Roy Phifer Chapter 13 Motion to Reconsider Denied

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

Oct. 23, 2025 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

In re Roy Phifer

United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Alabama

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 21-30816

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (6)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (39K)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

In re Case No. 21-30816-CLH
Chapter 13
ROY PHIFER,
Debtor.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION
TO RECONSIDER SEPTEMBER 26, 2025 ORDERS

On October 22, 2025, this matter came before the Court for hearing on the
Motion to Reconsider September 26, 2025 Orders Doc. 112 filed by Roy Phifer (the “Debtor”). Based on the pleadings of record,
the arguments of the Debtor and counsel, and for the reasons below, the Motion to
Reconsider is DENIED.
JURISDICTION
The Court has jurisdiction to hear this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1334 (b) and the General Order of Reference entered by United States District
Court for the Middle District of Alabama on April 25, 1985. Venue is proper
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409. This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C.
§ 157 (b)(2).
BACKGROUND
The Debtor, through his former bankruptcy counsel, Paul D. Esco (“Mr.
Esco”), filed a voluntary petition under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code on
May 7, 2021 (the “Filing Date”). The Debtor listed his residence as being located
at 3754 Gaston Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36105 (the “Residence”). Doc. 1.
In his Statement of Financial Affairs, the Debtor stated that he owned a business
called RDL Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Vision Express Tours (the “Business”) located
at 4620 Endover Drive, Montgomery, Alabama 36105 (the “Commercial
Property”). Doc. 11 at pp. 6-7. In his schedules, the Debtor listed the Commercial
Property but stated that the Commercial Property was “in name of Debtor’s
business only: VISION EXPRESS TOURS & RDL ENTERPRISE INC.” Doc. 16
at p. 1. The Debtor also listed his 100% ownership interest in the Business but
stated that the Business had not operated since March 4, 2020. Doc. 16 at p. 5.
The Debtor identified Jack Daniels (“Mr. Daniels”) as a secured creditor
holding a Mortgage on the Commercial Property but, again, noted that the
Commercial Property was in the name of the Business only. Doc. 16 at p. 11. On
July 13, 2021, Mr. Daniels filed a proof of claim in the Debtor’s case (the “Daniels
Claim”), asserting a claim of $64,989.00 and a pre-petition arrearage of $4,085.55.
Claim No. 5. The Promissory Note attached to the Daniels Claim named the
Business as the obligor and was executed by the Debtor in his capacity as President
of the Business. Claim No. 5 at pp. 6-9. The Corrective Mortgage attached to the
Daniels Claim named the Business as the Mortgagor and was executed by the
Debtor in his capacity as President of the Business. Claim No. 5 at pp. 10-12.
The Debtor filed his Amended Plan (the “Plan”) on July 19, 2021. Doc. 30.
The Plan proposed, among other things, to pay Mr. Daniels direct ongoing post-
petition payments of $732.00 per month and cure payments on the pre-petition
arrearage of $70.00 per month. Id. at pp. 2-3. The Court confirmed the Plan on
August 17, 2021. Doc. 44.
On April 4, 2023, Mr. Daniels filed his Motion to Determine Absence of Co-
Debtor Stay and for Comfort Order (the “Daniels Motion”). Doc. 56. In the
Daniels Motion, Mr. Daniels argued that because the Commercial Property was
owned by the Business and the Promissory Note and Corrective Mortgage were in
the name of the Business, the automatic stay did not prevent Mr. Daniels from
foreclosing on the Commercial Property. Id. at p. 1. Mr. Daniels asserted that
notwithstanding the terms of the Plan, no payments had been made since January
31, 2023, although that January 31, 2023, payment appeared to have covered the
period from November 2022 through February 2023. Id. at p. 2.
On June 8, 2023, the Court held a hearing on the Daniels Motion. After the
hearing, the parties submitted an Order, which the Court entered on June 29, 2023
(the “Daniels Order”). Doc. 66. In the Daniels Order, the Court found that no stay
applied to the Business and that Mr. Daniels was entitled to foreclose on the
Commercial Property should the Business become contractually in default. Id. The Daniels Order also reduced the Daniels Claim to the amount paid. Id. During the Debtor’s case, the Chapter 13 Trustee has filed several notices or
motions to dismiss because the Debtor failed to make payments required under the
Plan. The first notice was filed on June 5, 2023. Doc. 61. The status report
related to this notice specified that the Debtor was $5,192.00 delinquent in
payments under the Plan, and that payments needed to increase to $1,165.00 per
month for the Plan to remain feasible (i.e., for the Debtor to pay the remaining
balance due under the Plan before the expiration of the statutory 60-month limit for
completion). Doc. 67. After a hearing on July 13, 2023, the Court entered an
order increasing Plan payments to $1,165.00 per month to maintain feasibility.
Doc. 70. Based on that order, the Chapter 13 Trustee withdrew the notice. Doc.
72.
The Chapter 13 Trustee filed a notice on March 6, 2024, indicating that the
Debtor was $8,614.00 delinquent in payments under the Plan. Doc. 73. The
Chapter 13 Trustee subsequently withdrew that notice. Doc. 77.
The Chapter 13 Trustee filed a motion on July 30, 2024, stating that the
