property would functionally give Wisconsin municipal utilities an ever-present interest in their customers’ property to the extent of the monthly utility bill. We do not believe Congress intended the § 362(b)(3) exception to stretch that far, particularly when the state statutory scheme limits the municipal utility’s ability to acquire an interest in a debtor’s property to particular dates. Cf. In re Glasply Marine Indus., Inc., 971 F.2d 391, 395 (9th Cir.1992) (rejecting the proposition that Congress intended to create an “ever-present interest” for the § 546(b) exception); Equibank, N.A. v. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp., 884 F.2d 80, 86 (3d Cir.1989) (same); Parr Meadows, 880 F.2d at 1547 (same). But cf. Md. Natl Bank v. Mayor of Baltimore, 723 F.2d 1138, 1141-44 (4th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). The statutory mechanism giving Reedsburg an
holding that pursuant to maryland law the government maintains an everpresent interest in property owners land for tax purposes holding that a renunciation pursuant to arizonas probate code does determine whether a person has any interest in property for federal tax purposes holding that the owner of an equitable interest in property in the form of a land contract can grant a mortgage on that interest under ohio law holding that plaintiffs may have a property interest in real property holding that subsequent property owners were bound by prior owners agreement to restrict building density and preserve certain portions of land as a condition of the original zoning approval