11 U.S.C. § 362

Section 362(d)(4) permits in rem relief from the automatic stay against real property when repeated bankruptcy filings form a scheme to hinder foreclosure, as to the debtor and those in contractual privity with the debtor.

In re: Martha Lee v. · filed 2012-04-18(d)(4)

Based upon all of the evidence before it, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in granting Appellee permanent in rem relief against the Kemper Lane Property as it relates to Debtor and anyone in contractual privity with the Debtor.

Section 362(d)(4) permits relief from the stay against real property only upon findings that the bankruptcy filing was part of a scheme to delay, hinder, or defraud creditors involving an unauthorized transfer of an interest in the property or multiple bankruptcy filings affecting it.

First Yorkshire Holdings, Inc. v. Pacifica L 22, LLC. (In Re First Yorkshire Holdings, Inc.) · filed 2012-05-10(d)(4)

To obtain relief under § 362(d)(4), the court must find three elements to be present. First, debtor’s bankruptcy filing must have been part of a scheme. Second, the object of the scheme must be to delay, hinder, or defraud creditors. Third, the scheme must involve either (a) the transfer of some interest in the real property without the secured creditor’s consent or court approval, or (b) multiple bankruptcy filings affecting the property.

Section 362(d) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when a debtor files bankruptcy solely to avoid state court divorce and contempt proceedings without a legitimate need for bankruptcy relief.

In re Hopper · filed 2012-06-27(d)

Finally, because Debtor filed this case solely to avoid the State Court without any legitimate need for bankruptcy relief, the Court finds cause to lift the automatic stay to allow the State Court divorce proceedings and related contempt action to proceed.

Relief from the automatic stay may be denied when nonbankruptcy litigation would materially interfere with a chapter 9 reorganization.

Association of Retired Employees v. City of Stockton (In re City of Stockton) · filed 2012-08-06

Accordingly, the bankruptcy policy of favoring a collective proceeding to work out a comprehensive solution to municipal insolvency counsels against permitting nonbankruptcy litigation that would materially interfere with the reorganization process. ... The request for relief from stay will be denied.

Section 362(d) allows a debtor to seek stay relief for its own rights, but not to vindicate another party’s rights.

In re Sweports, Ltd. · filed 2012-08-15(d)

But although a debtor may sometimes be able to seek relief from the stay to vindicate its own rights, a debtor has no ability to seek relief from the stay to vindicate the rights of others.

Section 362(d)(2) permits relief from the automatic stay when the debtor has no equity in the property and the property is not necessary to an effective reorganization.

In re Franklin · filed 2012-08-15(d)(2)

To be granted relief from the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d), a creditor must demonstrate a lack of “adequate protection of an interest in property of such party in interest ... the debtor does not have an equity in such property; and such property is not necessary to an effective reorganization.” 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(l)-(2). ... No effective reorganization is a prospect, the Property is not necessary to an effective reorganization, and there is no possibility of reorganization. There is no equity in the Property. ... For these reasons, the Creditor’s Motion to Modify Automatic Stay will be granted.

Section 362(d)(2) permits relief from the automatic stay when the debtor has no equity in the property and the property is not necessary to an effective reorganization.

In re Geijsel · filed 2012-08-24(d)(2)

In light of the findings and conclusions made by the Court in this Memorandum Opinion, the Court further concludes that Lone Star’s motion for relief from stay [Docket No. 183] should be granted. The Plan is not confirmable; the Debtors do not have any equity in the property securing Lone Star’s claims and the property is not necessary to an effective reorganization.

Section 362(d) permits a creditor who is a party in interest to seek relief from the automatic stay.

Castro v. Kondaur Capital Corp. (In Re Castro) · filed 2012-11-28(d)

Thus, as a creditor in the Castros’ bankruptcy proceeding, Kondaur was a “party in interest” under § 362(d) with standing to seek relief from the automatic stay.

Section 362(d)(1) allows stay relief so a lessor can recover possession when the lease has terminated by its own terms.

In re Evans Coal Corp. · filed 2013-01-08(d)(1)

For the foregoing reasons, the Motion to Assume Lease filed by the Trustee will be denied, and the Motion for Stay Relief filed by the Smiths will be granted, notwithstanding that the Coal Lease Agreement has been terminated by its own terms, so that they may proceed with the recovery of their real property.

