In re Wade, 592 B.R. 672

Debtors Harold and Lorraine Wade filed a Chapter 13 petition on January 15, 2015, after a prior joint Chapter 13 case was dismissed less than one year earlier.
Because the prior case was dismissed within one year, 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3) caused the automatic stay to terminate 30 days after filing (Feb 14, 2015) unless the debtors obtained an extension; debtors filed but failed to re-notice a timely stay-extension motion, so the stay expired.
After the stay expired, creditor Kreisler Law P.C. obtained and recorded a state-court judgment and lien in April 2015 on a pre-petition debt; Kreisler later asserted it was unaware of the 2015 bankruptcy until 2017 but conceded notice in the prior case address.
Debtors moved for sanctions under § 362(k) for violating the automatic stay; Kreisler moved under § 362(j) to confirm the stay had terminated.
The core dispute was statutory: whether § 362(c)(3)(A) terminates the stay only as to the debtor personally, only as to non‑estate property, or as to debtor and all property (estate and non‑estate); the court adopted the interpretation that termination applies to the debtor(s) personally and to both estate and non‑estate property of those debtors.

Issue	Debtors' Argument	Kreisler's Argument	Held
Scope of stay termination under 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3)(A)	Termination limited to debtor personally; stay remains for estate property	Stay terminates as to debtor and estate and non‑estate property (i.e., broad termination)	Court held stay terminated as to the debtor(s) and their property (estate and non‑estate) subject to § 362(c)(3) on Feb 14, 2015
Sanctions for post‑petition judgment recorded in April 2015	Kreisler violated the stay and should be sanctioned under § 362(k)	Kreisler acted after the stay had terminated and sanctions are unwarranted	No sanctions: court found no actionable violation during the stay and imputed knowledge did not alone establish sanctionable conduct

In re Daniel, 404 B.R. 318 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2009) (advocates reading § 362(c)(3)(A) to apply to the serially‑filing debtor and thus to that debtor’s person and property)
In re Reswick, 446 B.R. 362 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2011) (interprets § 362(c)(3)(A) as terminating the stay as to the serial‑filing debtor’s property and person)
In re Bender, 562 B.R. 578 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) (views stay termination as applying to actions with respect to particular debt/property regardless of estate classification)
In re Holcomb, 380 B.R. 813 (B.A.P. 10th Cir. 2008) (majority view treating termination as limited to non‑estate property)