Sekretaev

The plaintiff sought to foreclose a mortgage on certain real property owned by the defendant. The trial court rendered a judgment of strict foreclo- sure, from which the defendant appealed to this court, which affirmed the judgment and remanded the case to the trial court for the purpose of setting a new law day. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a motion to open and a notice of hearing to reset the law day, but before the hearing could be held, the defendant filed a bankruptcy petition, which automatically stayed the foreclosure proceedings. The bankruptcy court then granted the plaintiff's motion for relief from the automatic bankruptcy stay. The defendant appealed to the federal district court, which affirmed the bankruptcy court's order, concluding that the defendant, who had filed four bankruptcy petitions during the course of the foreclosure proceed- ings, had engaged in the serial filing of bankruptcy petitions to benefit from the automatic bankruptcy stays and to delay, hinder, or defraud his creditors. On the basis of that decision, the plaintiff sought to have the law day reset, but, on May 24, 2018, the defendant filed a fifth bankruptcy petition. The parties subsequently appeared at a hearing before the trial court, at which the court, by agreement of the parties, opened the judgment of strict foreclosure, set a new law day of August 15, 2018, and made updated findings regarding the value of the property for redemption. Thereafter, the defendant moved in the bankruptcy court to extend the automatic bankruptcy stay. On July 10, 2018, the bankruptcy court granted the defendant's motion and suspended for sixty days the relief from the stay it previously had granted to the plaintiff. In September, 2018, the bankruptcy court vacated the suspen- sion of and reimposed the plaintiff's relief from the stay. The plaintiff then filed in the trial court an application and execution for ejectment, in response to which the defendant objected and filed a motion for a sta