Debtor was $10,174.00 delinquent in payments under the Plan. Doc. 78. The
status report related to this motion noted that the Debtor was $11,339.00
delinquent in payments under the Plan, and that payments needed to increase to
$1,317.00 per month for the Plan to remain feasible. Doc. 82. After a hearing on
September 12, 2024, the Court entered an order increasing Plan payments to
$1,419.00 per month to maintain feasibility. Doc. 84. Based on that order, the
Chapter 13 Trustee withdrew the motion. Doc. 87.
The Chapter 13 Trustee filed its most recent motion (the “Trustee’s Motion
to Dismiss”) on August 4, 2025, stating that the Debtor was $18,180.00 delinquent
in payments under the Plan. Doc. 91. The Court set the Trustee’s Motion to
Dismiss for hearing on September 24, 2025. Notice of the hearing on the Trustee’s
Motion to Dismiss was served on the Debtor by first class mail addressed to the
Residence. Doc. 94. The status report related to the Trustee’s Motion to Dismiss
indicated that the Debtor was $19,599.00 delinquent in payments under the Plan,
and that payments needed to increase to $1,883.00 per month for the Plan to
remain feasible. Doc. 95.
On September 15, 2025, the Debtor filed, without consulting Mr. Esco, a
Motion to Enforce Automatic Stay and Request for Sanctions Doc. 96. In the Motion for Sanctions, the Debtor asserted that Mr.
Daniels violated the automatic stay by demanding possession of the Commercial
Property. Id. at p. 1. The Debtor signed the Motion for Sanctions and identified
himself as a “Pro Se Debtor.” Id. at p. 2. The Court set the Motion for Sanctions
for a hearing on September 24, 2025. Notice of the hearing on the Motion for
Sanctions was served on the Debtor by first class mail addressed to the Residence.
Doc. 100.
On September 17, 2025, Mr. Daniels filed the Response by Jack W. Daniels
to Motion to Enforce Automatic Stay and Request for Sanctions (the “Daniels
Response”). Doc. 99. In the Daniels Response, Mr. Daniels noted that the Daniels
Order confirmed the absence of a stay with respect to the Business and the
Commercial Property and disclosed that it had completed a foreclosure of the
Commercial Property on August 4, 2025. Id. at p. 1.
On September 18, 2025, Mr. Esco filed a Motion to Withdraw as Attorney
(the “Motion to Withdraw”), stating that the Debtor and Mr. Esco disagreed
regarding a legal issue that has presented a conflict for counsel. Doc. 101. The
Court set the Motion to Withdraw for hearing on September 24, 2025. Notice of
the hearing on the Motion to Withdraw was served on the Debtor by first class mail
addressed to the Residence. Doc. 104.
In reply to the Daniels Response, on September 19, 2025, the Debtor filed,
again without the assistance of Mr. Esco, his Motion to Reopen Case and Amend
Chapter 13 Plan to Include Business Debt and Enforce Stay (the “Debtor’s
Reply”). Doc. 103. The Debtor again asserted that Mr. Daniels’ actions violated
the automatic stay and alleged that Mr. Daniels improperly foreclosed on the
Commercial Property. The Debtor also sought to amend the Plan to pay balances
due on the Commercial Property and to bring the Commercial Property within the
protection of the automatic stay. Id. at pp. 2-3. The Court set the Debtor’s Reply
for hearing on September 24, 2025.
On September 24, 2025, the Court held a hearing on the Trustee’s Motion to
Dismiss, the Motion for Sanctions, the Daniels Response, the Motion to Withdraw,
and the Debtor’s Reply. Mr. Esco, Tina Hayes (staff attorney for the Chapter 13
Trustee), and Richard Dean (attorney for Mr. Daniels) appeared at the hearing.
The Debtor did not appear at the hearing.
With respect to the Motion to Withdraw, the Court determined that because
the Debtor had begun to file documents pro se, there was an irreconcilable conflict
between the Debtor and Mr. Esco. Accordingly, the Court granted the Motion to
Withdraw. Doc. 106.
With respect to the Motion for Sanctions, the Daniels Response, and the
Debtor’s Reply, the Court took judicial notice of the Daniels Order, which
confirmed the inapplicability of the automatic stay to the Business and the
Commercial Property. Consistent with this finding on judicial notice, the Court
denied the Motion for Sanctions. Doc. 107.
Given that the Debtor did not attend the hearing, the Court did not dismiss
the Debtor’s case for lack of a defense. Instead, the Court entered an order
increasing the Debtor’s Plan payments to $1,575.00 per month to maintain
feasibility. Doc. 108. The Court also reset the hearing on the Trustee’s Motion to
Dismiss for December 17, 2025. Doc. 105.
On October 10, 2025, the Debtor filed the Motion to Reconsider. In the
Motion to Reconsider, the Debtor alleges he has been abandoned by Mr. Esco and
lied to by Mr. Dean. Doc. 112, at p. 1-2. He also alludes to a separate lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. Id. at p. 1.
The Debtor asserts that Mr. Daniels has violated the stay because the Plan provided
for the payment of the Business’ debt related to the Commercial Property. Id. at p.
3-6. The Debtor also asserts that Mr. Esco, Mr. Dean, and prior counsel for Mr.
Daniels coordinated their efforts to harm him. Id. at p. 9. He requests that the
Court vacate the orders on the Trustee’s Motion to Dismiss, the Motion for
Sanctions, and the Motion to Withdraw (collectively, the “Challenged Orders”).
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A. Standard of Review
The Court construes “pro se filings liberally to afford review on any ‘legally
justifiable base.’” Smith v. United States, 420 Fed. Appx. 944, 945 (11th Cir.
2011) (citing Sanders v. United States, 113 F.3d 184, 187 (11th Cir. 1997)).
