court could be viewed as acting sua sponte, the court finds the dismissal order appropriate in light of the fact that Spencer and her counsel were on notice of the consequences of the failure to file the required documents. Indeed, such a course of action is contemplated by 11 U.S.C.A. § 105, which provides: The court may issue any order, process, or judgment that is necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this title. No provision of this title providing for the raising of an issue by a party in interest shall be construed to preclude the court from, sua sponte, taking any action or making any determination necessary or appropriate to enforce or implement court orders or rules, or to prevent an abuse of process. See also In re Black, 180 B.R. 534, 535 (S.D. Ind. 1995) (<HOLDING>); In re Meints, 222 B.R. 870, 872 (D. Neb.
holding that notwithstanding a debtors inability to obtain a chapter 13 discharge a debtor is nonetheless eligible to file a chapter 13 case holding that the texas proceeds rule is only applicable in a chapter 13 bankruptcy case and would not apply where the debtor sells homestead property postpetition in a chapter 7 bankruptcy case holding that a debtor was not acting in bad faith when he converted a case under chapter 7 to a case under chapter 13 for the purpose of discharging a debt for fraud but it was a fact which could be considered holding that truck to be retained by chapter 13 debtor must be valued at replacement cost to debtor because foreclosure value fails to account for debtors proposed use of collateral holding that bankruptcy court was not required to provide debtor with a hearing before dismissing debtors chapter 13 case where debtor received notice that his case was going to be dismissed if he missed another payment