24 B 17304
Debtor filed for relief under the Bankruptcy Code.  Since this was his third bankruptcy case within a year, he also filed a motion to impose stay.  Debtor sent notice of the motion to impose stay to tax purchaser Newline Holdings at the address of the attorney who had appeared for Newline in his second case, even though that attorney had not yet appeared in the third case.  Newline did not object to the motion to impose or appear at the hearing, and the court granted the motion.  Newline subsequently filed a motion to vacate the order imposing stay on the grounds that it was void for lack of due process.  HELD: Motion to vacate granted.  As a known creditor, Newline was entitled to actual notice of the motion to impose.  Service on an attorney who represented a creditor in a prior bankruptcy case is not service on the creditor in a later case.  Therefore, service did not comply with due process requirements.  Neither did service comply with Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9014 regarding service of a contested matter.  While there is precedent that service is sufficient when sent to the address listed on a proof of claim, that line of reasoning applies to a proof of claim filed in the same case.