Because pro se litigants often “lack familiarity with bankruptcy law and
procedure,” the court “liberally construes pro se pleadings to permit consideration
of the relief sought within the applicable legal and procedural limitations.” In re
Stenson, Case No. 05-93978, 2005 WL 6488095, at *1 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. Nov. 17,
2005). See also Isaac v. IMRG, 224 Fed. Appx. 907, 909 (11th Cir. 2007) (citing
Faulk v. City of Orlando, 731 F.2d 787, 789 (11th Cir. 1984)).
The Motion to Reconsider is governed by Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, as incorporated by Bankruptcy Rule 9023. In re Moorer, 544
B.R. 702, 704 (Bankr. M.D. Ala. 2016). Motions for reconsideration “should raise
new issues by demonstrating why the court should reconsider its prior decisions,
and setting forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to
reverse its prior decision.” In re Sanomedics, Inc., No. 16-21659-RAM, 2018 WL
3816772, at *2 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. July 25, 2018) (internal quotations omitted). Rule
59(e) is not designed to “give a party the opportunity to rehash evidence, legal
theories, or arguments” that it could have raised previously. Carn v. Audientis
LLC (In re Specalloy Corp.), 585 B.R. 916, 919 (Bankr. M.D. Ala. 2018).
There are three grounds for granting a motion to reconsider: (1) an
intervening change in controlling law; (2) consideration of newly discovered
evidence; and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. In re
Moorer, 544 B.R. at 704. Even construing the Debtor’s pro se Motion to
Reconsider liberally to afford review on any legally justifiable basis, none of these
grounds apply here.
B. The Motion to Withdraw
With respect to the Court’s order on the Motion to Withdraw, the Court
takes judicial notice of the Debtor’s pro se filings immediately prior to and
following Mr. Esco’s request to withdraw as counsel. The Court also notes the
allegations the Debtor has lodged against Mr. Esco in the Motion to Reconsider
itself. These pleadings, coupled with the Debtor’s characterizations of Mr. Esco at
the hearing on the Motion to Reconsider, evidence a complete breakdown of the
attorney-client relationship.
There is no new evidence indicating circumstances have changed regarding
this relationship, and there has been no intervening change in controlling law since
the Court entered the order on the Motion to Withdraw. The Debtor has not argued
that the Court committed clear error in granting the Motion to Withdraw, and there
is no manifest injustice in permitting Mr. Esco to withdraw from representing a
client that fundamentally disagrees with him on how to proceed in this case.
Accordingly, the Motion to Reconsider is due to be denied as to the Motion to
Withdraw.
C. The Trustee’s Motion to Dismiss
As to the Trustee’s Motion to Dismiss, the Court takes judicial notice that
this motion was the fourth motion or notice filed in the Debtor’s case calling to the
Court’s attention that the Debtor had failed to make the payments required under
the Plan. Given the number of prior notices and motions, the record contained
sufficient cause for dismissal of the Debtor’s case under 11 U.S.C. § 1307 (c)(6).
Instead, the Court, in its discretion, declined to dismiss the case and reset the
Trustee’s Motion to Dismiss for hearing on December 17, 2025. This gave the
Debtor yet another opportunity to complete his case and receive a discharge.
Because of the Debtor’s failure to make prior payments under the Plan, the
monthly payment amount had to increase to ensure timely completion. As the
Chapter 13 Trustee pointed out at the hearing, only ten months remain for the
Debtor to complete his payments under the Plan, and the remaining balance under
the Plan is such that payments of $1,575.00 are required for the case to pay out.1
This is not a matter of the Debtor’s preference or the Court’s discretion; it is a
matter of simple arithmetic in the context of controlling law. See 11 U.S.C. §
1322 (d)(1).
The Debtor presented no new, previously undiscoverable evidence
indicating that the Chapter 13 Trustee’s calculations were incorrect, nor has there
been any intervening change in the law since the Court entered the order on the
Trustee’s Motion Dismiss. Moreover, the Debtor has not indicated any clear error
in the order, nor has he demonstrated that the Court’s order permitting him to
remain in Chapter 13 to complete his case and receive a discharge resulted in
manifest injustice. Thus, the Motion to Reconsider is due to be denied as to the
Trustee’s Motion to Dismiss.
D. The Motion for Sanctions
With respect to the Motion for Sanctions, the Court takes judicial notice of
the Debtor’s petition, schedules, and statement of financial affairs, which were
filed under penalty of perjury. In each of these filings, the Debtor represented that
the Business was a separate entity from the Debtor and that the Commercial
Property belonged to the Business. As such, the Commercial Property – by the
Debtor’s own admission – was not property of the Debtor or property of the estate,
meaning the automatic stay did not apply to the Commercial Property. See In re
Johnson, 608 B.R. 784, 788-790 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 2019). While the Plan did
provide that the Debtor would pay Mr. Daniels on account of the debt owed by the
Business, that did not convert the Commercial Property into property of the
bankruptcy estate. See id. at 791-92. Moreover, the Daniels Order – entered
nearly 2½ years ago – specifically stated that the automatic stay did not apply to
the Commercial Property.

