TEOFILO MOLINA RODRIGUEZ and JACKELINE ROSADO SILVESTRY

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
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR
THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
IN RE:
TEOFILO 	MOLINA RODRIGUEZ 	CASE NO. 10-12071 BKT
JACKELINE 	ROSADO SILVESTRY 	Chapter 13
XXX-XX-3207
XXX-XX-0102
FILED & ENTERED ON 02/14/2011
Debtor(s)
DECISION AND ORDER
This proceeding is before the Court upon the Debtor’s Motion to Impose
Automatic Stay under 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) [Dkt. No. 24]. 	The Debtor, who had a
case dismissed within the 1-year period preceding the present petition date,
previously filed a Motion for Continuance of the Automatic Stay Pursuant to 11
U.S.C. § 362(c)(3) 21 days after the petition date. 	This Court denied said
motion for failure to comply with Local Bankruptcy Rule 4001-5. 	Local Bankruptcy
Rule 4001-5 states that a motion for continuance of the automatic stay “should be
filed as a separate document at the time of the filing of the petition, or three
(3) days thereafter in order to allow sufficient time for a hearing on notice,
before the thirtieth (30th) day after the filing of the case” when the Debtor had
previously filed within the 1-year period prior to the later petition date and
failed to comply with the prompt filing of the 362(c)(3) motion in this case.
The Debtor now seeks imposition of the automatic stay under this Court’s
equitable powers to enforce provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101
et. seq., specifically under 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3). 	That section states that “if
Case:10-12071-BKT13 Doc#:33 Filed:02/14/11 Entered:02/14/11 15:34:40 Desc: Main
Document 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
a single or joint case of the debtor was pending within the preceding 1-year
period but was dismissed, […] the court may extend the stay in particular cases
as to any or all creditors […] after notice and a hearing completed before the
expiration of the 30-day period [after the filing of the later case].” In this
case, the 30 day period following the filing of the petition of the present case
has passed, therefore the Court cannot impose the stay after its expiration. This
Court will not use its equitable power to circumvent Congress mandate to comply
with the statutory deadline imposed.
WHEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Debtor’s Motion to Impose Automatic Stay
is DENIED as moot.
SO ORDERED.
San Juan, this 14 day of February, 2011.
Brian K. Tester
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
CC: 	DEBTOR(S)
HAROLD 	FRYE
ALEJANDRO 	OLIVERAS RIVERA
Case:10-12071-BKT13 Doc#:33 Filed:02/14/11 Entered:02/14/11 15:34:40 Desc: Main
Document Page 2 of 2