United States v. Thom, Inc. (In Re Thom, Inc.)

95 B.R. 261, 1989 Bankr. LEXIS 101, 18 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 1310, 1989 WL 8495
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. Maine
DecidedFebruary 1, 1989
Docket19-10034
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 95 B.R. 261 (United States v. Thom, Inc. (In Re Thom, Inc.)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Thom, Inc. (In Re Thom, Inc.), 95 B.R. 261, 1989 Bankr. LEXIS 101, 18 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 1310, 1989 WL 8495 (Me. 1989).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

JAMES A. GOODMAN, Bankruptcy Judge.

Plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment under Title 28 U.S.C. § 2201. The Court finds for purposes of this case that an actual controversy exists between the parties and the Court has jurisdiction to hear *262 the matter. This is a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157.

The issue presented in this case is whether the automatic stay, 11 U.S.C. § 362, operates to toll or suspend the running of the 90-day period of redemption after a judgment of foreclosure. The case is presented by plaintiff on a motion for summary judgment and the parties have submitted an agreed statement of facts.

It is undisputed by the parties that the United States of America, Small Business Administration (“the SBA”) filed a complaint for judicial foreclosure under Me. Rev.Stat.Ann. Title 14, § 6322 (1964 & Supp.1988) in the United States District Court for the District of Maine on August 19, 1985. The subject matter of the foreclosure was real property consisting of land and buildings from which Thom, Inc. (debtor) operated a bed and breakfast under the name of Winters Inn. On April 11, 1986 that court granted the SBA summary judgment and issued its order of foreclosure and sale providing for a 90-day redemption period.

On July 8, 1986, two days before the expiration of the redemption period, debtor, defendant herein filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under Title 11 and an order for relief was entered on that date. The real property is virtually the only asset of the debtor and without that property debtor cannot reorganize.

The SBA cites Title 11 U.S.C. § 108(b) to persuade the Court that the entry of the order for relief extends the prefiling redemption period an additional 60 days and thereafter debtor has no other rights in the property. Debtor argues that Title 11 U.S. C. § 362(a) stays the running of the period of redemption until the stay is lifted as provided by 11 U.S.C. § 362(d) or until the stay is discontinued upon the occurrence of events as provided under § 362(c). Each party has cited numerous cases to support their respective positions. One of the cases cited is Johnson v. First National Bank of Montevideo, Minn., 719 F.2d 270 (8th Cir. 1983). The Johnson court states:

Courts which have considered the present question under § 362(a) and § 108(b) have been virtually unanimous in concluding that, upon the filing of a petition in bankruptcy by a debtor, one of the two sections operates to stay the expiration of a statutory redemption period. The courts are in sharp disagreement, however, as to which section is the fount of such authority, and as to the extent of the relief granted. One line of cases, anchored by In Re Jenkins, 19 B.R. 105 (D.C.D.Colo.1982), and In Re Johnson, 8 B.R. 371 (Bkrtcy.D.Minn. 1981), stands for the proposition that the automatic stay provisions of § 362(a) should be liberally construed to suspend the running of a statutory period of redemption. Other decisions, holding to the contrary with respect to § 362(a), have instead found that § 108(b) is the sole applicable statute, and that its automatic extension of a redemption period provides the only relief available.

Id. at 275. A close look at § 362 and § 108 will, however, dissuade the enlightened from any theory that these two code sections are either incompatible or that either section stays the expiration of a statutory exemption period.

First, § 362(a) provides:

Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, a petition filed under section 301,302 or 303 of this title, or an application filed under section 5(a)(3) of the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970 (15 U.S.C. 78eee(a)(3)), operates as a stay, applicable to all entities, of
(1) the commencement or continuation, including the issuance or employment of process, of a judicial, administrative or other action or proceeding against the debtor that was or could have been commenced before the commencement of the case under this title, or to recover a claim against the debtor that arose before the commencement of the case under this title;
(2) the enforcement, against the debt- or or against property of the estate, of a judgment obtained before the commencement of the case under this title;
(3) any act to obtain possession of property of the estate or of property from the estate'or to exercise control over property of the estate;
*263 (4) any act to create, perfect, or enforce any lien against property of the estate;
(5) any act to create, perfect, or. enforce against property of the debtor any lien to the extent that such lien secures a claim that arose before the commencement of the case under this title;
(6) any act to collect, assess, or recover a claim against the debtor that arose before the commencement of the case under this title;
(7) the setoff of any debt owing to the debtor that arose before the commencement of the case under this title against any claim against the debtor; and
(8) the commencement or continuation of a proceeding before the United States Tax Court concerning the debt- or.

This code section does not stay the running of any time period.

“Time and tide stayeth for no man.” 1

The effect of § 362 is to stay an entity from doing that which such entity has the power to do. An entity may be stayed from enforcing a judgment, from exercising control over property of the estate or property in possession of the estate, from enforcing liens on property of the estate, from acts to create, perfect or enforce against property of the debtor any lien to the extent that such lien secures a claim that arose before the commencement of the case.

Second, § 108(b) provides:

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Simon v. Navon
First Circuit, 1997
In Re Cormier
147 B.R. 285 (D. Maine, 1992)
Duprey v. Eagle Lake Water & Sewer District
615 A.2d 600 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1992)
Commodity Credit Corp. v. Marlow (In Re Julien Co.)
117 B.R. 910 (W.D. Tennessee, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
95 B.R. 261, 1989 Bankr. LEXIS 101, 18 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 1310, 1989 WL 8495, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-thom-inc-in-re-thom-inc-meb-1989.