A mortgage lender seeking relief from the automatic stay under § 362(d)(1) must establish that it is a creditor with standing to pursue foreclosure.

In re Idicula · filed 2013-01-10(d)(1)

In any event, at the hearing, counsel for U.S. Bank similarly failed to establish that the Note was assigned by a written instrument or by physical delivery of the instrument. The Court therefore concludes, as it did in Lippold, that U.S. Bank does not have standing to obtain stay relief.

Section 362(d)(2) entitles a secured creditor to relief from the automatic stay when the debtor has no equity in the property and the property is unnecessary to an effective reorganization.

In re GAC Storage Lansing, LLC · filed 2013-01-10(d)(2)

Under section 362(d)(2), a secured creditor is entitled to stay relief if the debtor lacks equity in the property, and the property is not necessary for an effective reorganization.

Section 362(d) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when a debtor cannot assume the contract supporting the debtor’s claim to possess property.

In re Cunningham · filed 2013-01-18(d)

Without an assumption of these executory contracts, the County of Chautauqua retains all rights of ownership, including a right to possession that is unfettered by any contract for repurchase. Cause exists, therefore, to grant the requests for relief from the automatic stay.

Section 362(d)(1) relief from stay is a summary proceeding in which a foreclosing mortgagee can establish a colorable claim without fully proving the validity of its mortgage assignments.

In re Danastorg · filed 2013-09-16(d)(1)

The Court finds that U.S. Bank established a colorable claim for relief from the automatic stay based upon the provisions of the mortgage. ... In the context of a motion for relief from stay, the requirement that foreclosing mortgagees establish the validity of assignments by showing the lender’s direction to MERS would undermine the summary nature of lift stay proceedings.

A mortgage holder has standing to seek relief from the automatic stay when it has a colorable claim to an interest in estate property.

In re Martin · filed 2013-10-09

The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has instructed that the test for determining standing to bring a motion for stay relief is whether the moving party has a “colorable claim” to property of the estate. ... Green Tree as the current holder of the mortgage on the Lowell property has demonstrated a colorable claim to an interest in property of the estate.

Section 362(d)(2) permits relief from the automatic stay when there is no effective reorganization in prospect.

In re NNN Parkway 400 26, LLC · filed 2014-01-28(d)(2)

Therefore, the court sees no basis for further delay of the lender under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2) as there is no reorganization “in prospect.”

Section 362 permits relief from the automatic stay so a condominium association can pursue post-filing assessments while a Chapter 13 case remains pending.

Carrollan Gardens Condominium Ass'n v. Khan (In re Khan) · filed 2014-01-30

Although the stay will be lifted, the court will comment on the state of affairs should Debtor be able to consummate his plan.

Section 362(d)(4)(B) requires more than multiple bankruptcy filings: the filings and the petition must be part of a scheme to delay, hinder, or defraud creditors of the affected real property.

Patricia Gray v. · filed 2014-03-07(d)(4)(B)

Multiple bankruptcy filings do not alone justify relief under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(4)(B), however. Under the statute, those filings, as well as the petition in this case, must be “part of a scheme to delay, hinder, or defraud creditors” of the North 51st Street property.

Section 362(h) provides relief from the automatic stay only when the collateral is personal property, not real property.

In re Plummer · filed 2014-03-25(h)

Although the Code provides for relief from stay as an explicit remedy in § 362(h), the section only applies when the collateral is personal property, not real property.

Section 362(d) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause, but a court may deny relief when the proposed litigation would substantially harm the estate and other creditors.

In re Sunland, Inc. · filed 2014-04-04(d)

The Court finds Swain has not demonstrated sufficient “cause” to obtain relief from the stay. Allowing the Lawsuit to proceed would have a substantial adverse effect on the estate and other Recall Claimants. The Court will therefore deny Swain’s motion.

Default under a confirmed Chapter 13 plan can constitute cause for relief from the automatic stay under § 362(d).

In re Ulrey · filed 2014-06-02(d)

Default under a confirmed Chapter 13 plan can be “cause” for relief under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d).

A party seeking relief from the automatic stay to continue a foreclosure action under § 362(d)(1) needs only a colorable interest in the note and property.

Junk v. CitiMortgage, Inc. (In re Junk) · filed 2014-07-02(d)(1)

In order to have standing to seek relief from stay under § 362(d)(1) to continue the foreclosure action, CitiMortgage need only have a colorable, or plausible, interest in the Note and the Oldfield property.

