Case Name: In re SANTA FE DEVELOPMENT AND MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Debtor. SANTA FE DEVELOPMENT AND MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Appellant, v. James L. McCORMACK and Loretta J. McCormack, Appellees
Court: United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1981-12-28
Citations: 16 B.R. 165
Docket Number: Bankruptcy No. EC 81-1055-KLV
Parties: In re SANTA FE DEVELOPMENT AND MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Debtor. SANTA FE DEVELOPMENT AND MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Appellant, v. James L. McCORMACK and Loretta J. McCormack, Appellees.
Judges: Before KATZ, LASAROW and VOLINN, Bankruptcy Judges.
Reporter: West's Bankruptcy Reporter
Volume: 16
Pages: 165–170

Head Matter:
In re SANTA FE DEVELOPMENT AND MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Debtor. SANTA FE DEVELOPMENT AND MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Appellant, v. James L. McCORMACK and Loretta J. McCormack, Appellees.
Bankruptcy No. EC 81-1055-KLV.
United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panels of the Ninth Circuit.
Argued July 16, 1981.
Decided Dec. 28, 1981.
Lynn Anderson Roller, Emeryville, Cal., for appellant.
Robert C. Cook, Sacramento, Cal., for ap-pellees.
Before KATZ, LASAROW and VOLINN, Bankruptcy Judges.

Opinion:
KATZ, Bankruptcy Judge:
Prior to the filing of the within bankruptcy the debtor, Santa Pe Development and Mortgage Corporation, was involved in extensive state court litigation with the appel-lees, James L. and Loretta J. McCormack (hereinafter McCormack). As a result of that litigation the parties entered into a stipulated settlement which became effective on July 11, 1979.
The settlement provided the basis for the sale of three parcels of property located in Roseville, California. The purchase price for the property was $485,000. The escrow provided that the sale would be consummated upon Santa Pe Development paying $285,-000 in cash and executing a note for $200,-000. The escrow further provided that the payment must be made on or before June 16, 1980. Santa Fe Development failed to close escrow on June 16, 1980.
The settlement agreement allowed Santa Fe Development to extend the final day to close escrow by paying a non-refundable sum of $25,000. Under the agreement the escrow could be extended for three thirty day periods, however, the escrow could not be extended past September 16, 1980.
In accordance with the agreement Santa Pe Development extended the close of escrow until August 16, 1980 by making payments on June 15, 1980 and July 15, 1980. The agreement also provided that in the event escrow did not close, then Santa Pe Development would lose all rights in and to the subject property.
On August 5, 1980 the debtor filed a petition under Chapter 11 of the Code. The debtor failed to extend the escrow beyond August 16, 1980. However, on August 20, 1980, the debtor-in-possession filed a complaint for declaratory relief. The complaint sought a determination as to the respective rights of the parties including a determination as to whether the subject parcels were property of the estate.
On November 20,1980 the trial court held a hearing on the appellees' motion for summary judgment.
On February 12, 1981 the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of McCormacks and terminated all rights that the debtor may have had in the subject property. In rendering the decision the trial judge held that 11 U.S.C. § 362 does not stay the time in which to perform an act under a contract.
On appeal appellant claims that the trial court erred in holding that the running of the escrow period terminated any rights that the debtor-in-possession acceded to under 11 U.S.C. § 541. Appellant argues that at a minimum the court should have set a date upon which the debtor-in-possession would need to perform after it accepted the executory contract.
The appellee claims that under California law the failure to exercise an option by the last day to do so terminates the option. See Simons v. Young, 93 Cal.App.3d 170, 155 Cal.Rptr. 460 (1979). Citing Good Hope Refineries, Inc. v. Benavides, 602 F.2d 998 (1st Cir. 1979)) Cert. denied, 444 U.S. 992, 100 S.Ct. 523, 62 L.Ed.2d 421 (1979). Appellee states that the filing of the within bankruptcy did not act to stay the running of the escrow period.
It is undisputed, between the parties, that on the date the bankruptcy was filed the debtor-in-possession had the right to assume the executory sales contract and either consummate the sale or extend the closing date of escrow through the appropriate payment. The sole question before the Panel is whether the above stated options terminated on August 16, 1980 or whether they were preserved for the estate through the operation of the Bankruptcy Code.
Were this ease to be decided strictly under California law it is clear that the debtor would have lost all rights in the contract when the escrow period was not extended on August 16, 1980. See Simons v. Young, supra. However, the Bankruptcy Code and its inherent purposes are of paramount concern in deciding cases which come under its jurisdiction. We must therefore turn to the Code in order to determine whether the law of the state is altered by the application of the Code. U.S. Const., art. VI, cl. 2.
