Lachter v. Smith, 209 Ariz. 343

101 P.3d 637 (2004) · Supreme Court of Arizona · December 1, 2004 · No. CV-04-0153-CQ

Summary

The Arizona Supreme Court answered certified questions concerning the timeliness of renewing a state-court judgment during a debtor's bankruptcy proceeding. It held that Arizona law does not independently extend the deadline for filing a renewal affidavit because of a bankruptcy stay, but that federal bankruptcy law may extend the effective renewal period. Applying the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's determination that the period was extended by 487 days, the court held that the Lachters' renewal affidavits were timely.

Holdings

  1. Arizona law does not extend or otherwise change the deadline for filing an affidavit of renewal of judgment merely because the debtor is in bankruptcy or an automatic stay prevents enforcement of the judgment.
  2. Because the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel determined that 11 U.S.C. § 108(c)(1) extended the renewal deadline by 487 days, Arizona law would treat an affidavit filed from December 6, 1996, through July 6, 1998, as timely; therefore, the Lachters' 1997 renewal affidavits were timely.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Arizona law extends or changes the deadline for filing an affidavit of renewal of judgment when a bankruptcy case and automatic stay are pending during the statutory renewal period.
  2. Whether either of the Lachters' 1997 renewal affidavits was timely under the extension recognized by the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel under 11 U.S.C. § 108(c)(1).

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (10)

  • In re Smith, 242 B.R. 694, 696 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1999)(cited)
  • Smith II, 293 B.R. 220, 223-27 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2003)(followed in part)
  • In re Spirtos, 221 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir. 2000)(cited)
  • In re Morton, 866 F.2d 561, 564 (2d Cir. 1989)(cited)
  • J.C. Penney v. Lane, 197 Ariz. 113, 119, ¶ 29, 3 P.3d 1033, 1039 (App. 1999)(followed)
  • Hazel v. Van Beek, 135 Wash. 2d 45, 954 P.2d 1301, 1310 (1998)(cited)
  • Nowels v. Bergstedt, 120 Ariz. 112, 114, 584 P.2d 576, 578 (App. 1978)(cited)
  • Barnett v. Lewis, 170 Cal. App. 3d 1079, 1090, 217 Cal. Rptr. 80, 86 (1985)(cited)
  • O'Lane v. Spinney, 110 Nev. 496, 874 P.2d 754, 756 (1994)(cited)
  • Barber v. Emporium P'ship, 800 P.2d 795, 797 (Utah 1990)(cited)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…