1 At the hearing on the Motion to Reconsider, the Chapter 13 Trustee informed the Court that the unaudited
remaining balance due under the Plan is $16,500.00, which indicates the Plan payment will need to increase to
timely pay out in ten months.
The Daniels Order is consistent with the Bankruptcy Code and the sound
reasoning set forth in the Johnson case. There has been no intervening change in
the law between the Court’s entry of the order on the Motion for Sanctions and the
Motion to Reconsider. There is no newly discovered evidence suggesting that the
Commercial Property was owned by the Debtor instead of the Business. Based on
the undisputed facts and the applicable law, the Court did not commit clear error
when it denied the Motion for Sanctions.
While the Debtor might argue that the order works a manifest injustice upon
him, the Court notes that the Debtor’s choice to incorporate the Business and place
the Commercial Property in the Business’ name provided the Debtor with many
benefits, including the protection of the Debtor’s assets from creditors of the
Business. The corporate existence of the Business cannot be ignored to now
convert its assets the Debtor’s personal assets for purposes of the automatic stay.
See Johnson, 608 B.R. at 789. Accordingly, the Motion to Reconsider is due to be
denied with respect to the Motion for Sanctions.
CONCLUSION
The Court finds that the Debtor has failed to establish the elements
necessary to alter the Challenged Orders. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Motion to Reconsider is DENIED.
Done this 23" day of October, 2025.

p)ew
COW —
Christopher L. Hawkins
United States Bankruptcy Judge
Cc: Debtor, Pro se
Paul D. Esco
Richard C. Dean, Jr., Attorney for Jack W. Daniels
Sabrina L. McKinney, Trustee