CLOSE v. EDISON, (Bankr.E.D.Pa. 2003)

In re HENRY P. CLOSE and SANDRA K. CLOSE, HENRY P. CLOSE and SANDRA K. CLOSE, Plaintiffs, v. ANDREA H. EDISON, Defendant, Chapter 7, Debtors

Bankruptcy No. 93-17145DWS, Adversary No. 03-0153United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.
October 29, 2003

ORDER
DIANE SIGMUND, Bankruptcy Judge

AND NOW, this 29th day of October 2003, upon consideration of the Cross-Motions of Plaintiffs Henry and Sandra Close (collectively “Plaintiffs”) and Defendant Andrea H. Edson (“Edson”) for Summary Judgment (the “Close Motion” and “Edson Motion,” respectively, and collectively the “Motions”), and for the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby ORDERED andDECREED that:

1. The Close Motion is GRANTED In Part and DENIED In Part as follows:
(A) Summary Judgment is GRANTED in favor of Plaintiffs as to Count I of the Complaint. The Court finds Edson in contempt

Page 2

of this Court’s Discharge Order dated November 23, 1994;
(B) Andrea Edson is ordered to cease any and all efforts to collect the $10,000 loan she made to Plaintiffs in 1991 and the $25,000 loan she made to Plaintiffs in 1992;
(C) Judgment shall be entered in favor of Plaintiffs and against Edson in the amount of $2,500;
(D) Within fifteen (15) days of the entry of this Order, Plaintiffs shall file an application for counsel fees and expenses in compliance with Local Bankruptcy Rule 2016-3. Edson shall have until ten (10) days following the filing of Plaintiffs’ application to file an objection thereto. No hearing shall be held on the application unless requested by one of the parties. If Plaintiffs fail to file their application as ordered, this Order shall be deemed final and this adversary case closed;
(E) Count II of the Complaint is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

2. The Edson Motion is DENIED.