In a Section 362(d)(2) stay-relief hearing, a debtor’s evidence that a proposed plan is feasible receives less scrutiny than it would at a confirmation hearing.

In re Chardon, LLC · filed 2014-10-01(d)(2)

Therefore, a hearing on a motion for relief from stay is more limited than a confirmation hearing, and the debtor’s evidence as to the feasibility of a proposed plan will be subjected to a lower level of scrutiny.

A creditor seeking in rem relief from the automatic stay under § 362(d)(4) bears the burden of proving the required scheme to delay, hinder, or defraud creditors.

In re Taal · filed 2014-10-14(d)(4)

Accordingly, the creditor has the burden of proof under § 362(d)(4).

A bankruptcy court may lift the automatic stay sua sponte in appropriate circumstances despite § 362(d)'s reference to a request by a party in interest.

In re: Michele Renee Clark · filed 2014-11-04(d)

Contrary to Appellant’s argument, there is authority that a bankruptcy court can lift the automatic stay of § 362 sua sponte in appropriate circumstances.

Section 362(d) allows a property owner whose interest could be affected by a bankruptcy proceeding to seek relief from the automatic stay as a party in interest.

Ly v. Che · filed 2015-04-21(d)

Because Che owns a property that could be affected by the bankruptcy proceeding, she is a “party in interest” within the meaning of § 362(d).

Section 362(d) permits a party with a colorable claim to the property to seek relief from the automatic stay without a substantive adjudication of its rights.

In re: Cindy Yunkong Ikeoka · filed 2015-06-26(d)

As a result, “a party seeking stay relief need only establish that it has a colorable claim to the property at issue.”

Section 362(d) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause to allow a landlord to pursue eviction in state court while leaving the stay in place against obtaining a money judgment or enforcing the tenant’s personal liability.

In re Blair · filed 2015-07-16(d)

Based on the foregoing, the Court will modify the automatic stay to allow Apfels to pursue the Eviction Proceeding and exercise their rights and remedies under the Lease in the State Court. However, the stay will not be modified to permit Apfels to obtain a money judgment against Ms. Blair or otherwise to enforce any of her obligations under the Lease as her personal liability, absent an effective waiver on her part of the discharge of debt arising from the Lease.

Section 362(d)(1) requires a party seeking relief from the automatic stay to set off against a debtor’s counterclaims to demonstrate cause for that specific relief.

In re American Spectrum Realty, Inc. · filed 2015-11-09(d)(1)

The Plaintiffs’ request for relief from stay to setoff against the Debtor’s counterclaims; however, is DENIED. The Plaintiffs have not provided sufficient evidence or argument to demonstrate “cause” under § 362(d)(1) for obtaining relief from stay for purposes of setoff against the Debtor’s counterclaims.

The court may lift the automatic stay to allow state-court ratification of a prepetition foreclosure sale while preserving the debtor’s state-law objections.

PNC Bank, National Assoc. v. May (In re May) · filed 2016-02-18

The relief granted in this proceeding was not to annul the stay, as requested. It was to lift the stay for the limited purpose of allowing the ratification process to continue to determine finally in State court Debtor’s rights in the property under Maryland law.

Section 362(d)(2) requires relief from the automatic stay when the debtor has no equity in the property and the property is not necessary for reorganization.

In re Beautiful View Realty, Inc. · filed 2016-02-29(d)(2)

Under § 362(d)(2), the automatic stay must be lifted with respect to property if the debtor lacks equity in the property and it is not necessary for reorganization.

An established right of setoff supplies cause for relief from the automatic stay under § 362(d)(1).

In re Buttrill · filed 2016-03-31(d)(1)

The court has previously found that AAFES has a right of offset so it also finds that cause exists.

Section 362(d)(1) does not provide cause to lift the stay for setoff when the creditor had no right to set off the debt before the bankruptcy filing.

In re Flannery · filed 2016-08-19(d)(1)

Because there was not a monetary default, this Court concludes that Michigan First had no grounds to exercise its right to setoff prior to the filing of the petition. Therefore, there is no cause under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) to lift the stay for Michigan First to exercise a non-existent right of setoff.

Section 362(d) allows a mortgage assignee that shows possession of the associated note indorsed in blank to seek relief from the automatic stay as a party in interest.

