In March 2006 Glenn Hagele filed a defamation lawsuit against Brent Hanson of LasikFraud.com in Superior Court of California, Sacramento County . Hanson had published a false (and possibly forged) letter purportedly from a collection agency claiming that this agency was attempting to collect a debt owed by Glenn Hagele to Brent Hanson. See Glenn Hagele Defamation Suit Against Brent Hanson.
Hanson's alleged defamation of Hagele occurred after he filed for federal bankruptcy protection in the Middle District of North Carolina, therefore the alleged defamation was not subject to the bankruptcy. See Brent Hanson Bankruptcy.
Whenever a person files for bankruptcy protection, all collection efforts of any kind are automatically stayed by the court. Although Hanson's defamation against Glenn Hagele was not subject to the bankruptcy court's automatic stay, Hagele took the extra step of bringing the defamation litigation to the attention of the bankruptcy court for an official determination that the automatic stay does not apply. At the time of this filing, Hanson reportedly filed a complaint with the California State Bar Association, claiming that Hagele's attorneys had violated federal law by filing litigation against Hanson on a matter subject to the bankruptcy court's automatic stay.
A hearing on the automatic stay issue was scheduled for June 1, 2006 in the US Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, however on May 31st Hanson's bankruptcy attorney provided notification that Hanson will not argue against the issue and agreed with the motion affirming Hagele's defamation litigation against Hanson is not subject to the bankruptcy court's automatic stay and never was.
Not only does this capitulation mean that Hagele may move forward in the defamation case without hesitation, but it affirms that Hanson's complaint against Hagele's attorneys was frivolous and without any merit whatsoever. Furthermore, because Hanson's defamation is now officially not subject to Hanson's bankruptcy, any amounts finally adjudicated to be owed by Hanson to Hagele may not be able to be released in bankruptcy for a number of years. If Hagele prevails in his defamation litigation, Hagele may be able to effect any appropriate collection efforts against Hanson, which may include property liens, income attachment, and seizure of financial accounts.
