  |
  |
  |
    
  
   |
 | |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
362(c)(3)(A). The bankruptcy court found that the language of § 362(c)(3)(A) was plain and unambiguous and therefore did not consider legislative intent in interpreting the section. Based on its interpretation of the language, the bankruptcy court held that § 362(c)(3)(A) did not terminate the stay as it relates to property of the bankruptcy estate.
In this Ch. 11 case, the debtor was unable to propose a feasible plan for reorganization. The issue was whether the lack of a feasible plan constitutes cause for dismissal under the BAPCPA amendments to 11 USC 1112(b)(1). Although under the amended 1112 it is no longer enumerated grounds for dismissal, the court found that dismissal is appropriate where the proposed plan is not feasible and that a feasible plan is not possible.
In re Richard A. Smith, 2006 Bankr. LEXIS 3051 (Bankr. D. MD 2006)
In Smith a creditor had a PMSI on the debtor's vehicle pursuant to an installment loan. The debtor defaulted on his payments and the creditor obtained a judgment for on the installment loan agreement. The debtor then filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, and the plan provided for payment of the creditor's secured claim over the life of the plan plus interest. The creditors argued that the debtor failed to commence payments required under the new BAPCA § 1326(a)(1)(c) which required the debtor to make certain adequate assurance payments that became due after the entry of the order for relief and, therefore, the case should be dismissed. The court held that, although the pre-petition judgment did not invalidate the security interest for the debt and did not cause the claim for the debt to become not attributable to the purchase of such property for § 1326(a)(1)(c) purposes, no duty was imposed upon the debtor to make specific adequate protection payments as to creditors' judgment claim. The automatic right to receive adequate protection payments set forth in Section 1326(a)(1)(c) is only for portions of obligations that become due after the order for relief whereas here the judgment was obtained prepeition.
The debtor filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, but failed to comply with the Section 109 (h) credit counseling requirement prior to filing. While the debtor's motion to waive the credit counseling requirement was pending, a creditor foreclosed on her property. The issue in this case was whether the automatic stay was in place notwithstanding the fact that the debtor was eligible, which would void the foreclosure. The bankruptcy court
