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]
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.
- webadmin's blog
- Log in to post comments