I knew I kept running into a problem with this case. I just didn't realize it was caused by the lexical prestidigitation of statutory construction.
At first blush, §362(c)(3)(A) purports to lift the automatic stay as to secured or leased property within 30 days after the filing of a bankruptcy petition if the debtor was dismissed from a previous bankruptcy case within one year of the filing of the existing case. Of course, when it comes to the lexical prestidigitation of statutory construction, few things are ever what they first appear to be.
American Bankruptcy Institute, "30-Day Lifting of the Automatic Stay under §362(c)(3)(A): Not What It Purports to Be"
Now it makes so much more sense.
(For the record, in case anyone thinks that this is at all related to my rants about many-syllabled nonsense in communications literature, not at all. Lawyers actually know that lexical prestidigitations of statutory constructions are. So there, HCom people.)