AUTOMATIC STAY STOPPING CREDITOR HARRASSMENT CAN BE LOST.QUESTION 810-235-1970.


The automatic stay is an important tool that protects debtors from creditors. There are specific rules to keep it active. The debtor in this case missed a deadline but once the chapter 13 is confirmed the debtor will be protected.

ORDER DENYING DEBTOR’S MOTION TO IMPOSE AUTOMATIC STAY

This case is before the Court on a motion filed on January 18, 2012 by the Debtor, entitled
“Debtor’s Motion to Impose Automatic Stay” (Docket # 14, the “Motion”). Debtor filed her
voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 13 on December 13, 2011, initiating this case. Debtor
had previously filed another voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 13 on October 3, 2008,
initiating Case No.08-64260. That case was dismissed on October 18, 2011, so it was pending
within the one year preceding the filing of the current case. Debtor did not file a motion to extend the stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3)(B), and so, under 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3)(A), the automatic stay in this case terminated with respect to the Debtor on January 12, 2012.

On January 18, 2012, after the stay had terminated, Debtor filed the present Motion,
seeking an order imposing the automatic stay. The Court cannot grant this Motion. As the Court
has previously held in bench opinions in other cases, e.g., In re Gerken, Case No. 05-89213
(Docket ## 34, 36); and In re Bobb, Case No. 05-89175 (Docket ## 40, 53), and in written orders
in other cases, the Court does not have authority under 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(4)(B) or under 11
U.S.C. § 105(a) to impose the stay once the stay has terminated under 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3)(A).
In addition, the Court could not grant the present Motion based on 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(4)
in any event, because the Motion was not filed within 30 days after the case was filed, as required
by 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(4)(B).

Finally, however, the Court notes that the foregoing does not preclude the possibility of
obtaining injunctive relief equivalent to the automatic stay through a confirmed plan, as noted
below. For these reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion (Docket # 14), is denied. This Order is without
prejudice to Debtor’s right to propose and seek to confirm a Chapter 13 plan that imposes an
injunction equivalent in effect to the automatic stay, on a post-confirmation basis.

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
In re: Case No. 11-71568
HELEN PETTIFORD, Chapter 13
Debtor. Judge Thomas J. Tucker
_________________________________

Tags: , , , ,

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: