11 U.S.C. § 362

Section 362(b)(9) permits a state taxing authority to issue a notice of audit assessment during the automatic stay when it functions as a notice of tax deficiency.

H & H Beverage Distributors v. Department of Revenue of Pennsylvania · filed 1988-06-24(b)(9)

Therefore, the Commonwealth’s notice of audit assessment is the functional equivalent of the notice of tax deficiency, and pursuant to § 362(b)(9), it is expressly permitted during the pendency of an automatic stay.

Section 362(b)(9) permits a governmental unit to issue a notice of tax deficiency during the automatic stay, including an equivalent state notice of audit assessment.

In Re H & H Beverage Distributors · filed 1988-07-19(b)(9)

Therefore, the Commonwealth's notice of audit assessment is the functional equivalent of the notice of tax deficiency, and pursuant to Sec. 362(b)(9), it is expressly permitted during the pendency of an automatic stay.

Section 362 permits an assessor to issue a notice of property tax disqualification during bankruptcy when the notice does not itself collect, assess, or recover a claim.

Sanderson v. Department of Revenue · filed 1988-08-26(b)(8)

The court finds that the notice of disqualification was not an act to “collect, assess, or recover a claim” forbidden by § 362(a) but a “notice” permitted by § 362(b).

Section 362(b)(9) exempts governmental notices of tax deficiencies from the automatic stay.

Matter of Ungar · filed 1989-09-05(b)(9)

Both parties overlooked § 362(b)(9), which specifically exempts from the stay the issuance of notices of tax deficiencies to the debtor by a governmental unit, 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(9) (1989).

Section 362(b)(9) does not exempt Customs’ postpetition import-duty actions from the automatic stay as notices of tax deficiency.

United States Customs Service v. Apex Oil Co. (In Re Apex Oil Co.) · filed 1991-08-27(b)(9)

Finally, the Court does not find that Customs qualifies for the exemption from the automatic stay provision. Section 362(b)(9) exempts from the automatic stay “the issuance to the debtor by a governmental unit of a notice of tax deficiency.”

Section 362(b)(9) exempts notices of tax deficiencies from the automatic stay, but does not exempt notices of proposed tax penalties.

Riley v. United States · filed 1995-10-25(b)(9)

In this case, the plain language of § 362(b)(9) protects only notices of tax “deficiencies,” not “penalties” and forecloses the government’s argument that a § 6672 “penalty” is similar enough to a “deficiency” to be exempted from the automatic stay.

Section 362(b)(9) permits the IRS to request a debtor’s consent to extend the time for assessing taxes when the request is part of determining a tax deficiency.

Richmond v. United States · filed 1997-07-15(b)(9)

However, as the Bankruptcy Court explained, under 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(9) [formerly § 362(b)(8) ], the filing of a Chapter 7 petition does not stay “the issuance to the debtor by a governmental unit of a notice of tax deficiency.” ... This court agrees, and therefore affirms the Bankruptcy Court’s ruling that the execution of the Consent to Extend Time Forms did not constitute a violation of the stay.

Section 362(b)(9)(B) does not exempt tax notices that threaten collection measures and demand payment of prepetition taxes.

In Re Layton · filed 1998-04-03(b)(9)(B)

The Court finds that the July and September letters contain threats to publish a notice in the newspapers, file a list of delinquent taxes and file a notice and petition of foreclosure. Due to the content of these letters, the Court finds that they are more than mere notices and constitute a demand for payment in violation of the Stay.

Section 362(b)(9)'s exception for notices of tax deficiency permits state unemployment tax assessments that trigger payment or protest proceedings when petitions for reassessment prevent the assessments from becoming final or creating liens.

Cavanagh v. CAL. UNEMP. INS. APPEALS BD. · filed 2004-03-30(b)(9)

Unlike federal tax assessments, which become final when issued and immediately give rise to a statutory lien, the Department's assessments trigger the time for a taxpayer to either pay the disputed tax or begin protest proceedings. Here, Cavanagh filed petitions for reassessment to challenge the assessments and prevent any of the assessments from becoming final or giving rise to liens. ... We find, under the reasoning of H & H and King, the Department's assessments were exempt from the automatic stay provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 362(b)(9) exempts state unemployment tax assessments that function as notices of tax deficiency by triggering an opportunity to contest liability without becoming final or creating a lien during administrative review.

Cavanagh v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board · filed 2004-03-30(b)(9)

Unlike federal tax assessments, which become final when issued and immediately give rise to a statutory lien, the Department’s assessments trigger the time for a taxpayer to either pay the disputed tax or begin protest proceedings. Here, Cavanagh filed petitions for reassessment to challenge the assessments and prevent any of the assessments from becoming final or giving rise to liens. ... We find, under the reasoning of ... the Department’s assessments were exempt from the automatic stay provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 362(b)(9) permits tax deficiency notices, but notices threatening that a debtor’s home will be sold unless prepetition taxes are paid exceed that exception and violate § 362(a)(6).

Rosas v. Monroe County Tax Claim Bureau · filed 2004-05-14(a)(6), (b)(9)

However, the Court does conclude that the notices sent to the Plaintiffs did more than merely give notice of a tax deficiency. Each notice attempted to coerce the Plaintiffs into satisfying prepetition tax liabilities by using the threat that their homes would be sold unless taxes were paid. The MCTCB’s use of such language on these notices went beyond the automatic stay exemption afforded under Section 362(b)(9) and amounted to a violation of Section 362(a)(6) in the process.

Section 362 permits governmental tax audits and deficiency notices during a chapter 11 stay, and the stay of other acts ends no later than closure of the bankruptcy case.

Wood v. Comm'r · filed 2004-08-31(b)(9)(A), (b)(9)(B), (c)(2)

A chapter 11 filing, however, does not operate as a stay of either an audit by a governmental unit to determine tax liability or the issuance to the debtor by a governmental unit of a notice of tax deficiency. 11 U.S.C. sec. 362(b)(9)(A) and (B). Thus, during the stay, the IRS may conduct an audit and issue a notice of deficiency to the debtor. ... Therefore, the automatic stay of Bankruptcy Code section 362 was lifted no later than May 18, 1995, when the order closing the case was entered.

Section 362(a)(1) bars issuance of a final notice of intent to levy for prepetition taxes as the commencement of an administrative proceeding against the debtor, and a notice issued in violation of the stay is invalid.

Beverly v. Comm'r · filed 2005-03-07(a)(1)

Moreover, we are satisfied that the issuance of the final notice of intent to levy constituted the commencement of an administrative proceeding against petitioner within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. section 362(a)(1). ... In sum, we conclude that the final notice of intent to levy was issued to petitioner in violation of the automatic stay, and therefore, it was invalid.

Under the pre-1994 version of § 362(b)(9), tax deficiency notices and audits determining the extent of tax claims do not violate the stay, which ends under § 362(c)(2)(C) when a Chapter 11 debtor receives a discharge upon plan confirmation rather than upon completion of plan payments.

Wood v. Commissioner (In Re Wood) · filed 2005-06-06(b)(9), (c)(2)(C)

Therefore, the IRS’s issuing notices of tax deficiencies for 1994, 1995, and 1996 did not violate the automatic stay because issuing such notices was not subject to the automatic stay. ... Therefore, the IRS’s sending notices apprising the Plaintiff of a tax examination change, tax audits, tax liens, and performing the corresponding audits for the 1994, 1995, and 1996 tax years were actions to determine the extent of its claims against the Plaintiff and did not violate the automatic stay. ... According to § 362(c)(2)(C) the stay was lifted when the Order confirming the Plan was entered, and the stay, therefore, was only in effect from April 24, 1994 until February 6, 1995.

Section 362 exempts governmental tax audits and notices of tax deficiency from the automatic stay.

John Weller Wood, Jr. v. Comr. of Internal Revenue · filed 2005-06-09(b)(9)(A) and (B)

Moreover, audits and notices of deficiency are expressly exempted from the automatic stay. 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(9)(A) and (B). The Tax Court did not err in concluding that the notices of deficiency did not violate the automatic stay.

Section 362(b)(9) allows a governmental unit to issue a tax deficiency notice after a bankruptcy petition is filed.

Blake v. United States (In re Blake) · filed 1992-12-03(b)(9)

The filing of a petition does not operate as a stay of "the issuance to the debtor by a governmental unit of a notice of tax deficiency." 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(9).

Section 362(a) automatically stays a pending appraisal review proceeding concerning property taxes assessed against the debtor.

Jet Sales West LLC v. City of El Paso · filed 2022-01-20(a)

The ARB proceeding was stayed by operation of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a).

Section 362(a) does not bar a creditor from paying or buying a municipality’s tax claim against the debtor when doing so does not enforce the tax lien.

Citicorp Park Associates v. Aetna Life Insurance Co. (In Re Citicorp Park Associates) · filed 1994-10-25(a)

This Court is satisfied that Aetna’s attempt to either pay the Claim or buy the Claim from the City of South Portland is neither improper nor a violation of the automatic stay.

Section 362 does not bar an IRS levy on confirmed Chapter 13 plan payments owed to a creditor when the levy does not affect the debtors, estates, or creditors.

Kathleen A. Laughlin, Trustee v. United States Internal Revenue Service, (Two Cases). Kathleen A. Laughlin v. United Sta · filed 1990-09-25

We agree with the bankruptcy court and the district court that the IRS has not violated the automatic stay in this case. 4 The debtors, estates, and creditors--those entities the automatic stay is designed to protect--are unaffected by the levy.

Section 362 stays a state tax commissioner from assessing or collecting unpaid sales taxes from Chapter 11 estate property when the state has no identifiable tax trust fund outside the estate.

Olsen v. Deutscher (In Re Nashville White Trucks, Inc.) · filed 1982-07-28(a)

Accordingly, the court will enter an order declaring that the automatic stay provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 362 are constitutional as applied to the Commissioner for the Department of Revenue of the State of Tennessee and that 11 U.S.C. § 362 prohibits the Commissioner from pursuing any action to collect or assess the unpaid sales taxes in issue from property of the estate.

Section 362 requires a state tax collector to obtain relief from the automatic stay before levying on estate property to collect sales taxes incurred by a debtor in possession.

In Re Nashville White Trucks, Inc. · filed 1984-04-12

Upon consideration of the briefs and records in this appeal, we conclude that the district judge was correct in holding that the Commissioner might not satisfy the debt owing the State of Tennessee by taking action directly against the property of the debtor's bankrupt estate without first seeking relief from the automatic stay provisions of section 362 in bankruptcy court.

Section 362 requires a state tax collector to seek relief from the automatic stay before levying on bankruptcy estate property to collect taxes incurred by a debtor in possession.

Olsen v. Deutscher · filed 1984-04-12

Upon consideration of the briefs and records in this appeal, we conclude that the district judge was correct in holding that the Commissioner might not satisfy the debt owing the State of Tennessee by taking action directly against the property of the debtor’s bankrupt estate without first seeking relief from the automatic stay provisions of section 362 in bankruptcy court.

Section 362(a) does not stay the ministerial refiling of a previously created and perfected federal tax lien when refiling merely prevents the lien from lapsing.

United States v. Sayres · filed 1984-08-07(a)(4)-(6)

After reviewing section 362(a) subsections 4, 5 and 6, this Court must conclude that the refiling of the tax lien did not “create, perfect or inforce” a lien or act to “collect, assess or recover” the appellant’s claim against the debtor. Rather, this purely ministerial act merely continued a previously created and perfected lien and preserved the status quo.

Section 362(a)(4) and (a)(6) stay a postpetition sale of a prepetition tax lien because the sale advances enforcement of the lien and collection of the prepetition claim.

Village Savings Bank v. Town of Lewisboro (In Re Haight) · filed 1985-05-24(a)(4), (a)(6)

The Town’s proposed tax lien sale is a step towards the post petition enforcement of a lien proscribed under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(4) and constitutes an effort to collect a prepetition claim, which is stayed under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(6).

Section 362(a)(3) does not bar a city from making a non-binding tax assessment that neither seeks possession of estate property nor threatens the debtor’s assets.

In Re Fiedel Country Day School · filed 1985-11-21(a)(3)

11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3) relieves pressure on debtors by prohibiting “any act to obtain possession of property of the estate” upon the filing of a petition for bankruptcy. In this case, Glen Cove did not violate the automatic stay because it did not attempt to “obtain possession” or threaten the debtor’s assets.

Section 362(a) stays state efforts to collect prepetition taxes from a debtor, requiring the state to present its tax claim in the bankruptcy proceeding.

Adams v. State of Indiana · filed 1986-07-03(a)

Section 362(b) lists some exceptions, but none applies to the collection of state taxes. A state claiming that a bankrupt owes pre-filing taxes therefore must desist from efforts to collect and present its contention as a claim in the bankruptcy proceeding.

A bankruptcy court’s general order modifying the automatic stay permits the IRS to assess an agreed tax deficiency without violating Section 362.

Longley v. United States (In Re Longley) · filed 1986-07-10

Debtors in this case agreed to the assessment of a tax deficiency when they executed Form 1902-B. Thus, Second Revised General Order No. 2 of this Court is applicable here, and the Court must find that the Section 362 automatic stay was not violated by the December 17, 1984 assessment. Because no violation occurred, Debtors are not entitled to the award of damages.

Section 362(a)(6) stays assessment of prepetition tax claims while a bankruptcy case is pending.

In Re Carter · filed 1987-06-11(a)(6)

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(6), IRS was stayed from assessing a claim that arose prepetition while the debtor’s bankruptcy cases were pending.

Section 362(a)(4) prevents the creation and perfection of property tax liens against estate property while the automatic stay is in effect.

In Re Bellman Farms, Inc. · filed 1988-06-24(a)(4)

The filing of the Bellman Farms, Inc., petition created an automatic stay preventing the creation and perfection of any property tax liens.

Section 362(a)(4) prevents a county from acquiring or perfecting a post-petition property tax lien against estate property, even when the lien would arise automatically under state law.

In Re Parr Meadows Racing Ass'n, Inc. · filed 1988-10-14(a)(4)

The automatic stay prevents the County from acquiring and perfecting, passively or otherwise, a post-petition lien.

Section 362(b)(3) does not permit postpetition perfection of a tax lien when the taxing authority's interest in the taxes arose after the bankruptcy petition.

Gline v. Horn & Co., P.C. (In Re Isley) · filed 1989-08-28(b)(3)

Since that date passed after the debtor filed his petition, the state’s “interest”' arose at a postpetition date. Therefore section 362(b)(3) is unavailable to the taxing authorities here.

Section 362(a)(4) stays a postpetition tax sale that creates a lien against estate property, and a sale conducted in violation of the stay is void.

In Re Shamblin · filed 1989-11-22(a)(4)

The BAP held correctly that the tax sale was void from the outset. 11 U.S.C. Sec. 362 provides that a petition in bankruptcy operates as a stay on any act to create, perfect, or enforce any lien against property of the bankruptcy estate. Judicial proceedings in violation of this automatic stay are void.

Section 362 makes a tax sale conducted while the automatic stay is in effect, without relief from the stay, null and void.

United States v. Eagle Investment Co. (In re Crosby) · filed 1989-12-27

The tax sale was a direct violation of the automatic stay provided by Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code and, therefore, is null and void.

Section 362 stays a tax sale to collect prepetition property taxes while bankruptcy proceedings are pending, and a sale that violates the stay is void.

Gulfco Finance v. McCormick · filed 1991-04-03(a)

The tax sale at issue was manifestly within the parameters of § 362 because it was a proceeding which attempted to collect payment of a pre-petition debt. ... Because the stay that attached to Mrs. Carroll's property was neither vacated nor modified by the bankruptcy court, the tax sale of the property to the Wests occurred in violation of the stay and was void ab initio and was without legal effect.

Section 362 stays IRS collection efforts during a Chapter 11 case, including collection from funds held by the debtor’s attorney.

In Re Turgeon · filed 1993-06-29

Moreover, the IRS was stayed from any collection efforts during this period by Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. § 362) and possessed no greater right to these funds than any other creditor.

Section 362(a)(3) and (6) prohibit state agencies from demanding unauthorized payment of prepetition tax penalties and postpetition interest on prepetition taxes from the proceeds of an estate liquor license.

In Re Del Mission Limited · filed 1993-07-16(a)(3), (6)

In this case, EDD and the Board violated the automatic stay by demanding unauthorized payments. 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3), (6). Authority to pay "necessary" amounts does not elevate payment of prepetition penalties to first priority or permit payment of prohibited postpetition interest on prepetition taxes.

Section 362(a)(3) and (6) bars state agencies from demanding prepetition tax penalties and postpetition interest on prepetition taxes as a condition of transferring a debtor’s liquor license when those payments are unauthorized.

State of California State Board of Equalization v. Taxel (In re Del Mission Ltd.) · filed 1993-07-16(a)(3), (6)

In this case, EDD and the Board violated the automatic stay by demanding unauthorized payments. 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3), (6). Authority to pay “necessary” amounts does not elevate payment of prepetition penalties to first priority or permit payment of prohibited postpetition interest on prepetition taxes.

Section 362(a) does not bar a court-ordered reapportionment of a debtor’s prepetition property taxes, though collecting any resulting increase may require bankruptcy court approval.

Ryland v. Tracy · filed 1994-08-09(a)

We expressly limit our holding to a simple determination that a reapportionment, as mandated by the trial court in this case, is not barred by the provisions of Section 362(a).

Section 362 bars government tax assessments against a debtor at least until confirmation of the debtor’s bankruptcy plan.

Curasi v. United States · filed 1995-08-22

The Court concludes that 11 U.S.C. § 362 barred the Government from making the assessments at issue, at least up to the time that Curasi’s bankruptcy plan was confirmed.

Section 362(a)(1) and (6) stay a tax buyer’s continuation of a prepetition tax collection proceeding and its attempt to obtain a tax deed without relief from the stay.

In Re Stewart · filed 1996-01-12(a)(1), (a)(6)

The Debtors are also protected by § 362(a)(1) and (6). The statutory collection of taxes was a proceeding against the Debtors that was commenced prior to the filing of the bankruptcy and the CREDITOR’S continuation of that proceeding without having the automatic stay lifted, violated § 362(a)(1). Under § 362(a)(6) the CREDITOR’S actions to obtain a tax deed also constituted acts to collect a claim against the Debtors that arose pre-petition.

Section 362(a) stays postpetition attempts to collect a tax obligation until relief from the stay is obtained.

Suzico, Inc. v. Maricopa County · filed 1996-06-18(a)

The automatic stay prevented the County from post-petition attempts to collect the tax obligation prior to obtaining relief from the stay.

Section 362(a) bars the IRS from assessing a tax penalty against a debtor after a bankruptcy petition is filed unless the automatic stay is lifted.

In re Lesnick · filed 1996-08-09(a)

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), the IRS cannot make an assessment against a taxpayer who has filed a bankruptcy petition unless it obtains relief from the automatic stay to do so or the stay is otherwise lifted by the bankruptcy court.

Section 362(b)(9) may except a tax assessment and demand for payment from the automatic stay, but an attempt to collect prepetition taxes can still violate the stay.

Headrick v. Georgia (In Re Headrick) · filed 1996-12-17(b)(9)

Although one of the notices is denominated an “Official Assessment and Demand for Payment,” potentially subject to the § 362(b)(9) exception, the second document is an attempt to collect the pre-petition taxes, leaving an issue of fact regarding the Debtor’s right to recover damages for a stay violation, and making summary judgment in favor of Georgia inappropriate.

Section 362 stays the IRS from enforcing a debtor’s installment agreement during bankruptcy, but the IRS may seek relief from the stay if the debtor defaults.

Matter of Gordon · filed 1997-11-25

The right of the Internal Revenue Service to enforce those terms is stayed by the provisions of 11 U.S.C. Section 362, but the Service has the right to file a motion seeking relief from the automatic stay if the Debtor defaults and the Debtor has the right to defend the motion.

Section 362(a)(6) bars taxing authorities from collecting or recovering prepetition tax claims during the automatic stay.

In Re Avila · filed 1999-01-07(a)(6)

In all other respects, however, the stay applies to taxing authorities. It prohibits them from, among other things, commencing or continuing a proceeding before the United States Tax Court concerning the debtor, § 362(a)(8), and actually collecting or recovering a prepetition tax claim, § 362(a)(6).

Section 362(a) stays IRS collection of its claim without relief from the stay, whether or not the claim is allowed, until the case is closed or dismissed or a discharge is entered.

In Re Stokes · filed 2004-10-29(a)

The court recognizes that whether or not the IRS is deemed to hold an allowed claim, 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) stays any attempt by the IRS to collect upon its claim without obtaining relief from the automatic stay until the case is closed, dismissed or upon entry of a discharge.

Section 362(a)(1) and (a)(6) require a municipality to discontinue a prepetition vehicle-registration hold used to collect unpaid excise taxes, because continuing the hold after filing violates the stay absent relief.

Jessamey v. Town of Saugus (In Re Jessamey) · filed 2005-08-24(a)(1), (a)(6)

The Court is persuaded that, when a municipality issues to the registrar a notice of nonpayment under that section, it institutes an “action or proceeding” to recover a claim within the meaning of § 362(a)(1); that the postpetition continuation of such an action or proceeding is a violation of § 362(a)(1) (enjoining “the continuation” of an action or proceeding); and that the continued blocking of access to motor vehicle privileges is also a stayed “act” under § 362(a)(6).

Section 362(b)(9)(D) does not except a tax notice that threatens seizure of the debtor’s property from the automatic stay.

Gonzalez v. Puerto Rico Treasury Department (In re Carrasquillo Gonzalez) · filed 2015-06-22(b)(9)(D)

The instant case differs from In re Centeno Sanchez, swpra, because the Final Notice (Docket No. 18-1) constituted a threatened seizure to the Plaintiff, which is not protected by Section 369(b)(9)(D).

Section 362’s automatic stay bars the IRS from filing a tax lien or attaching a debtor’s tax refund after the bankruptcy petition is filed.

Davis v. Internal Revenue Service (In Re Davis) · filed 1991-02-20

Each of these three actions violated the automatic stay provisions of 11 U.S.C. Section 362.

Section 362’s automatic stay bars the IRS from collecting tax liabilities from chapter 13 debtors while the case is pending.

Matravers v. United States (In Re Matravers) · filed 1993-01-15

The IRS’ actions to collect the 1984 Personal Liability and the Corporate Liabilities clearly violated the automatic stay.

Under § 362(d)(1), forming a new debtor shortly before bankruptcy does not by itself establish cause to lift the stay; the court examines whether the property transfer detrimentally altered creditors’ rights.

Myers v. Beach Club (In Re Beach Club) · filed 1982-08-06(d)(1)

This court adopts the modified view. While the court will always raise its eyebrows when a new debtor appears on the eve of a bankruptcy filing, the court will look to the substance of what has been done to determine whether the transfer to the new debtor has fatally and detrimentally altered the rights of creditors.

A creditor seeking relief from the automatic stay based on a bad faith bankruptcy filing must factually demonstrate bad faith to establish cause.

Pan American Bank of Los Angeles v. Mallas Enterprises, Inc. (In Re Mallas Enterprises, Inc.) · filed 1984-04-12(d)(1)

Whether or not a case has been filed in bad faith involves questions of fact. While a bad faith filing has been found in some cases to constitute cause for lifting the automatic stay, unless the creditor can factually demonstrate a bad faith filing, there would not be cause for lifting the automatic stay.

A default on payments made directly to a creditor under a confirmed Chapter 13 plan is not cause for relief from the automatic stay; a material default supports dismissal of the case.

Estes v. Garcia (In Re Garcia) · filed 1984-04-20(d)(1)

By the same token, as such relief is available by other means, a plan default is not "cause" within the context of § 362.

Section 362(a) does not impose a new automatic stay when a debtor files an improper concurrent Chapter 13 case to prevent foreclosure already authorized by a stay relief order in the pending case.

Administrator of Veterans Affairs v. Lunsford (In Re Lunsford) · filed 1984-04-25(a)

The Court further finds that ... Case No. 84-00953A is only an attempt to use the § 362(a) automatic stay provisions in a newly filed case to stall validly ordered and authorized foreclosure proceedings in another Chapter 13 case; Case No. 84-00953A is void ab initio, as the Bankruptcy Code does not permit the concurrent pendency of two cases; and the prior Order ... granting relief from the stay in Case No. 81-04853A is res judicata between the movant and the respondents and the real property in question until and unless that order is modified by the Court after proper motion and hearing which has not occurred.

Section 362(d)(1) allows relief from the automatic stay for a bad faith filing; transferring distressed property to the debtor shortly before filing creates a rebuttable presumption of bad faith that the debtor must overcome.

California Mortgage Service v. Yukon Enterprises, Inc. (In Re Yukon Enterprises, Inc.) · filed 1984-06-07(d)(1)

This Court holds that once the creditor establishes that the transfer of the distressed property to the debtor was in close proximity to the filing of the case, a prima facie showing of'bad faith has been shown, thus creating a rebuttable presumption of bad faith. The burden, thereafter, is on the debtor to establish good and sufficient reasons why the relief should not be granted.

A new automatic stay after a prior stay was lifted to permit foreclosure may be terminated unless the debtor shows changed financial circumstances and an ability to fund a Chapter 13 plan.

Matter of McKanders · filed 1984-07-17(a)

Where a stay has been terminated in a prior case to permit foreclosure, the new stay should not be allowed in a subsequent Chapter 13 case absent demonstration of change of conditions of the debtor's financial resources and ability to fund a plan.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when a Chapter 11 petition is filed in bad faith.

In Re Bell Partners, Ltd. · filed 1988-02-05(d)(1)

The Court concludes that the Chapter 11 petition in this case was filed by the debtor in bad faith, and that this constitutes cause for lifting the stay pursuant to § 362(d)(1).

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for a bad-faith filing only when the evidence shows abuse of process that directly harms the moving creditor.

In Re Sentry Park, Ltd. · filed 1988-06-16(d)(1)

Only if the evidence indicates an abuse of process which directly harms the moving creditor should “bad faith" serve as cause for relief from stay.

Section 362(d)(1) did not permit lifting the stay for bad faith where the debtor had substantial equity and had not had a reasonable opportunity to propose a confirmable plan.

Can-Alta Properties, Ltd. v. State Savings Mortgage Co. (In Re Can-Alta Properties, Ltd.) · filed 1988-07-06(d)(1)

Here, however, the Debtor was not given a reasonable opportunity to propose a con-firmable plan. Under these circumstances, the stay should not have been lifted on the basis of bad faith.

Section 362(d)(1) allows relief from the automatic stay for a bad-faith bankruptcy filing, but cause is lacking when a repeat filing pursues a realistic reorganization rather than delaying a single secured creditor.

In Re O'Quinn · filed 1989-03-23(d)(1)

Moreover, this case does not appear to be a situation involving repetitive filings to delay a single secured creditor. The Court holds that the filing was not in bad faith. ... Having determined that “cause” for lifting the automatic stay is lacking, the Court must now address the request for adequate protection.

Section 362(d)(1) requires a creditor seeking stay relief for cause to make an initial showing, which continued missed payments on a secured debt can satisfy.

In Re Ocasio · filed 1989-03-29(d)(1)

Under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1), the movant has the initial burden of producing evidence of “cause” for relief. The movant can meet this burden by introducing evidence of debtor’s continued failure to tender periodic payments on a secured debt.

Section 362(d)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to lift the automatic stay for cause so a debtor and creditors can pursue reargument of a state court judgment.

In Re Highway Truck Drivers & Helpers Local Union 107 · filed 1989-04-07(d)(1)

The court cannot find that Judge Fox’s March 29, 1988 decision constituted an abuse of discretion. Judge Fox carefully assessed the situation given the latitude of discretion under the automatic stay provisions.

Section 362(d)(1) treats an abusive Chapter 11 filing as cause for relief from the automatic stay, with good faith assessed from the circumstances of the filing.

Sentry Bank & Trust Co. v. Goulding Place Developers, Inc. (In Re Goulding Place Developers, Inc.) · filed 1989-04-13(d)(1)

An abusive filing constitutes “cause” under 11 U.S.C. Section 362(d)(1) for granting relief from the automatic stay.

A bankruptcy petition filed in violation of an existing court-imposed bar against refiling does not trigger § 362’s automatic stay.

In Re: Rene Umali, Debtor, Rene Umali v. Chandulal Dhanani Hemlatabin Dhanani, Rene Umali v. Chandulal Dhanani Hemlatabi · filed 2003-10-03

The Arizona bankruptcy petition did not trigger the automatic stay provision of 11 U.S.C. § 362, because Umali filed it in violation of an extant court order.

Section 362(a)(1) stays an appeal from an attorney fee award against the debtor because the appeal continues the action against her.

Chandler Vs. Koster Fin. Llc · filed 2020-06-17(a)(1)

An appeal, for purposes of the automatic stay, is considered a continuation of the action in the trial court. See Ingersoll-Rand Fin. Corp. v. Miller Mining Co., Inc., 817 F.2d 1424 (9th Cir. 1987). It appears that appellant appeals from an attorney fee award entered against her below. Therefore, this appeal is stayed pursuant to the automatic stay provisions of federal bankruptcy law.

Section 362(a)(1) permits dismissal of a stayed appeal without prejudice when the court need not reach the merits and dismissal is consistent with the stay’s protective purposes.

Poshbaby Llc Vs. Elsinore Iii, Llc · filed 2019-11-07(a)(1)

Because a dismissal without prejudice will not require this court to reach the merits of this appeal and is not inconsistent with the primary purposes of the bankruptcy stay—to provide protection for debtors and creditors—such dismissal will not violate the bankruptcy stay.

Section 362(a)(1) stays consideration of issues relating to a debtor in a pending appeal once the debtor files a bankruptcy petition.

Nehi Beverage Co., Inc. v. Petri · filed 1989-07-10(a)(1)

The automatic stay provision of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) precludes consideration of any issues as they relate to Nehi.

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay an appeal when the debtor was the plaintiff in the court below.

DeMino v. Gomez · filed 2023-07-12(a)(1)

But if the debtor was the plaintiff in the court below, the stay does not apply. Id. Here, Gomez is the debtor and he was the plaintiff in the court below. Accordingly, the stay does not apply to this case.

Section 362’s automatic stay can require abatement of an appeal while the debtor’s Chapter 11 proceedings remain pending.

Rice v. Austin Rice Sammy Cockerell Will R. Shumann Carl Whitworth Dorthy J. Rice Marion Robert "Bob" Rice Ci · filed 2022-05-18(a)(1)

On April 1, 2022, appellees filed a Suggestion of Bankruptcy indicating that ... Rice’s appeal is automatically stayed pursuant to federal law. ... Accordingly, the Court abates this cause pending further action by Rice, who is ordered to update this Court as to the status of the bankruptcy proceedings and any effects on this appeal on or before November 1, 2022.

Section 362(a)(1) does not bar dismissal without prejudice of a stayed appeal when dismissal does not reach the merits and is consistent with the stay’s protection of debtors and creditors.

Covarrubias v. Mcghee-Pane · filed 2022-04-22(a)(1)

Because a dismissal without prejudice will not require this court to reach the merits of this appeal and is not inconsistent with the primary purposes of the bankruptcy stay—to provide protection for debtors and creditors—we further conclude that such dismissal will not violate the bankruptcy stay.

Section 362 stays a pending appeal when the appellant files for bankruptcy protection.

