Case 8:19-bk-06985-CED Doc 43 Filed 11/18/19 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

In re: Case No. 19-bk-06985-CED

COLUMBUS PARTNERS COMMUNITY TRUST,

Debtor Chapter 11

MOTION FOR DAMAGES FOR VIOLATION OF

AUTOMATIC STAY AND OTHER CREDITOR MISCONDUCT

Debtor, COLUMBUS PARTNERS COMMUNITY TRUST, by and through its undersigned

counsel, hereby moves the Court for an award of damages against Creditor Columbus

Consolidated Government, d/b/a City of Columbus (“City”) for misconduct and violation of the

automatic stay and Section 366 of the Bankruptcy Code and alleges the following:

Background

1. Plaintiff filed a Petition for Voluntary Bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of Title 11 on

July 25, 2019 and this matter is pending.

2. The Debtor’s estate consists of real estate located in the City of Columbus, Georgia

which was used as a mobile home park commonly referred to as Fort Benning Park.

3. This case is affiliated with In Re Cusseta Road Community Trust, 19-bk-06986-CED

which was contemporaneously filed in the Middle District of Florida and which

remains pending before this Court.

4. In the affiliate case, the Debtor’s estate also consists of real estate located in

Columbus, Georgia which was used as a mobile home park commonly referred to as

Cusseta Road Park.

1
 Case 8:19-bk-06985-CED Doc 43 Filed 11/18/19 Page 2 of 5

5. Both mobile home parks are located near a military base in an area where affordable

housing is scarce, and Debtor had a waiting list of prospective tenants for the units.

6. The bankruptcy filing was precipitated by actions involving the City and its affiliated

utilities service entity, Columbus Water Works, in a wrongful condemnation effort

against the Debtor’s property.

7. The City was duly listed as a creditor Columbus Consolidated Government (“City”)

and which received notice of these proceedings.

8. Prior to the filing of the bankruptcy cases, throughout 2018 the Debtor had invested

over $250,000 into the mobile parks for renovations and code issues.

9. On September 24, 2019, upon application through this Court, Dean A. Kent was

employed as special counsel to pursue eminent domain claims against the City on

behalf of the Debtor.

10. On October 25, 2019, the Debtor filed a Motion for Extension to file its Plan and

Disclosure because special counsel was needing more time to investigate the cause of

action and file an adversary proceeding, as the Debtor’s Plan of Reorganization had

been relying upon re-opening the mobile home park.

11. On or about November 14, 2019, Debtor learned that the City demolished all 140

mobile home units and completely destroyed the Fort Benning Park.

12. Upon further investigation, Debtor discovered that the City had, apparently sometime

in August of 2019, demolished the Cusseta Road Park as well.

13. Both demolitions were conducted without any prior notice to Debtor, yet with great

public ado by the City in a series of news releases and even a press conference touting

2
 Case 8:19-bk-06985-CED Doc 43 Filed 11/18/19 Page 3 of 5

the $55,000,000 planned highway project which is strongly suspected to be the real

reason why the City has forcibly taken the Debtor’s property.

14. The City’s actions were not an exception under Section 362(b)(4) as the mobile home

units posed no imminent threat to the health, safety or welfare of the community and

in fact they would have provided sorely needed affordable housing for its residents.

15. City’s actions have caused extensive financial damages to the Debtor’s estate,

specifically:

a. The mobile home units have been demolished and will need to be rebuilt;

b. The Debtor’s continued loss of rental income;

c. City has further impaired the Debtor’s ability to restructure the assets by making a

series of public announcements stating that the land will be used for a new

highway, and thus making it more difficult for Debtor to market the property for

affordable housing purposes;

16. To add insult to injury, the City is even threatening to collect from Debtor the costs

that it incurred in demolishing the Debtor’s property, and has claimed to place a post-

petition lien against the Debtor’s property to force repayment of the cost.

Argument

17. City’s actions are improper and a violation of Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code.

18. Section 362 stays actions against the property of the bankruptcy estate. Specifically,

§362(a)(3) protects Debtor from attempts by creditors to exercise control over

property of the estate.

19. At all times relevant herein, City was enjoined by the automatic stay from interfering

with the property of the Debtor.

3
 Case 8:19-bk-06985-CED Doc 43 Filed 11/18/19 Page 4 of 5

20. The filing of a petition bankruptcy effectuates automatic of all proceedings against

Debtor effective the date the petition is filed and actions taken in violation of stay are

void, even if there is no actual notice of the stay. (Personalized Air Conditioning,

Inc.v. C.M. Systems of Pinellas, 522 So.2d. 465 Fla.App. 4 Dist, 1988). Here, the

Creditor received notice of the proceedings as it was listed on Schedule F as a

creditor.

21. A willful violation of the automatic stay occurs when the creditor knew that the stay

had been invoked and deliberately intended the action that violated the stay (In re

Hedetneimi 297 B.R. 837 Bkrtcy. M.D. Fla. 2003).

22. Section 362 provides that the court shall award costs and attorney’s fees, in

addition to actual damages and punitive damages when appropriate.

23. The Debtor’s damages are obviously extensive and irreparable in that due to City’s

absolute destruction of the mobile home park, it cannot resume business operations

and a cash flow, making a successful reorganization implausible.

24. Punitive damages are certainly appropriate in a situation like this in which the City

had notice of the automatic stay and yet it brazenly, with public fanfare, destroyed the

property of the bankruptcy estate.

WHEREFORE Debtor seeks an order finding City in violation of the automatic stay and

damages should be awarded to the Debtor, including but not limited to the actual amount of

damages, attorney’s fees and punitive damages..

Dated this 18th day of November, 2019.

By: /s/ Samantha L. Dammer, Esq.
__________________________________

SAMANTHA L. DAMMER, ESQUIRE

Florida Bar No.: 0036953

4
 Case 8:19-bk-06985-CED Doc 43 Filed 11/18/19 Page 5 of 5

Tampa Law Advocates, P.A.

620 E. Twiggs Street, Suite 110
Tampa, FL 33602
Ph: (813) 288-0303
Attorney for Debtor
sdammer@attysam.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 18th day of November, 2019, a true and correct copy of the

foregoing was sent by CM/ECF Electronic mail to all parties of interest on the Court’s CM/ECF

System, AND by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, to:

Columbus Consolidated Government, c/o City Attorney Clifton Fay, 100 10th Street, 6th Floor,

Columbus, Georgia, 31902; and to Thomas Gristina, Esq., Page Scrantom Sprouse Tucker Ford,

Synovus Center, 1111 Bay Avenue, 3rd Floor, Columbus, GA 31901

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Samantha L. Dammer, Esq.

__________________________________

SAMANTHA L. DAMMER, ESQUIRE

Florida Bar No.: 0036953
Tampa Law Advocates, P.A.
620 E. Twiggs Street, Suite 110
Tampa, FL 33602
Ph: (813) 288-0303
Attorney for Debtor
sdammer@attysam.com