X hits on this document





7 / 10

burden of establishing that Paxon had not disposed of the vehicle before their petition

was filed and that Paxon knew of the petition before disposition.

Debtors failed to carry the initial burden. Debtors introduced no evidence or legal

authority to contradict Paxon’s claim that the vehicle was completely disposed of when it

was assigned to Jacksonville Auto Auction without recourse or reserve. Essentially,

Debtors’ failed to show that Paxon exercised dominion over property of the estate after

the petition was filed. The automobile was property of the estate until sold by

Jacksonville Auto Auctions. See Chiodo, 250 B.R. at 409. The question of whether or

not the assignment of property of the estate by Paxon and the sale of property of the

estate by the auctioneer were proper under Florida law is not before the Court at this

time. The only relevant issue before the Court is whether Paxon exercised control over

the vehicle at any moment post-petition. The Court finds that Paxon disposed of the

vehicle completely upon assigning the vehicle over to the auctioneer without recourse

and without reservation. At that point, Paxon no longer exercised dominion over the

vehicle, as it could not retrieve the vehicle from the auctioneer. Debtors had the burden

of showing that Paxon performed some act of control over the vehicle post-petition.

Debtors failed to come forward with any evidence on this point.

Therefore, the timing of the final sale of the vehicle is irrelevant in a proceeding

for sanctions against Paxon for violation of the automatic stay unless Debtors bring

evidence to show that the time of sale, rather than the time of assignment, is dispositive.

Debtors failed to bring forward any evidence to show that Paxon maintained some

dominion over the vehicle until sale by the auctioneer. The assignment of the vehicle to

Document info
Document views18
Page views18
Page last viewedFri Oct 28 09:15:46 UTC 2016