Metropolitan Water Company, L.P. v. Blue Water Vista Ridge, LLC And Wilmington Trust, N.A., as Trustee of the Burleson/M · filed 2021-12-01

Accordingly, this appeal is stayed. See 11 U.S.C. § 362; Tex. R. App. P. 8.2.

Section 362 automatically stays further action in a pending appeal when a Chapter 13 bankruptcy stay applies.

Flores v. Bank of America, N.A. · filed 2022-02-03

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362, any further action in this appeal is automatically stayed.

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay a debtor’s own appeals of unfavorable decisions against the debtor.

Diamond · filed 2021-08-12(a)(1)

As to Appellant’s arguments, first, the automatic stay provision of the bankruptcy code does not apply to Appellant’s own appeals of unfavorable decisions against him, which was the subject of the Court’s dismissal Order.

Section 362 automatically stays further action in an appeal affected by a bankruptcy stay.

McKeough v. Camelot Townhomes Association, Inc. · filed 2021-06-10

Therefore, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362, any further action in this appeal is automatically stayed.

When proceedings against a bankrupt entity and its employees are stayed under § 362(a), motions concerning claims against those employees may be dismissed without prejudice to renewal after the stay lifts.

O'Neil v. Cunningham · filed 2021-06-11(a)

As of April 19, 2021, all proceedings against Connections Community Support Programs, Inc. and its employee(s) were stayed pursuant to Section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). ... The motions to amend all concern claims raised against Connections’ employees. As noted, all proceedings in which they are involved are stayed. Therefore, the motions will be dismissed without prejudice to renew upon the lifting of the stay.

Section 362 stays an appeal against a debtor that has filed a bankruptcy petition, while a severed appeal against non-debtor parties may proceed.

McClatchy v. Pruitt CA1/5 · filed 2021-05-25

When the Company later filed a chapter 11 bankruptcy petition, the consolidated appeals were stayed. (See 11 U.S.C. § 362.) We then severed Carlos’s appeal against the non-debtor Trustees and allowed that appeal to go forward under a separate appellate case number (A160367) while the original consolidated appeals remained stayed against the Company.

Section 362 stays a pending appeal as to a party that files for Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

MRC Permian Company/Point Energy Partners Permian LLC TJ Bar, LLC Tubb Memorial, an Oregon Limited Partnership PlainsCap · filed 2021-04-28

As a result, the appeal as to Holland was severed into a separate cause number and stayed, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362, TEX. R. APP. P. 8.3, and In re Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 35 S.W.3d 602, 604 (Tex. 2000) (orig. proceeding).

Section 362 automatically stays further action in a pending appeal when the appellee files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

MRC Permian Company/Holland Acquisitions, Inc., D/B/A Holland Services v. Holland Acquisitions, Inc., D/B/A Holland Serv · filed 2021-04-28

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362, any further action in this appeal is automatically stayed.

Section 362(a)(1) automatically stays an appeal that continues an action against a debtor who was the defendant below.

Ramsey Vs. Tumbarello · filed 2021-03-31(a)(1)

Consequently, an appeal is automatically stayed if the debtor was the defendant in the underlying trial court action.

Section 362 automatically stays further action in a pending appeal when an appellant’s bankruptcy proceeding remains pending.

LDG001, LLC and DJD Land Partners, LLC v. Southern Star Capital, LLC D/B/A Reliance Mortgage Company, Mike Anderson, Mar · filed 2021-02-24

The status report filed by appellants indicated that the bankruptcy proceeding was still pending. Thus, further action in this appeal has been automatically stayed. See 11 U.S.C. § 362.

Section 362 stays a pending appeal when a party to the appeal files for bankruptcy protection.

McCarrell v. Cici's Pizza A/K/A Cici's Enterprises A/K/A JMC Restaurant Distribution Inc. · filed 2021-02-04

Accordingly, this appeal is stayed. See 11 U.S.C. § 362; Tex. R. App. P. 8.2.

Section 362(a)(1) treats an appeal as a continuation of the action against the debtor for purposes of the automatic stay.

World Buddhism Ass'N Headquarters Vs. Las Vegas Monorail Co. · filed 2020-10-09(a)(1)

An appeal, for purposes of the automatic stay, is considered a continuation of the action in the trial court.

Section 362(a)(1) does not bar dismissal of a stayed appeal without prejudice when dismissal does not require reaching the merits and is consistent with protecting debtors and creditors.

Abkarian Vs. Ditech Fin. Llc · filed 2019-09-06(a)(1)

Because a dismissal without prejudice will not require this court to reach the merits of this appeal and is not inconsistent with the primary purposes of the bankruptcy stay—to provide protection for debtors and creditors—we further conclude that such dismissal will not violate the bankruptcy stay.

Section 362 can stay a pending appeal after an appellant files for bankruptcy protection.

Connors III v. Connie Vandergriff, the Appointed Substitute Trustee for Citimortgage, Inc. · filed 2019-07-03

Accordingly, this appeal is stayed. See 11 U.S.C. § 362; Tex. R. App. P. 8.2.

Section 362 stays a pending appeal when the automatic stay applies after a bankruptcy filing.

Fletcher v. Pingora Loan Servicing, LLC, Its Successors and Assigns · filed 2019-07-03

Accordingly, this appeal is stayed. See 11 U.S.C. § 362; Tex. R. App. P. 8.2.

Section 362(a)(1) permits dismissal of a stayed appeal without prejudice when dismissal requires no merits review and is consistent with the stay’s protection of debtors and creditors.

Trp Fund IV, LLC v. Ditech Fin. LLC · filed 2019-06-06(a)(1)

Because a dismissal without prejudice will not require this court to reach the merits of this appeal and is not inconsistent with the primary purposes of the bankruptcy stay—to provide protection for debtors and creditors—such dismissal will not violate the bankruptcy stay.

Section 362 stays continuation of a state court appeal involving the debtor until the bankruptcy stay is lifted.

In re: Torres · filed 2019-05-15(a)(1)

The Torreses can only pursue their appeal in state court (to the extent that state procedure allows) if the bankruptcy stay is lifted. 11 U.S.C. § 362 (staying the “continuation … of a judicial, administrative, or other action or proceeding against the debtor”).

Section 362(a)(1) automatically stays an appeal when the debtor was the defendant in the underlying trial court action.

Saticoy Bay, LLC Ser. 780 Vortex v. Ditech Fin. LLC · filed 2019-03-26(a)(1)

Consequently, an appeal is automatically stayed if the debtor was the defendant in the underlying trial court action.

Section 362(a)(1) automatically stays an appeal when the debtor was a defendant in the underlying trial court action.

Saticoy Bay LLC Ser. 1617 Joshua Tree v. Green Tree Serv. LLC · filed 2019-03-25(a)(1)

An appeal, for purposes of the automatic stay, is considered a continuation of the action in the trial court. Consequently, an appeal is automatically stayed if the debtor was the defendant in the underlying trial court action.

Section 362(a)(1) automatically stays an appeal of claims against a debtor who was a defendant in the trial court.

Sfr Invs. Pool 1, LLC v. Ditech Fin. LLC · filed 2019-03-25(a)(1)

An appeal, for purposes of the automatic stay, is considered a continuation of the action in the trial court. Consequently, an appeal is automatically stayed if the debtor was the defendant in the underlying trial court action.

Section 362(a)(1) automatically stays an appeal when the debtor was a defendant in the underlying trial court action.

Saticoy Bay LLC Ser. 529 Quail Bird v. Green Tree Serv., LLC · filed 2019-03-26(a)(1)

An appeal, for purposes of the automatic stay, is considered a continuation of the action in the trial court. Consequently, an appeal is automatically stayed if the debtor was the defendant in the underlying trial court action.

Section 362(a)(1) automatically stays an appeal involving claims against a debtor that was a defendant in the underlying action.

Keynote Prop.'s, LLC v. Ditech Fin. LLC · filed 2019-03-26(a)(1)

Consequently, an appeal is automatically stayed if the debtor was the defendant in the underlying trial court action.

Section 362(a)(1) permits dismissal without prejudice of a stayed appeal when dismissal does not reach the merits and is consistent with the stay's purposes.