In Re: Dana N. Grant-Covert v. · filed 2016-10-06(d)

As Wells Fargo provided evidence that it had been assigned the mortgage, and that it was in possession of the Note indorsed in blank, it produced sufficient evidence to allow the Bankruptcy Court to find that it was a party in interest, entitling it to ask that court to lift the automatic stay.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay to allow arbitration when a written arbitration agreement exists and arbitration would assist the bankruptcy court in exercising its jurisdiction.

In re No Place Like Home, Inc. · filed 2016-10-27(d)(1)

Bankruptcy courts possess broad discretion to grant a motion for relief from the stay and to. compel arbitration if there is an underlying written agreement/provision to arbitrate and, if doing so, would be helpful and assist the bankruptcy court in exercising its bankruptcy jurisdiction.

Section 362(d) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when the debtor uses the stay to delay trial until its position improves.

In re Railyard Co. · filed 2016-12-02(d)

The Court will grant a party relief from the automatic stay based on a showing of “cause.” ... The stay is not meant to allow a debtor to delay trial until the underlying circumstances improve and it is better situated to win.

Section 362 permits conditional relief from the automatic stay when a debtor filed in bad faith and cannot propose a confirmable plan.

Arm Ventures, LLC · filed 2017-02-14

Nonetheless, due to the Debtor’s bad faith in filing this case and the Debtor’s inability or unwillingness to propose a con-firmable plan, Ocean Bank is granted relief from stay subject to the conditions set forth below.

Section 362(d) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause so a creditor can pursue a suit to judgment in another court, while leaving further proceedings against the debtor to the bankruptcy court.

In re Trammell Family Lake Martin LLC · filed 2017-04-04(d)

There is sufficient cause to grant relief pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d). This Court will, by way of a separate order, grant relief from the automatic stay to SE Properties to permit it to proceed to judgment in its suit. In the event it obtains money damages against either Debtor, SE Properties is not permitted to proceed further against the Debtors. Rather, it should bring any claim it may have against either Debtor here for further proceedings.

Section 362(d) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause to let a transferred suit proceed to judgment, while limiting further action against the debtors.

In re Trammell Family Orange Beach Properties LLC · filed 2017-04-10(d)

It is illogical to transfer the fraudulent conveyance suit without also granting relief from the automatic stay; thus, permitting the District Court to proceed with the suit. There is sufficient, cause to grant relief pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d). ... In the event it obtains money damages against either Debtor, SE Properties is not permitted to proceed further against the Debtors. Rather, it should bring any claim it may have against either Debtor here for further proceedings.

Relief from the automatic stay may be denied when a purported lease is reclassified as a security agreement and the Chapter 13 debtor can attempt to pay the creditor through a plan.

In re Price · filed 2017-09-14

If the Debtors had remained current with the weekly payments under the terms of the Interim Order, then the court would now find the reclassification of the Lease Agreements as security agreements to be cause for denying the Stay Motion, discontinuing direct payments to Peak, and allowing the Debtors a fair attempt to satisfy its indebtedness to Peak through the Plan; therefore, the court will adjudicate the Reconsideration Motion. ... 3. The Stay Motion be, and hereby is, denied without prejudice.

For relief from the automatic stay based on lack of equity, the court need only consider whether the property value is likely below the debt; it need not determine the property’s actual fair market value.

Washington Federal v. Hulsey · filed 2017-10-31(d)(2)

The bankruptcy court did not have to determine the actual fair market value of the property to determine whether relief from the stay should be granted. It only had to consider whether the actual value was likely to be less than the amount of the debt.

Section 362(d)(1) allows a creditor with a claim against the debtor to seek relief from the automatic stay as a party in interest.

Basson v. Federal National Mortgage Association · filed 2018-02-20(d)(1)

And as a creditor, it is a “party in interest,” which means that it could raise and be heard on “any issue” — including relief from the automatic stay — in the bankruptcy court.

Section 362(d)(1) permits retroactive relief from the automatic stay for cause when the court would have granted stay relief throughout the relevant period.

In re Trammell · filed 2018-03-19(d)(1)

Here, based on the stipulated facts as well as Debtor's concession that the IRS was entitled to prospective relief from the automatic stay concerning Debtor's pension, the Court would have granted the IRS stay relief at all times; thus, cause exists to grant stay relief retroactively.

A bare order granting relief from the automatic stay under § 362(d) does not necessarily adopt a creditor’s proposed terms or authorize distribution of estate property outside bankruptcy.

Hannon v. City of Newton · filed 2018-05-11(d)

This ruling cannot, without speculation, be read to mean that Judge Hillman effectively adopted the proposed order of the United States submitted with the motion to annul the stay. ... Despite the possibility that the bare endorsement granting annulment of the stay might be read to permit me to maintain control over the interpleader funds to be distributed as mandated by the First Circuit, I decline to embrace that reading.

Relief from the automatic stay to pursue an injunction is unwarranted when the movant shows no prospect of entitlement to injunctive relief.

In re Fin. Oversight & Mgmt. Bd. for P.R. · filed 2018-07-13

For the reasons detailed above, Aurelius has failed to demonstrate any prospect of entitlement to injunctive relief. Accordingly, there is no cause for relief from the automatic stay to pursue an injunction and the Lift Stay Motion is denied in its entirety.

Section 362(a) does not prohibit a creditor from filing a motion for relief from the automatic stay, even when the debtor alleges inaccurate payment records support the motion.

Trokie v. U.S. Bank Trust Nat'l Ass'n (In re Trokie) · filed 2018-10-05(a)

I find that, based on the facts of this case, amendment to Count I would be futile given that no set of facts can support the claim that the filing of a motion for relief from the automatic stay violates the automatic stay.

Relief from the automatic stay limited to one creditor and its interest in property leaves the debtor’s stay protections against other creditors in place.

Coletta v. The Bank of New York Mellon · filed 2018-12-04(d)

The problem is that Coletta is tilting at windmills: the relief he seeks has already been granted by the Bankruptcy Court. ... Further, the bankruptcy court’s order granting Bank Mellon relief from the stay does not affect the protections Coletta may have from his secured creditors in his bankruptcy case.”

Section 362(d) allows an entity whose asserted foreclosure right is blocked by the automatic stay to seek stay relief as a party in interest without first proving that it owns or holds the note.

In re Horton · filed 2019-01-08(d)

Wilmington Savings asserts a right to foreclose against the debtor's real property, and the automatic stay currently bars it from pursuing that asserted right. Because the automatic stay bars it from pursuing that asserted right, it is a party in interest without the necessity of its proving that it holds or owns the note at issue.

Section 362 permits a partial lift of the automatic stay so a state court can determine a claim amount when the bankruptcy court abstains from that determination.

In re: Erling S. Calkins and Elaine S. Calkins · filed 2019-04-09

In other words, for the Abstention Order to be fully effective, a partial stay lift–or a comfort order to that effect–was implicitly necessary.

Section 362(d)(2) requires relief from the automatic stay when the debtor has no equity in property and the property is not necessary to an effective reorganization.

In re Fuelling · filed 2019-05-01(d)(2)

The cash proceeds are, therefore, "not necessary to an effective reorganization" because they cannot be used in any plan of reorganization. ARM's Motion for Relief from Stay is granted.

A mortgage creditor whose authority to foreclose has been established by state court judgments has standing to seek in rem relief under § 362(d).

Ronald Joseph Smith · filed 2019-06-05(d)

Based on the decisions of the state court, U.S. Bank has authority to prosecute the foreclosure decree. Consequently, it has standing in this court to seek relief from the dismissal order and to pursue in rem relief under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d).

Section 362(d)(4) does not directly authorize in rem relief when the court is not acting on a secured creditor’s motion.

In re Dawood · filed 2019-07-19(d)(4)

Section 362(d)(4) does not literally apply here, because the Court is not acting on the motion of a secured creditor.

Section 362 permits relief from the automatic stay on an unsecured claim.

HRN Group, LLC · filed 2019-11-13(d)(1)

But the Court did not reach that issue and stay relief is not limited to secured claims.

Section 362(d) requires evidence that proposed payments inadequately protect a creditor before granting stay relief for cause, and lack of equity does not warrant relief when the property is necessary to reorganization.

Niki L Baker · filed 2019-12-03(d)(1)-(2)

Relief from stay may be granted for cause, including a lack of adequate protection, or when the debtor has no equity in the property and the property is not necessary to an effective reorganization. 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1)-(2). The Court finds that Crain failed to prove cause under § 362(d)(1): there is no evidence before the Court that the debtor’s proposal to pay Crain pre-confirmation adequate protection payments of $190 per month and post confirmation payments of $488 per month is insufficient to adequately protect Crain’s interest. While it is undisputed that the debtor has no equity in the property, the Court finds that the debtor proved that the vehicle is necessary for her reorganization. Therefore, the Court denies relief under § 362(d)(2).

Section 362(e)(2)(B)(ii) permits a court to hold a motion for relief from the automatic stay in abeyance for a specified period while the debtor considers an alternative claim-filing procedure.

Theresa Lynn Kielman · filed 2019-12-16(e)(2)(B)(ii)

To permit the debtor to consider that alternative, the Court will hold AmeriCredit’s motion for relief from stay in abeyance pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(e)(2)(B)(ii) until January 17, 2020.

A creditor seeking relief from the automatic stay need only establish a colorable claim to property; the stay relief hearing need not resolve the claim’s ultimate validity.

Pansier v. United States · filed 2019-12-30(d)(1)

In other words, a creditor need only establish a “colorable claim” to property.

Section 362(d) allows a party in interest to seek relief from the automatic stay.

Andrea Genrette v. · filed 2020-03-17(d)

A “party in interest” is eligible for relief from a stay. 11 U.S.C. § 362(d).

Section 362(d) permits relief from the automatic stay for an unsecured creditor only in extraordinary circumstances.

Rancher's Legacy Meat Co. · filed 2020-03-23(d)

Here, Ratcliff has not shown any extraordinary circumstances that would entitle him to an advantage over the other unsecured claimants in this case in the form of relief from the automatic stay. Therefore, relief from the automatic stay would not be proper under these circumstances.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay to let a pending state court tort action proceed to judgment while preserving the stay against enforcement.

Yates v. Oroojian · filed 2020-05-05(d)(1)

In so abstaining, the court will also grant stay relief sua sponte to allow the state court action to proceed to judgment, but not permitting enforcement of any judgment against the debtor or property of the estate unless further stay relief is obtained by order of the court or by operation of statute.

A party seeking relief from the automatic stay must prove lack of equity in the property when relying on that ground, and an equity cushion can adequately protect its interest.

Paul Mike Louis and Marishka Edmond Louis · filed 2020-05-29(d)

Accordingly, Movant has not met its burden to show a lack of equity in the Property, and Movant is adequately protected by the equity cushion in the Property.

Section 362(d) requires a creditor who suspects a debtor was dishonest to seek relief from the automatic stay in bankruptcy court before pursuing collection.

Squire v. Vickie Stringer · filed 2020-08-10(d)

But that venerable principle did not serve as a gateway for Creditors to circumvent the automatic stay based upon their individual determination that Stringer had been dishonest in some aspect of the bankruptcy process. The Bankruptcy Code, in fact, provides a specific mechanism for Creditors to request relief from a § 362 stay. Under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d), a bankruptcy court can grant such relief so long as it provides notice and a hearing to the other parties.

Section 362(a)(1) and (a)(6) do not prohibit filing a motion for relief from the automatic stay, which does not itself initiate a foreclosure action or collect a prepetition claim.

Thomas Edward White · filed 2020-08-20(a)(1), (a)(6)

If the filing of a motion for relief from the automatic stay were the initiation of a foreclosure action, every motion for relief from the automatic stay ever filed in a bankruptcy court to obtain relief from the stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) against commencing a foreclosure action would violate § 362(a)(1) by itself being the commencement of a foreclosure action, and would violate 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(6) by being an act to collect a claim against the debtor that arose before the commencement of the bankruptcy case.

At a hearing on relief from the automatic stay to allow a pending state court proceeding to continue, the bankruptcy court decides whether the state court may proceed, without deciding the merits of the state court dispute.

Laurie Ann Harms · filed 2020-10-02(d)(1)

Employing this analysis, at a hearing for a motion for relief from stay to permit a state court to continue a proceeding commenced before the bankruptcy filing, on a matter that the state court is competent to determine, it will not be for this Court to determine any of the merits underlying the state court unlawful detainer action. The only ruling for this Court to make at a hearing on NGC’s Motion is whether there is reason to restrain the state court from continuing with its own proceedings.