Section 108 (11 U.S.C. § 108) provides for extensions of time to perform various acts. Subsection (a) (11 U.S.C. § 108(a)) provides a minimum period of two years in which the trustee may commence an action. Subsection (c) (11 U.S.C. § 108(c)) extends the time in which a creditor may bring an action against a debtor for a minimum of 30 days after the expiration of the stay under sections 362, 922 or 1301. Subsection (b) (11 U.S.C. § 108(b)) gives the trustee 60 days to take other actions not covered under subsection (a). House Report No. 95-595, 95th Cong. 1st Sess. (1977) 318, U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1978, p. 5787. The purpose of section 108 is to permit the trustee, when he steps into the shoes of the debtor an extension of time for filing an action or doing some other act that is required to preserve the debtor's rights. House Report No. 95-595, supra, (emphasis added).
Section 108(b) was derived in part from section 11(e) of the Act. (11 U.S.C. § 29(e)). Under the Act several courts held that section 11(e) did not toll the period in which an option must be exercised. See In re Good Hope Refineries, Inc. v. Benevides, 602 F.2d 998 (1st Cir. 1979); cert. denied, 444 U.S. 992, 100 S.Ct. 523, 62 L.Ed.2d 421 (1979); Schokbeton Industries, Inc. v. Schokbeton Products Corp., 466 F.2d 171 (5th Cir. 1972).
The court in Good Hope Refineries found that the wording of 11(e) limited its broader application to "proceedings." The "option to drill" in that case was construed as a limitation created by agreement and therefore not a proceeding. The court further held that 11(e) only expanded consensual limitations if they involved the "like" of presenting a proof of claim, proof of loss, demand, or notice. The court opined that a payment to extend or exercise an option is not akin to making a claim against an insurance company or surety bond.
Even though the Good Hope Refineries case was decided under the Act the court also analyzed section 108(b) of the Code. The court held that the only change brought about by section 108 from existing law was to give the trustee an extension of time to "cure defaults." The court rationalized that once an option has run there is no contractual default to cure.
We think that the Good Hope Refineries case overlooks basic differences in syntax between section 11(e) and the current section 108. While the syntax of 11(e) may have limited a broader application of the extension of time to actions in "proceedings" we believe that section 108 does not contain such a limitation. As applied to this case we read section 108(b) to state:
"[I]f. . . an agreement fixes a period within which the debtor. . . .may file a pleading, demand, notice, or proof of claim or loss, cure a default, or perform any other similar act, and such period has not expired before the date of the filing of the petition, the trustee may only file, cure, or perform, as the case may be, before the later of — (1) the end of such period, including any suspension of such period occurring on or after the commencement of the ease; and (2) 60 days after the order for relief." (emphasis added)
Under such a reading we view the act of making a payment to extend an escrow or consummate an executory contract of sale as the performance of any other act similar to filing a demand, notice or curing a default. Therefore, under section 108(b) the debtor-in-possession has a minimum of 60 days in which to accept an executory contract and make the appropriate payment necessary to preserve the contract for the benefit of the estate. We find that a broad reading of section 108(b) better serves the purposes of bankruptcy by preserving the maximum amount of property and business opportunities to be used for the rehabilitation of the debtor. See also Matter of Gulfco Investment Corp., 520 F.2d 741 (10th Cir. 1975) (trustee should be allowed a reasonable period of time to decide whether or not to adopt an installment purchase contract if large equity is involved and issues are complex); House Report No. 95-595, supra at 318.
The courts in the Good Hope Refineries and Schokbeton cases were worried about the inequitable results which might occur where the debtor's obligations under an ex-ecutory contract are suspended while simultaneously the other party is held to the bargain. For example, the seller of a ten day option to purchase securities could find his expectations and economic position radically altered if the option were automatically extended 60 days. While we hold that the effect of section 108(b) is to at a minimum extend the limitation period by 60 days, we find that the Code provides adequate procedures for shortening this time such that gross inequities will not result. See 11 U.S.C. § 365(d)(l)(2); 11 U.S.C. § 105(a). Under the Act periods of limitation could be extended by an order of the court where the equities of the case demanded. Matter of Guifco, supra at 743. Our reading of section 108(b) merely switches the burden to the creditor to reduce the extension of time during the 60 day period under the statute.
Having held that debtor-in-possession had a continuing right to perform the executory contract for a 60 day period following the filing of the petition under 11 U.S.C. § 108(b) (unless reduced by the court), we hold that the trial court erred in holding that the debtor's rights to the property terminated on August 16, 1980.
We therefore reverse on this issue alone and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings in conformance herewith.
. Although the statute speaks in terms of giving the trustee an extension of time, the section would have equal force and effect when utilized by a debtor-in-possession. Section 103 (11 U.S.C. § 103) provides that Chapters 1,3 and 5 apply in a case under Chapter 11. Section 1107(a) (11 U.S.C. § 1107(a)) provides that a debtor-in-possession shall have all the rights and powers of a trustee serving in a case under this chapter subject to certain limitations not applicable herein.