Johnson v. Putze · filed 2019-03-08(a)(1)

Because a dismissal without prejudice will not require this court to reach the merits of this appeal and is not inconsistent with the primary purposes of the bankruptcy stay—to provide protection for debtors and creditors—such dismissal will not violate the bankruptcy stay.

Section 362(a)(1) permits dismissal of a stayed appeal without prejudice when dismissal does not reach the merits and is consistent with the stay’s protective purposes.

Saticoy Bay, LLC Ser. 780 Vortex v. Ditech Fin. LLC · filed 2019-03-26(a)(1)

Because a dismissal without prejudice will not require this court to reach the merits of this appeal and is not inconsistent with the primary purposes of the bankruptcy stay—to provide protection for debtors and creditors—such dismissal will not violate the bankruptcy stay.

Section 362(a)(1) permits dismissal of a stayed appeal without prejudice when the dismissal does not reach the merits and is consistent with the purposes of the automatic stay.

Nev. Sandcastles, LLC v. Ditech Fin. LLC · filed 2019-03-26(a)(1)

Because a dismissal without prejudice will not require this court to reach the merits of this appeal and is not inconsistent with the primary purposes of the bankruptcy stay—to provide protection for debtors and creditors—this court further concludes that such dismissal will not violate the bankruptcy stay.

Section 362(a) stays an appeal when a party to the appeal files a bankruptcy petition.

Markos v. Cheyenne Homeowner's Association, Inc. · filed 2017-01-12(a)

This appeal is stayed pursuant to the “Suggestion of Bankruptcy,” that appellant Cynthia Markos filed in this Court on January 6, 2017, stating that appellant has filed a petition for relief under Chapter 13 of Title 11, United States Code, in Case 16-80385, styled In re Cynthia Cole Markos, Debtor, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) (2000) (automatic stay in bankruptcy).

Section 362(a) can stay a pending appeal when a party files for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection.

Hammer v. University Federal Credit Union Wayne Morgan A/K/A El Campo Real Estate, LP A/K/A the Morgan Children, · filed 2016-10-28(a)

Appellant Stacey Hammer has notified this Court that she has filed for bankruptcy protection (United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Colo., chapter 7, docket number 16-20158-EEB). See Tex. R. App. P. 8.1. Accordingly, this appeal is stayed. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a); Tex. R. App. P. 8.2.

Section 362(a) can stay a pending appeal when a party files for bankruptcy.

Bierwirth v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. F/K/A Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP · filed 2013-10-24(a)

Kevin Bierwirth provided this Court with notice of his filing for bankruptcy (In re: Kevin L. Bierwirth, United States Bankruptcy Court, Western District of Texas, Austin Division, Chapter 7, Cause No. 13-11730D). Accordingly, this appeal is stayed.

Section 362(a) stays an appeal when the appellant files for bankruptcy.

Bierwirth v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. · filed 2013-10-24(a)

Accordingly, this appeal is stayed. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a); Tex. R. App. P. 8.2.

A bankruptcy court’s modification of the automatic stay to permit appeals allows the state appellate court to hear an appeal without violating the stay.

Saden v. Smith · filed 2013-09-26(a)(1)

We also have subject-matter jurisdiction to decide the appeal in light of the bankruptcy court’s modification to the automatic stay of bankruptcy to permit the parties to prosecute any appeals of the final judgment. Thus, our assumption of jurisdiction in this case does not violate the stay.

Section 362(a) does not prevent dismissal of an appeal without prejudice to reinstatement after the bankruptcy stay is lifted or the bankruptcy proceedings end.

Jang v. Spring Mountain and Rainbow · filed 2013-09-09(a)

further conclude that such dismissal will not violate the bankruptcy stay. 1 See Independent Union of Flight Attendants v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 966 F.2d 457, 459 (9th Cir. 1992) (holding that the automatic stay does not preclude dismissal of an appeal so long as dismissal is "consistent with the purpose of the statute [11 U.S.C. §362(a)]"; Dean v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 72 F.3d 754, 755 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding that a post-bankruptcy petition dismissal will violate the automatic stay "where the decision to dismiss first requires the court to consider other issues presented by or related to the underlying case"). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. This dismissal is without prejudice to appellants' right to move for reinstatement of this appeal upon either the lifting of the bankruptcy stay or final resolution of the bankruptcy proceedings, if appellants deem such a motion appropriate.

Section 362(a) permits dismissal of an appeal without prejudice during a bankruptcy stay when dismissal is consistent with the purpose of the stay.

Hanson v. Gemstone Lvs · filed 2013-04-22(a)

See Dean v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 72 F.3d 754, 756 (9th Cir. 1995) (providing that a post-bankruptcy dismissal violates the automatic stay when "the decision to dismiss first requires the court to consider other issues presented by or related to the underlying case"); see also Indep. Union of Flight Attendants v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc., 966 F.2d 457, 459 (9th Cir. 1992) (explaining that the automatic bankruptcy stay does not preclude dismissal of an appeal so long as dismissal is "consistent with the purpose of [11 U.S.C. § 362(a)]"). Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed without prejudice to appellant's right to move for its reinstatement within 60 days of either the lifting of the bankruptcy stay or final resolution of the bankruptcy proceedings, if such a motion is deemed appropriate at that time.

Section 362(a)(1) stays a pending appeal against defendants who file for bankruptcy during the appeal.

Christian County Clerk v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. · filed 2013-02-15(a)(1)

Thus, this appeal is stayed as to those Defendants.

Section 362 automatically stays further action in a pending appeal when an appellant files for bankruptcy.

William R. Vance, Jr. and David R. Toups v. Vance · filed 2011-12-21

Further action in this appeal has been automatically stayed. See 11 U.S.C. § 362.

Section 362 can automatically stay further action in a pending appeal after a bankruptcy filing.

Lockhart v. Dale Patrick McCurley D/B/A Midlothian Insurance Agency · filed 2011-07-06

Appellant Jeffrey Scott Lockhart has filed a notice that he filed a bankruptcy proceeding on May 31, 2011. See TEX. R. APP. P. 8.1. Further action in this appeal has been automatically stayed. See 11 U.S.C. § 362.

The automatic stay prevents a state appellate court from ruling on a motion to dismiss a pending appeal while the stay is in effect.

NNN Met Center 10-1, LLC v. BACM 2005-3 Met Center Office · filed 2011-05-27

In light of the bankruptcy stay, we may not rule on appellees’ motion to dismiss.

Section 362(a)(1) automatically stays an appeal as to a party that files for Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

Middlebelt Plymouth Venture, LLC v. Moe's Southwest Grill, LLC · filed 2011-05-27(a)(1)

As a result, this appeal is automatically stayed as to S & Q Rib Shack.

Section 362 automatically stays further action in a pending appeal after the appellant files a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition.

Iiams v. Federal National Mortgage Association A/K/A Fannie Mae · filed 2011-04-12

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §362, any further action in this appeal is automatically stayed.

Section 362 automatically stays further action in a pending appeal when the appellant files a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition.

Hindera v. Dometrius · filed 2002-05-15

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362, any further action in this appeal is automatically stayed.

Section 362 automatically stays further proceedings in a pending appeal against a party that files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, requiring dismissal of the appeal without prejudice as to that party.

Williams v. Flintkote Co. · filed 2002-06-27

Accordingly, further proceedings against GAF are stayed by operation of 11 USC § 362, and we must dismiss this appeal without prejudice as to GAF.

Section 362 stays an appeal as to a party in bankruptcy.

McMeans v. Scripps Health · filed 2002-04-22

[1] MLR is in bankruptcy. Accordingly, the appeal is stayed as to MLR under section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. § 362) and we sever MLR from the appeal.

Section 362(a) permits dismissal of an appeal outside the court’s jurisdiction when dismissal does not address the merits and no purpose of the automatic stay would be served by delaying it.

