Motion filed in Park Girl case
Attorneys for Rio Grande Valley residents who allege that JoLeigh Ares, Park Girl Sales and others defrauded them have asked the U.S. Bankruptcy Court to allow them to continue with their civil lawsuit in state district court, even though Park Girl Sales has filed for bankruptcy.
U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Richard S. Schmidt has set a hearing date of Feb. 15 to consider the motion filed by Texas RioGrande Legal Aid and attorney Eduardo V. Rodriguez on behalf of the residents.
Legal Aid and Rodriguez are asking the bankruptcy court to lift the automatic stay that prevents the civil lawsuit from continuing.
Attorney Eric Arthur Liepins of Dallas represents Park Girl Sales in the bankruptcy petition, and he has not been available for comment.
The residents filed a civil lawsuit in the state’s 444th District Court on Dec. 2, alleging that they were defrauded when they leased or purchased mobile homes from Ares, her businesses, and others.
JoLeigh Ares’ Park Girl Sales LLC, a mobile-home business that was based in La Feria, filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy Dec. 30. This halted attempts by creditors to collect what they claim the business owes them.
The U.S. Court website states that filing a petition under Chapter 7 “automatically stays” most collection actions against the debtor or the debtor’s property. Creditors can not initiate or continue lawsuits, garnish wages or demand payments.
Chapter 7 provides for the sale of a debtor’s nonexempt property and the distribution of the proceeds to creditors.
Park Girl Sales’ bankruptcy petition states that liabilities total $3,177,300 and that there are no assets.
The bankruptcy petition lists about 70 creditors.
According to the motion that Legal Aid and Rodriguez filed, lifting the stay would allow residents to attempt to obtain clear titles to their homes and would allow the holders of lease and purchase contracts to obtain the complete cash flow from the contracts.
It further would allow the residents to proceed with their tentative agreements with the holders of their contracts or, alternatively, to continue with the litigation in state court if the individual disputes with the contract holders cannot be mediated.
The court record shows that according to Rodriguez, Liepins indicated to him that he did not oppose the lifting of the stay.
