1RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATIONPursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206ELECTRONIC CITATION: 2000 FED App. 0175P (6th Cir.)File Name: 00a0175p.06UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT_________________In re: AMCMORTGAGECOMPANY,INC.,Debtor.________________________AMCMORTGAGECOMPANY,INC.,Plaintiff-Appellant,v.TENNESSEEDEPARTMENT OFREVENUE,Defendant-Appellee.;>1No. 99-5498Appeal from the United States District Courtfor the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville.No. 97-01037—Thomas A. Higgins, District Judge.Argued: April 25, 2000Decided and Filed: May 26, 2000Before: MARTIN, Chief Judge; MERRITT and SILER,Circuit Judges.2In re AMC Mortgage Co.No. 99-5498_________________COUNSELARGUED:Harry Willis Miller III, MILLER &ASSOCIATES, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellant. SallyRamsey, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellee.ON BRIEF:HarryWillis MillerIII, MILLER & ASSOCIATES, Nashville,Tennessee, for Appellant. Sally Ramsey, Kathleen A. Ayres,OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Nashville,Tennessee, for Appellee._________________OPINION_________________BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., Chief Judge. AMC MortgageCompany, Inc. appeals the decision of the district courtaffirming the dismissal of its Chapter 11 bankruptcy petitionfor failure to make payments due under the Chapter 11 plan.For the reasons stated below, we AFFIRM.I.On March 25, 1994, AMC filed a Chapter 11 petition in theUnited States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District ofTennessee. Prior to this, in February 1992, AMC filed ataxpayer lawsuit in Tennessee state court against theTennessee Department of Revenue challenging the taxassessed against AMC from 1987 to 1990. Accordingly, onits Chapter 11 Disclosure Statement, AMC listed the state’sclaim as “disputed” and included its claim against the state asan asset.After filing its Chapter 11 petition, AMC removed the statecourt tax action and filed motions in bankruptcy court todetermine its 1993 tax liability and whether it was entitled toa refund for taxes paid from 1982 through 1986. Thebankruptcy court heard argument on these motions on July 26,6In re AMC Mortgage Co.No. 99-5498special rules governing actions against the State . . . [and]suits against the State can be maintained only asauthorized by statutes; . . . statutes permitting suitsagainst the State must be strictly construed; . . . andgeneral procedural statutes do not apply against the Stateunless the State is specifically named therein.T.C.A. § 28-1-105 does not specifically name the state.Construing the language of the savings statute strictly, itcannot be applied against the state.See id.Under T.C.A. § 67-1-1801(b), AMC had ninety days fromthe date the notice of assessment was mailed to file suit. Itsinitial suit may have been timely, but once AMC took anon-suit in the case, the ninety-day limit had passed, AMCwas barred from reinstating the dismissed action, and theassessment became final. Thus, the litigation was “resolved”within the meaning of AMC’s confirmed Chapter 11 plan andAMC should have begun making payments to the state.The record is clear that no payments were made before thestate filed its motion to dismiss the Chapter 11 case. A failureto make a payment required under the plan is a materialdefault and is cause for dismissal.See In re H.R.P. AutoCenter, Inc., 130 B. R. 247, 256 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1991).The bankruptcy court’s decision to dismiss the case for causeunder 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(8) was proper.Following AMC’s voluntary dismissal of its state taxclaims, adjudication of those claims became final and AMCshould have begun making payments as required by theconfirmed plan. Failure to make those payments is a materialdefault and the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretionin dismissing the case. The decision of the bankruptcy courtdismissing AMC’s Chapter 11 case is AFFIRMED.No. 99-5498In re AMC Mortgage Co.31994. The court abstained under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(1) andremanded the case to the Davidson County, Tennessee,Chancery Court. Thereafter, on October 17, 1994, the partiesentered into an agreed order that:[a]ll issues raised by AMC in its Motion forDetermination of Tax Refund and Motion forDetermination of Tax Liability can presently be litigatedin Tennessee state court in accordance with theprocedures set forth in T.C.A. Section 67-1-1801et seq.,the Tennessee Taxpayers Remedies Act, as thoseprocedures may be modified by the United StatesBankruptcy Code and specifically 11 U.S.C. § 108.AMC’s bankruptcy plan was confirmed on September 12,1995. In the plan, the litigation involving the TennesseeDepartment of Revenue, referred to as “TDR,” was addressedas follows:Class 2: The only member of this class is TDR. Theclaim of TDR is currently being disputed by the Debtorin litigation pending in Chancery Court . . . . Thepayment to this class shall be reserved and/or suspendeduntil the