Although a codebtor existed on the Debtor’s residential mortgage loan held by Respondent, after receiving notice that the Debtor filed her third bankruptcy case within one year, the Respondent proceeded with a foreclosure sale because the automatic stay did not arise by operation of Section 362(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Bankruptcy Code.
HELD: The codebtor stay of Section 1301 barred the Respondent from proceeding with a post-petition foreclosure sale of the Debtor’s residence, even though the automatic stay of Section 362(a) did not arise as a result of Section 362(c)(4)(A)(i). The foreclosure sale, therefore, was void.