Case No. 08-52424.United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division.
May 30, 2008
ORDER DENYING, AS UNNECESSARY, DEBTOR’S MOTION TO EXTEND THE AUTOMATIC STAY
THOMAS TUCKER, Bankruptcy Judge
This case is before the Court on “Debtor’s Motion To Extend Stay,” filed on May 28, 2008 (Docket # 14). The Court must deny the motion because it is unnecessary. 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3) does not apply in this case, and thus the automatic stay will not terminate under that section.
Section 362(c)(3)(A) provides:
(3) if a single or joint case is filed by or against debtor who is an individual in a case under chapter 7, 11, or 13, and if a single or joint case of the debtor was pending within the preceding 1-year period but was dismissed, other than a case refiled under a chapter other than chapter 7 after dismissal under section 707(b) —
(A) the stay under subsection (a) with respect to any action taken with respect to a debt or property securing such debt or with respect to any lease shall terminate with respect to the debtor on the 30th day after the filing of the later case;
11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3)(A). This provision does not apply to this case because Debtor did not have any case “pending” within the 1-year period before filing this case that was dismissed.
Debtor filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 13 on May 21, 2008, initiating this case. This is Debtor’s third bankruptcy case. Debtor filed his first case on December 30, 2002 (Case No. 02-71132) (Chapter 13). An order granting dismissal of that case was entered on May 9, 2003, and that case was closed on March 24, 2004. Thus, that case was not pending within the 1-year period before filing this case. Debtor filed his second case on October 30, 2003
Page 2
(Case No. 03-70044) (Chapter 13). That case was not dismissed. Rather, on February 11, 2008, the Court filed an order granting debtor a discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 1328(a) after Debtor completed all payments under his Chapter 13 plan, and that case was closed on February 11, 2008. It was not dismissed.
For these reasons, Debtor’s motion is not necessary. The stay will not terminate under § 362(c)(3)(A).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that “Debtor’s Motion To Extend Stay” (Docket # 14) is DENIED as unnecessary.