resolution of said litigation. At that time, ifTDR is successful, its allowed claim shall be paid,pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1129(a)(9)(C), over seventy-two(72) months at a rate of nine per cent (9%) per annum.On April 25, 1996, AMC filed a motion to amend itscomplaint in the state court action, adding challenges to thedepartment’s assessments for 1982 to 1985, 1987 to 1991,and 1991 to 1995. The state objected to this motion. On July9, 1996, the Chancery Court allowed AMC’s challenges to the1993 and 1995 assessments, but disallowed the others aseither time-barred or unsupported by state law. The orderprovided that AMC could file an amended complaint. AMCdid not file an amended complaint. Instead, on February 10,1997, AMC filed a voluntary non-suit and the case against thestate was dismissed.4In re AMC Mortgage Co.No. 99-5498Four months later, on June 4, 1997, the department filed amotion to dismiss the Chapter 11 case under 11 U.S.C.§ 1112(b)(8), arguing that the state litigation was over andthat AMC had failed to begin making the payments due underthe confirmed bankruptcy plan. AMC objected to the motionto dismiss and again asked the bankruptcy court to decide theissues that were voluntarily dismissed in the Tennessee statecourt proceeding, and to assume jurisdiction over the taxmatters. The bankruptcy court held that AMC had voluntarilyended its lawsuit when it chose not to appeal the ChanceryCourt decision. Accordingly, the court granted thedepartment’s motion to dismiss the Chapter 11 case. AMCappealed and the district court, adopting the recommendationof the magistrate, affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision.II.This court reviews a bankruptcy court’s decision directly,not the district court’s review of the bankruptcy decision.SeeTrident Assocs. Ltd. Partnership v. Metropolitan Life Ins.Co., 52 F.3d 127, 130 (6th Cir. 1995). The bankruptcycourt’s findings of fact are reviewed for clear error, while itsconclusions of law are reviewedde novo.See TridentAssocs., 52 F.3d at 130;Laguna Assocs. Ltd. Partnership v.Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co., 30 F.3d 734, 737 (6th Cir. 1994).It is settled law in this circuit that a bankruptcy court maydismiss a case under Chapter 11 for cause.See11 U.S.C.§ 1112(b);Trident Assocs., 52 F.3d at 130. The bankruptcycourt has broad discretion to dismiss a Chapter 11 case under11 U.S.C. § 1112(b).See Matter of Woodbrook Associates,19 F.3d 312, 316 (7th Cir. 1994);In re Lumber Exch. Bldg.Ltd. Partnership, 968 F.2d 647, 648 (8th Cir. 1992);In reGonic Realty Trust, 909 F.2d 624, 626-27 (1st Cir. 1990);Inre Koerner, 800 F.2d 1358, 1368 (5th Cir. 1986).Accordingly, the decision to dismiss the case will be upheldunless it was an abuse of discretion, defined as “a definite andclear conviction that the trial court committed a clear error ofjudgment.”Bowling v. Pfizer, Inc., 102 F.3d 777, 780 (6thCir. 1996).No. 99-5498In re AMC Mortgage Co.5AMC argues that a voluntary non-suit under Rule 41.01 ofthe Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure is not a finaljudgment.See Merchants and Manufacturer’s Transfer Co.v. Johnson, 403 S.W.2d 106 (Tenn. App. 1996).Furthermore, AMC argues that under T.C.A. § 28-1-105 it hasone year after its voluntary dismissal or non-suit to refile theaction. Thus, AMC argues that it did not fail to comply withthe terms of the confirmed plan because it had until February10, 1998 to reinstate its case.Although AMC is correct that Rule 41.01 provides for avoluntary non-suit, and that such a non-suit is not a finaljudgment, AMC does not have a year to reinstate its action.T.C.A. § 28-1-105 is the general saving statute, providingthat a plaintiff, after a voluntary dismissal or non-suit, has oneyear to refile the dismissed action. However, another statestatute specifically limits the time to file a suit challenging atax assessment to ninety days. See T.C.A. § 67-1-1801(b)(“A suit challenging the assessment of a tax . . . must be: (1)Filed within ninety (90) days from the date of mailing of thenotice of assessment to the taxpayer by the commissioner”).The Tennessee Supreme Court has held that a general statutedoes not apply to the state unless the state is specificallynamed in the statute.See Automobile Sales Co. v. Johnson,122 S.W.2d 453, 454-55(Tenn. 1938). In that case, theplaintiff sued to recover an allegedly illegal tax, voluntarilydismissed the suit, and then sought to refile the case under thesavings statute.See id.The court held that general statutesdo not apply to the state “unless they expressly so provide.”Id.at 458. The court went on to say that where the statute thatcreates the right of action expressly limits the time in whicha suit to enforce the action may be brought, “time is of theessence of the right and the limitation of the remedy is alimitation of the right.”Id.At the heart of this matter is thenotion that the state, as sovereign, may only be sued with itspermission.See Alden v. Maine, 119 S.Ct. 2240, 2246(1999). The Tennessee Supreme Court held inCronin v.Howe, 906 S.W.2d 910, 914 (1995), that because there are