Translating Section 362(c)(3) What Gets Terminated

By: Michael C. Aryeh

St. John’s Law Student

American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review Staff

 

Adopting the majority approach, in In re Williford, the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas held that the plain meaning of the phrase “with respect to the debtor,” found in section 362(c)(3)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code, limits the termination of the automatic stay to the debtor and the debtor’s property, and the automatic stay does not terminate the stay with respect to the property of the estate.[1]  In Williford, the debtor and his wife executed a deed of trust to a secured creditor, placing a lean on their real property.[2]  At some point, the debtor defaulted on the note, the secured creditor served the debtor with a notice of acceleration and foreclosure.[3]  In response, the debtor filed for bankruptcy under chapter 7, but the case was subsequently dismissed due the debtor’s failure to file certain information with the bankruptcy court.[4]  Following the dismissal, the creditor again began serving the debtor with foreclosure notices.[5] The debtor then filed for bankruptcy under chapter 11 within a year of the dismissal of his previous chapter 7 case. [6] The debtor, however, failed to file a motion to extend the automatic stay within the 30-day window provided for in section 362(c)(3)(A).[7] Thirty-five days after the debtor filed his second case, the creditor moved to confirm that the automatic stay was “terminated.”[8] The next day the debtor moved to extend the stay.[9]  The court denied the debtor’s motion.[10] The court, however, agreed with the debtor that section 362(c)(3) did not terminate the entire automatic stay and, instead, only terminated the stay with respect to the “debtor’s property.”[11]

Courts have split as to whether section 362(c)(3)(A) terminates the entire automatic stay or just the stay with respect to the debtor’s property.[12] A minority of courts hold that § 362(c)(3)(A) should be read to terminate the entire automatic stay.[13]  The reasoning behind the minority view is the idea that congress intended § 362(c)(3) to deter second filings and that in order for this to be achieved § 362(c)(3) must be interpreted as terminating the automatic stay in its entirety.[14] The majority of courts, including the Williford court, have held that section 362 (c)(3)(A) only applies to the debtor and his or her property. [15] Under the majority approach, section 362(c)(3)(A) does not terminate the automatic stay with respect to property of the estate. 16 These courts feel that the language of the statute is clear and plain meaning should apply. They believe that the “statute’s statement that the stay ‘shall terminate with respect to the debtor’ implies a limitation upon the scope of the termination of the automatic stay.”17  The majority view reasons that if Congress wanted to terminate the entire stay they would have, just like they did in section 362(c)(4)(A)(1).18  Therefore, the majority of courts have opined that a plain reading of the words of § 362(c)(3) “makes sense and is entirely consistent with other provisions of section 362 and other sections of the Bankruptcy Code.”19
 
The Williford decision adopts the majority approach, as the court reaffirmed the established majority view that section 362(c)(3)(A) only terminates the automatic stay with regards to property of the debtor; section 362(c)(3)(A) does not terminate the automatic stay with regards to the property of estate.20  This means that the creditor will only be able to proceed against property that is “property of the debtor” at the commencement of the bankruptcy proceedings. [21] The property of the estate, however, which includes “all legal or equitable interests of the debtor in property as of the commencement of the case,” 22  remains protected by the automatic stay.  Practically, this means that the creditor’s only recourse will be against property that is exempt or excluded from the estate (assuming that the creditor is able to proceed against such property under state law).  Therefore, if the creditor wants to proceed against property of the estate, which is protected by an automatic stay, the creditor will still have to file a motion for relief from the automatic stay, which requires that the creditor establish that it is entitled to such relief. 23

 

 


 

1 In re Williford, 2013 WL 3772840 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. July 17, 2013).

2 Id.

3 Id.

4 Id.

5 Id. The case was dismissed due to the debtor’s failure to file certain information with the Bankruptcy Court.

6 Id.

7 Id.

8 Id.

9 Id.

10 Id. The motion was denied only to the extent that it requested a retroactive reinstatement of the automatic stay.

11 Id. For the majority view, the court looked to cases including In re Holcomb (380 B.R. 813 (10thh Cir. BAP 2008)) (automatic stay terminates with respect to the Debtor and Debtor’s property, but not with regard to the property of the estate), and In re Jumpp (356 B.R. 789 (1st Cir. BAP 2006)) (stay did not terminate with regards to property of estate). The court cited In re Reswick (446 B.R. 362 (9th Cir. BAP 2011)) (stay terminates with regards to Debtor, his or her property, and property of estate), In re Furlong (426 B.R. 303 (Bankr. C.D. Ill. 2010)) (stay terminates in its entirety), and In re Daniel (404 B.R. 318 (Bankr. N.D. Ill 2099))(stay terminates with respect to property of Debtor and property of estate), for cases conforming with the minority view.

12 See generally In re Scott-Hood, 473 B.R. 133 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 2012); In re Johnson,      335 B.R. 805 (Bankr. W.D. Tenn. 2006); In re Jones, 339 B.R. 360 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. 2006).

13Williford, at *2.

14 In re Reswick (446 B.R. 362, (9th Cir. BAP 2011).

15 Willliford, at *2.

16 Id.

17Id. at *3.

18 Id.

19 In re Jones, 339 B.R. 360 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. 2006).

20 Id. at *3

21 Bankr. L. Rep. P 1148 (C.C.H.), 2011 WL 577683.

22 11 USC 541 (a) (1).

23 Williford at *3.