Karen V Kayne

1:09-bk-12470CanbApr 21, 2011

Full text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
In re
KAREN V. KANE, 	No. 09-12470
Debtor(s).
______________________________________/
Memorandum on Motion for Relief From Stay
_________________
This Chapter 7 case was opened on August 3, 2009. The debtor’s discharge was entered on
December 1, 2009 and the case closed on December 7, 2009. The case was reopened on February 9,
2010, and the debtor’s discharge was subsequently revoked. Creditor CitiMorgtage, Inc., has now
moved for relief from the automatic stay to foreclose on the debtor’s real property at 17682 Carriger
Rd., Sonoma, California.
CitiMortgage argues that because the debtor’s discharge has been revoked and the trustee has
abandoned the property it is entitled to an order lifting the automatic stay. 	Ordinarily, that is so. See
11 U.S.C § 362(c)(1) and § 362(c)(2)(C). However, this case is governed by § 362(c)(2)(A), which
provides that the automatic stay terminates when the case is closed. Reopening the case does not
revive or reimpose the automatic stay. 	In re Menk, 241 B.R. 896, 914 (9th Cir.BAP1999) (“[T]o the
extent that the automatic stay expired in conjunction with closing, it does not automatically spring
back into effect. If protection is warranted after a case is reopened, then an injunction would need to be
imposed.”); In re Gruetzmacher, 145 B.R. 270, 273 (Bankr.W.D.Wis.1991); Burke v. United States
1
Entered on Docket
April 21, 2011
GLORIA L. FRANKLIN, CLERK
U.S BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case: 09-12470 Doc# 72 Filed: 04/21/11 Entered: 04/21/11 14:35:44 Page 1 of 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
(In re Burke), 198 B.R. 412, 416 (Bankr.S.D.Ga.1996); In re Trevino, 78 B.R. 29
(Bankr.M.D.Pa.1987). The motion is therefore unnecessary and pointless.
For the foregoing reasons, the motion will be denied as moot. Counsel for CitiMortgage may
submit an appropriate form of order to that effect.
Dated: April 21, 2011
SAlan Jaroslovsky
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
2
Case: 09-12470 Doc# 72 Filed: 04/21/11 Entered: 04/21/11 14:35:44 Page 2 of 2

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.