- Case Type:
- Case Status:
- MB 17-036 (1st Circuit, Feb 26,2018) Published
- Bankruptcy court affirmed.
- Procedural context:
- Appeal from denial of a motion to "reinstate" the automatic stay after it had expired, the case being the second within one year.
- Debtor filed a chapter 13 case within one year of dismissal of her prior chapter 13 case, both times acting pro se. In the second case, she did not file a motion to extend the automatic stay. At the §341 meeting, she was told (apparently by the trustee) that the automatic stay had expired. She was surprised by this since she had not received any notice from the court. She immediately filed a motion to "reinstate" the stay, which was denied because the motion was not filed within the thirty day mandatory statute of repose. She appealed, and the BAP affirmed, holding that the court has no discretion to consider tardy motions to continue or "reinstate" the stay. Notably, the debtor did not request a ruling as to the extent that the stay had expired (i.e., whether it expired only as to the debtor or in toto), so the BAP did not reach the issue.
- Per curium decision by Lamoutte, Caban, and FInkle.
Schnitzel, Inc. v. Sorensen
Summarizing by Bradley Pearce
2699 in the system
7 Being Processed