Wachter v. Lezdey · filed 2002-03-29(a)

Here, by deciding that 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) prohibits review by this court, we are not deciding the issues of the case, e.g., whether the case was properly removed or whether either party prevails on the merits. Additionally, we are unaware of any policy of section 362 that would be served by declining to rule on a motion to dismiss an appeal that is clearly outside of this court’s jurisdiction. Thus, under Ninth Circuit precedent, the motion to dismiss can be decided without violating 28 U.S.C. § 362(a).

The automatic stay bars enforcement of a judgment while the debtor appeals and can serve in place of an appeal bond.

In Re Sletteland · filed 2001-03-28

The automatic stay of the Bankruptcy Code in effect substitutes for the appeal bond and constitutes an independent bar to the enforcement of the judgment.

Section 362(a)(1) stays proceedings originally brought against a debtor, including motions the debtor files in those proceedings.

Fleet Consumer Discount Co. v. Graves · filed 1994-08-19(a)(1)

Because the proceedings were originally brought against the debtor, the orders denying Graves' motions were entered in Liberty's actions against the debtor, and therefore in violation of the stay.

Section 362(a)(1) stays a debtor’s appeal of an action originally commenced against the debtor unless the bankruptcy court grants relief from the stay; Bankruptcy Rule 6009 does not authorize the appeal without that relief.

In Re Capgro Leasing Associates · filed 1994-06-30(a)(1)

For the reasons given, we hold that Bankruptcy Rule 6009 does not authorize a debtor in possession or a trustee to pursue an appeal of an action initially commenced against the debtor, absent an order granting relief from the automatic stay.

Section 362 does not prevent a debtor in possession from continuing an appeal of a prepetition action against the debtor without relief from the automatic stay.

In Re Odd Lyngholm, Debtor. Michael Dean Chaussee v. Odd Lyngholm · filed 1994-05-09(a)(1)

In the instant case, Debtor had filed a notice of appeal before he filed his bankruptcy petition. Debtor then acted as permitted by Rule 6009, and as we have approved in Autoskill, to file briefs and prosecute the appeal. The Colorado Court of Appeals decision is valid.

Section 362(a)(1) stays prosecution of an appeal against a party who has filed for bankruptcy.

Milwaukee Concrete Studios, Limited v. Fjeld Manufacturing Company, Incorporated, and Janice Krueger · filed 1993-10-19(a)(1)

After oral argument, we were notified that Krueger had filed a petition in bankruptcy on November 9, 1992, so that the automatic stay imposed by 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) would prohibit the prosecution of this appeal against her.

Section 362(a) does not automatically reimpose a stay when a party appeals an order lifting the automatic stay.

Bergeson v. Dilworth · filed 1990-10-24(a)

Defendants reliance on 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) is misplaced. Its provisions speak only to the effect of the filing of a bankruptcy petition, not the filing of a notice of appeal from an order lifting the automatic stay.

Section 362 contains no good-faith requirement for a foreclosure purchaser when an appeal from relief from the automatic stay becomes moot after foreclosure.

In The Matter Of Sullivan Central Plaza, I, Ltd. · filed 1990-10-16

Section 362 contains no similar good faith language, and we see no basis for implying it in the section. The mootness rule applied in 362 cases is judicially derived from a fundamental jurisdictional tenet: federal courts are empowered to hear only live cases and controversies.

Section 362(a) stays an appeal against a debtor even when the debtor has posted a supersedeas bond, because the bond does not release the debtor from liability or eliminate creditors’ stake in the appeal.

Robert J. Sheldon and Joan M. Sheldon, Doing Business as World Bazaar of Southlake v. Munford, Inc. And Lee Wards Creati · filed 1990-05-15(a)

The supersedeas bond merely gives the judgment creditor another debtor to go after — the insurance company — once execution of the judgment is possible. It is not a release of the judgment debtor. Munford remains fully liable; it is just that INA is liable too. ... The policy behind the automatic-stay provision is applicable and nothing in the text or history of the provision supports the creation of an exception. We therefore respectfully disagree with our colleagues in the Third and Tenth Circuits and decline to allow the appeal to go forward.

Section 362(a)(1) stays appeals in proceedings originally brought against the debtor, whether the debtor is the appellant or appellee.

Assoc. of St. Croix Condominium Owners v. St. Croix Hotel Corp. · filed 1982-07-06(a)(1)

In our view, section 362 should be read to stay all appeals in proceedings that were originally brought against the debtor, regardless of whether the debtor is the appellant or appellee.

Section 362(a)(1) stays a pending appeal against a debtor after the debtor files for bankruptcy, preventing the appellate court from issuing its decision until the bankruptcy court grants relief from the stay or the stay lapses.

Willie Ellison and Mary Ellison v. Northwest Engineering Company, a Delaware Corporation · filed 1983-06-24(a)(1)

Until it enters a contrary order, we are bound by the automatic stay provision of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1). ... It is therefore ORDERED that pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362 all proceedings in this court are hereby stayed.

Section 362(a)(1) stays an appeal in a proceeding originally brought against the debtor even when the debtor is the appellant.

Cathey v. Johns-Manville Sales Corporation · filed 1983-07-01(a)(1)

Confronting the construction of the term "against the debtor" within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), this Court concludes that satisfaction of that criteria must be ascertained from an examination of the debtor's status at the initial proceeding.

Section 362(a)(1) stays an appeal in an action originally brought against the debtor even when the debtor is the appellant.

Cathey v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. · filed 1983-07-01(a)(1)

It is inconceivable that Congress intended or envisioned construction of the phrase “against the debtor” to oscillate in any given judicial proceeding depending upon which stage of trial the action had progressed on the date of the filing of the bankruptcy petition. In the actions at bar J-M’s initial status as defendant satisfies the “against the debtor” criteria of § 362(a).

Section 362 requires an appellate court to defer hearing a stayed appeal until the bankruptcy case ends or the stay is lifted, while allowing the court to retain jurisdiction.

Rainbow Pioneer 44-18-04a, a General Partnership v. Hawaii-Nevada Investment Corporation, a Nevada Corporation, and Herm · filed 1983-07-28

The appeal was automatically stayed by the petition in bankruptcy filed against Rothbard, and the stay was not lifted. ... We defer hearing the appeal until the bankruptcy action is resolved or the stay is otherwise lifted, but we retain jurisdiction over the matter.

Section 362(a)(1) automatically stays an appeal of an action originally brought against the debtor, even when the debtor is the appellant.

Bankr. L. Rep. P 71,103 Ostano Commerzanstalt and Dr. Herbert Jovy v. Telewide Systems, Inc., and Bernard L. Schubert · filed 1986-04-29(a)(1)

Therefore, although the debtor is currently the appellant, this action is stayed because it was originally brought “against the debtor.”

Section 362 stays an appeal arising from a proceeding originally brought against the debtor, including the debtor’s own cross-appeal in that proceeding.

Marcus, Stowell & Beye Government Securities, Inc. v. Jefferson Investment Corporation · filed 1986-08-18

Moreover, based on the persuasive holdings and reasoning contained in Cathey v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 711 F.2d 60 (6th Cir.1983), and Association of St. Croix Condominium Owners v. St. Croix Hotel, 682 F.2d 446 (3d Cir.1982), we conclude that Daniel Andreola's cross-appeal against MSB, although initiated by the debtor, is also stayed by 11 U.S.C. Sec. 362.

Section 362(a)(1) stays a debtor's appeal of an action originally brought against the debtor, even when the debtor initiates the appeal.

Teachers Insurance & Annuity Association of America v. Butler · filed 1986-10-09(a)(1)

The original action was brought by Teachers against City Centre for a claim that arose before bankruptcy, and the partnership's appeal is a continuation of those judicial proceedings. Therefore the automatic stay of Sec. 362(a) attaches to the debtor's appellate proceedings, subject to the right of Teachers to seek relief from the bankruptcy court under Sec. 362(d).

Section 362(a)(1) stays an appellate court’s issuance of a decision in a prepetition action against the debtor, even when the appeal was argued before the bankruptcy filing; a decision issued during the stay is void.

