In re Ellis, 339 B.R. 136 (Bkrtcy.E.D.Pa. 2006) DIANE WEISS SIGMUND, Chief Judge §§362(c)(3)(C)(i) and (ii) Debtor's motion to extend the automatic stay brought timely with 30 days of filing petition was denied on grounds of bad faith where debtor could not demonstrate change of circumstances from previous dismissed case. In re Virissimo, 332 B.R. 201 (Bkrtcy.Nev. 2006) LINDA B. RIEGLE, Bankruptcy Judge § 522(p) 11 U.S.C. § 522(p) is applicable even though Nevada does not allow the choice of federal exemptions. Because the debtors acquired their homes within the 1215 days before the filing they are limited to the $125,000 homestead set forth in that § notwithstanding the fact that the Nevada homestead is higher. In re Warneck, 336 B.R. 181 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y., 2006) CECELIA G. MORRIS, Bankruptcy Judge §362(c)(3)(C)(ii) The court found the second filing was in good faith as to all creditors where: - The Debtors' Second Filing was dismissed for failure to make payments pursuant to a proposed plan of reorganization that had not yet been confirmed, the provision in Section 362(c)(3)(C)(i)(II)(cc) - failure to "perform the terms of a plan confirmed by the court" - does not apply. - There is no evidence that the Debtors failed to file or amend their petition, or other documents in the Second Filing. There is also no record in the Second Filing of any motion to lift the automatic stay, and no evidence that the Debtors failed to provide court-ordered adequate protection to any party. - The Debtors have filed affidavits from their daughter, Amy Wade, and son-in-law, William Wade, stating that they are willing and able to fund the Debtors' plan in the amount necessary to complete a Chapter 13 plan. In re Ziolkowski 338 B.R. 543 (Bkrtcy.Conn. 2006) LORRAINE MURPHY WEIL, Bankruptcy Judge. § 362(c)(3) Debtor had a previous case that had been dismissed within a year of filing the seocnd case. The debtor's attorney filed a motion pursuant to § 362(c)(3)(B) prior to the expiration of the 30-day deadline in which hearing must be held. However, the attorney relied on the court clerk to calendar the actual hearing within the 30-day period. Clerk actually set the hearing at a date beyone the 30-day deadline. Court held error in relying on clerk was not sufficient grounds to order an extension of the stay. Motion was denied. "However, to say that the Clerk's Office should have scheduled the Motion for a hearing to be held prior to the Hearing Deadline is not dispositive here. The Debtors were the movants and it was their ultimate burden to insure that the Motion was timely scheduled. When the Notice of Hearing was not issued timely (i.e., within three days), it was incumbent on the Debtors' counsel to take action. A telephone call to the Clerk's Office probably would have produced the necessary corrective action."