§ 362(c)(4)(A)

Moore, In re

Ruling: 
Debtor’s counsel sanctioned for failing to investigate and discover debtor’s prior filings priorto fling debtor’s third case. (Bankr. E.D. Wis.)
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Moore, In re. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member
Consumer case opionion summary, case decided on March 11,2020, LexisNexis #0420-053

Christiano, In re

Ruling: 
Court noted that the dismissal date, and not the date of closing, was the relevant date fordetermining whether a case was "pending" for purposes of issuing an order of no stay ineffect. (Bankr. N.D. Ga.)
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Christiano, In re. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member
Consumer case opionion summary, case decided on August 08,2019, LexisNexis #1019-004

Marcano, In re

Ruling: 
Automatic stay did not go into effect on the petition date as debtor had two cases pendingwithin the prior year. (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.)
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Marcano, In re. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member
Consumer case opionion summary, case decided on June 24,2019, LexisNexis #0819-080

O'Farrill, In re

Ruling: 
Court found that there was no automatic stay in place as chapter 13 debtor had two cases pending within the preceding year, both of which were dismissed. (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.)
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of O'Farrill, In re. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member
Consumer case opionion summary, case decided on July 25,2017, LexisNexis #0917-041

In re Washington

A chapter 13 debtor filed a motion to impose the automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C.S. § 362(c)(4).
Ruling: 
Stay imposed in debtor's third case filed within one year due to rebuttal of presumption of bad faith.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Washington. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member
Consumer case opionion summary, case decided on February 23,2012, LexisNexis #0312-111

In re Lundquist

Chapter 13 debtors filed a motion to continue the automatic stay, 11 U.S.C. § 362, after a creditor effected a non-judicial foreclosure of the debtors'property.
Ruling: 
Motion to vacate dismissal did not extend pendency of case into one-year period so as to prevent stay in later case.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Lundquist. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member
Consumer case opionion summary, case decided on July 11,2007, LexisNexis #1007-041

Dixon v. Fannie Mae

Appellants sought review of an order of the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, which confirmed that no automatic stay was in effect.
Ruling: 
No stay was in effect where debtors had two cases pending and dismissed in the year prior to filing.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Dixon v. Fannie Mae. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

In re Murray

A creditor filed a motion for an order confirming the inapplicability of the automatic stay, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3)(C)(ii). The debtors responded that a creditor action involving the debtors'property was to occur exclusively in bankruptcy court during the pendency of the chapter 13 case.
Ruling: 
Although stay was not in effect in debtors'third chapter 13 filing, any action by creditor involving property of the estate was to be brought in bankruptcy court.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Murray. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

In re Haisley

After the debtor husband and wife filed a joint bankruptcy petition, a creditor filed an ex parte request for an order pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(4)(A)(ii), asking the court to confirm that no automatic stay was in effect because the debtor husband had two bankruptcies dismissed within the year preceding the filing of the pending case.
Ruling: 
Case dismissed as to debtor with two prior bankruptcies but not as to debtor spouse with no prior filings.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Haisley. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member
Subscribe to § 362(c)(4)(A)