590 B.R. 1
D. Me.2018Background
- Debtor Leland S. Smith Jr. filed a second Chapter 13 petition in December 2016 after a prior Chapter 13 was dismissed in November 2016; the second case was confirmed in March 2017.
- Maine Bureau of Revenue Services (MRS) filed a claim and sought clarification whether the automatic stay terminated under 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3)(A) after 30 days because Smith had a prior dismissal within the previous year.
- No party moved to continue the automatic stay under § 362(c)(3)(B) within the 30-day window.
- The Bankruptcy Court concluded § 362(c)(3)(A) terminates the automatic stay in its entirety after 30 days (including protection for property of the estate) and allowed creditor actions to proceed; Smith appealed.
- The district court reviewed de novo the legal question and affirmed the Bankruptcy Court, adopting the minority interpretation that the stay ends entirely after 30 days for repeat-filers absent timely court-ordered continuation.
Issues
| Issue | Smith's Argument | MRS's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 362(c)(3)(A)'s phrase "with respect to the debtor" limit termination to only actions against the debtor and debtor's non-estate property, preserving the stay for property of the estate? | The phrase is plain and distinguishes debtor/person and non-estate property from estate property, so the stay survives for estate property. | The phrase does not create a property-based exception; it distinguishes persons (e.g., repeat-filer vs. non-repeat spouse), and the stay terminates entirely after 30 days. | The court held the stay terminates in its entirety after 30 days; protection for property of the estate does not survive by virtue of that phrase. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Jumpp, 356 B.R. 789 (1st Cir. B.A.P. 2006) (majority view: § 362(c)(3)(A) terminates stay only as to debtor and debtor's non-estate property)
- In re Reswick, 446 B.R. 362 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 2011) (minority view: § 362(c)(3)(A) terminates the automatic stay entirely after 30 days)
- St. Anne's Credit Union v. Ackell, 490 B.R. 141 (D. Mass. 2013) (adopts minority view; § 362(c)(3)(A) meant to curb serial-filing abuse)
- United States v. Ron Pair Enters., 489 U.S. 235 (1989) (plain-meaning rule; courts enforce clear statutory text)
- Lamie v. U.S. Tr., 540 U.S. 526 (2004) (courts must enforce unambiguous statutes as written)
- NFIB v. Sebelius (King/Burwell context cited), 576 U.S. ---- (2015) (caution about applying strict canons where statutory drafting is inartful)