In Re Roxse Homes, Inc. · filed 1987-06-03(a)(1)

Like the Third Circuit in Association of St. Croix Condominium Owners, 682 F.2d 446 (3rd Cir.1982), however, this Court is persuaded by the language of section 362, the legislature history of the section, and considerations of the policies behind the Code, to find that the Supreme Judicial Court decision must be considered to be null and void.

Section 362(a)(1) automatically stays the continuation of an appeal against a debtor when the debtor files a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition.

In Re Tampa Chain Company, Inc., Debtor. Barbara Balaber-Strauss, as Trustee Tampa Chain Company, Inc., Plaintiff v. Wol · filed 1987-12-14(a)(1)

On June 22, 1987, Reichard filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition in bankruptcy court. That petition automatically operated to stay the continuation of this appeal as to Reichard.

Section 362(a) automatically stays an appeal when the debtor was a defendant in the original suit, even if the debtor is the appellant.

Greenberg v. Fincher & Son Real Estate, Inc. · filed 1988-06-30(a)

Here, the bankrupt individual appellants were the defendants in the trial court. The appeal is therefore considered to be “against the debtors” and is stayed. This is so even though it is the debtors who are appealing an adverse lower court judgment.

Section 362 stays motions for appellate costs under Rule 39, and a movant seeking delayed filing must request relief from the stay in bankruptcy court within 14 days.

Bankr. L. Rep. P 72,663 Apex Oil Company v. The Belcher Company of New York, Inc., and Belcher New Jersey, Inc., Appeal · filed 1989-01-11

While we agree that Section 362 stays motions for costs pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 39, we hold that movants subject to the automatic stay of Section 362 must seek relief from the automatic stay in the bankruptcy court within 14 days.

Section 362(a)(1) stays an appeal when the underlying action was brought against the debtor, even if the debtor filed the appeal.

Osborn v. Charles E. Scott Co. · filed 1989-01-30(a)(1)

We agree with the Federal Third Circuit and since, in the instant case, the original proceeding was brought against the debtor, it is subject to the automatic stay. Accordingly, the proceedings in this court are stayed unless and until official notification from the Bankruptcy Court to proceed is received by this court.

Section 362 automatically stays further action in a pending appeal involving a debtor after a bankruptcy petition concerning that debtor is filed.

American 10-Minute Oil Change, Inc., Bricar, Inc., Steven J. v. Metropolitan National Bank, Farmers Branch · filed 1989-04-10

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362, further action in this cause is automatically stayed.

Section 362(a)(1) stays an appeal as to a party that has filed for bankruptcy, while the appeal may proceed as to a nondebtor party.

Titus Bros. Roofing Co. v. Blank · filed 1989-04-27(a)(1)

We do note from the record that Titus Brothers filed a suggestion of bankruptcy below thus triggering the automatic stay provision of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) as to it. ... Accordingly, we affirm the order denying the motion to vacate as to Joseph Titus and stay the appeal as to Titus Brothers.

Section 362 stays both spouses’ appeals over partition of community property when deciding the debtor’s appeal would necessarily affect the other spouse’s appeal and could change the bankruptcy estate’s assets.

Rabai v. Rabai · filed 1990-01-25(a)

It would be inequitable in these circumstances to stay Elizabeth Rabai’s appeal and to allow John Rabai to go forward with his appeal. Any decision by this court on John Rabai’s appeal would necessarily touch upon Elizabeth Rabai’s appeal. His appeal cannot be considered in isolation. ... Accordingly, for the reasons stated, the present appeals are subject to the automatic stay imposed by 11 U.S.C. Section 362.

Section 362(a) stays appellate proceedings involving a defendant that has filed for Chapter 11 reorganization.

In Re School Asbestos Litigation · filed 1990-12-13(a)

Accordingly, action in these appeals will be stayed.

Section 362(a)(1) automatically stays an appeal in an action brought against the debtor when the debtor files a bankruptcy petition.

In re New York Stock Exhange Arbitration Between Barbier & Shearson Lehman Hutton Inc. · filed 1991-09-03(a)(1)

Therefore, the filing of the bankruptcy petition on May 13, 1991 automatically stayed this appeal, since the appeal arises from an action brought to confirm an arbitration award “against the debtor.”

Section 362(a)(1) automatically stays a pending appeal from a proceeding against the debtor when the debtor files a bankruptcy petition.

In the Matter of New York Stock Exchange Arbitration Between Marco Barbier and Shearson Lehman Hutton Inc. · filed 1991-09-03(a)(1)

Therefore, the filing of the bankruptcy petition on May 13, 1991 automatically stayed this appeal, since the appeal arises from an action brought to confirm an arbitration award "against the debtor."

Section 362(a)(1) stays a prepetition appeal from an action brought against the debtor even if the debtor posted a supersedeas bond before filing for bankruptcy.

Borman v. Raymark Industries · filed 1991-10-21(a)(1)

Under St. Croix Condominium Owners, this appeal constitutes a "proceeding against the debtor" within the meaning of § 362(a)(1) because the underlying action was brought against Celotex. The existence of a supersedeas bond does not alter that fact.

Section 362 stays further proceedings against a debtor after it files a bankruptcy petition, including an appeal concerning that debtor until the stay is lifted.

DCA Architects, Inc. v. American Building Consultants, Inc. · filed 1992-03-12

Because it appears that ABC has filed a petition for relief under the Bankruptcy Code (11 USC § 101 et seq.), further proceedings against ABC are stayed by operation of 11 USC § 362.

Section 362(a)(1) does not bar a motion to dismiss an appeal against a debtor or the court’s action on that motion when applying the stay would serve no statutory purpose.

Independent Union of Flight Attendants v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., and Pan Am Corporation · filed 1992-04-10(a)(1)

In this posture of the case, we can see no statutory purpose to be served by applying the automatic stay to IUFA’s motion to dismiss this appeal or to our disposition of that motion. We hold that § 362(a) does not preclude the motion to dismiss or our action thereon.

Section 362 stays an appeal against a defendant who files for bankruptcy while the appeal is pending.

Retail Marketing Co. v. King (In re Mako · filed 1993-02-16(a)(1)

Accordingly, the automatic stay provision, 11 U.S.C. § 362, which stays judicial actions "against the debtor," prohibits us from adjudicating the plaintiff-appellant's claims against Brady.

Section 362(a)(1) does not bar a debtor in possession from prosecuting an appeal on behalf of the estate under Bankruptcy Rule 6009 without relief from the automatic stay.

Autoskill Inc. v. National Educational Support Systems · filed 1993-05-19(a)(1)

As we read his ruling, the bankruptcy judge felt that Rule 6009 allowed NESS to prosecute its appeal from the preliminary injunction without obtaining relief from the automatic stay of § 362, and we agree.

Section 362(a)(1) stays a debtor’s appeal from a judgment entered against the debtor as a defendant because the appeal continues a proceeding against the debtor.

Farley v. Henson · filed 1993-08-06(a)(1)

We believe that these decisions are correct and join our sister circuits in holding that an appeal brought by a debtor from a judgment obtained against it as a defendant is subject to the automatic stay.

Section 362(a) stays an appeal in a proceeding originally brought against the debtor, even when the debtor is the appellant.

Crowe Group, Inc. v. Garner · filed 1993-08-30(a)

The rule is that the determination of whether a case on appeal is stayed depends upon its inception, with the stay applying against proceedings originally brought against the debtor regardless of whether the debtor is the appellant or the appellee in appellate proceedings.

Section 362(a)(1) stays only actions or proceedings commenced against the debtor; it does not stay an appeal commenced by the debtor.

Golconda Screw, Inc. v. West Bottoms Ltd. · filed 1995-04-28(a)(1)

The automatic stay imposed by 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) (1988) applies only to actions or proceedings commenced against the debtor. This appeal was commenced by the debtor, not against the debtor, and the automatic stay does not apply.

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay a debtor’s appeal from a judgment on a debt because the appeal is not an action against the debtor.

Carpenter v. Farm Credit Services of Mid-America · filed 1995-09-01(a)(1)

We agree with the position taken by the Supreme Court of South Carolina in similar cireumstances: ... In its present posture, this is not an action against the debtor and therefore there is no automatic stay.