland Place, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada); First Bankruptcy Case Doc. 1 at 1, 2, 11
(bankruptcy petition filed February 12, 2025, by Allison Tanya McLeod Gassmann located at the 1100
Packer Street Property, and identifying Palani Meador as located at 3330 Northside Drive Apt. 415,
Key West, Florida); Second Bankruptcy Case Doc. 1 at 1 (bankruptcy petition filed by Sinnsearan LLC,
formerly known as Katharina Tiffany and Veritas Gassmann L.L.C., with a principal place of business
at 30 N. Gould Street, Ste R, Sheridan, Wyoming, and a mailing address of 3330 Northside Drive,
Suite 415, Key West, Florida); Third Bankruptcy Case Doc. 1 at 1, 2 (bankruptcy petition filed October
2, 2025, by Palani Meador, located at the 1100 Packer Street Property); Fourth Bankruptcy Case Doc.
1 at 1, 2 (bankruptcy petition filed November 20, 2025, by Virginia and Packer Holdings L.L.C., with
a principal place of business of 922 Virginia Street, Key West, Florida, and a mailing address of 930
Truman Street, Suite 48, Key West, Florida).
IV. Conclusion

For all the foregoing reasons, the Court finds the filing of this case was part of
a scheme to hinder or delay JJS through multiple bankruptcy filings affecting the
1100 Packer Street Property. The Court will enter an order consistent with this
memorandum opinion.
END OF DOCUMENT