Section 362(d) allows a request for relief from the automatic stay only by a party in interest, whose status the court must determine before granting relief.

Dees v. New Rez LLC · filed 2021-03-03(d)

The plain language of 11 U.S.C. § 362(d) provides that requests for relief from the stay are permissible if made by “a party in interest.” Because those who are not parties in interest are not permitted to seek a relief from the stay, this Court finds that the Georgia Bankruptcy Court should have decided the threshold issue of whether Appellee was a party in interest before granting relief.

Section 362(d) relief from the automatic stay may be denied when claims intertwined with core bankruptcy proceedings are best resolved in bankruptcy court instead of arbitration.

Creditor, Pilgrim Skating Arena, Inc. v. Laubenstein · filed 2021-03-08(d)

Given how these claims are intertwined with the bankruptcy action, the interests of judicial economy and efficiency are best served through consideration thereof by the bankruptcy court, particularly where Pilgrim appears poised to make various fraud claims that would dramatically alter the dischargeability of the Laubensteins’ debts. The bankruptcy court properly denied Pilgrim’s motion for relief from the automatic stay to compel arbitration.

Section 362(d) permits a bankruptcy court to terminate the automatic stay without conditions, allowing the authorized litigation to proceed with monetary claims and remedies.

Simone Barron AND Walid Yammine v. Issam Al Shmaisani and Sharon Smith · filed 2021-06-03(d)

Section 362(d) of the Bankruptcy Code authorizes a bankruptcy court to grant relief from the automatic stay “such as by terminating, annulling, modifying, or conditioning” the stay. ... But the order at issue here, entered after an evidentiary hearing, did not “modify” or “condition” the stay—it terminated the stay so that Shmaisani’s case could proceed. ... The language used is broad and does not purport to limit Shmaisani’s causes of action or remedies to purely nonmonetary or title-related ones.

Section 362(d)(2) stay relief may be inappropriate even if its grounds exist when competing claims to the property and objections to the movant’s claim remain unresolved.

Old CP, Inc. and Suri Realty, LLC · filed 2021-06-08(d)(2)

Moreover, even if this Motion was procedurally proper, and even if cause exists under subparagraph (d)(2) or otherwise, relief under 11 U.S.C. § 362 would be inappropriate because of the unresolved third-party claim regarding the Sale proceeds embodied in the Adversary Proceeding, as well as because of the Dennis Group’s objection to PUB’s proof of claim.

Relief from the automatic stay to allow state court litigation ordinarily includes appeals from the state court ruling.

Victor P. Kearney · filed 2021-07-23

Although there is little authority on this point, it appears that relief from the automatic stay to proceed with state court litigation typically encompasses appeals.

Section 362(d)(2) requires both a lack of debtor equity in the property and a finding that the property is unnecessary to an effective reorganization before the court grants relief from the stay.

In Re: Tumba · filed 2021-09-29(d)(2)

Under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2), a court "shall" grant relief from the stay “if (A) the debtor does not have an equity in such property; and (B) such property is not necessary to an effective reorganization.” (emphasis added). The record here contains no discussion of § 362(d)(2)(B). Because the record is silent as to this issue, I leave it to the Bankruptcy Court to address on remand.

Section 362(d) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause to allow pending state court litigation to proceed through judgment while prohibiting enforcement or collection.

James Andrew Bussmann · filed 2021-09-30(d)

Applying both the Curtis factors and the Tucson Estate factors, the facts before this court weigh in favor of granting Movants’ motion for relief from stay. For the foregoing reasons, I will grant the motion for relief from stay. The state court case will be allowed to proceed to trial and resolution including judgment. No enforcement or collection will be allowed.

Section 362(k) does not treat a creditor’s motion for relief from the automatic stay as an act to collect a debt.

Swink v. Federal National Mortgage Association · filed 2021-10-12(k)

Contrary to the Plaintiff’s position, a motion for relief from stay is not an act to collect for purposes of § 362(k).

Section 362(d)(4)(B) permits in rem relief from the automatic stay when a debtor's petition is part of a scheme to delay, hinder, or defraud a secured creditor through multiple bankruptcy filings affecting the property.

Louis Roman · filed 2021-12-03(d)(4)(B)

The Court finds that the filing of this case was part of a scheme to delay, hinder, or defraud Benchmark that involved multiple bankruptcy filings affecting the Property. Accordingly, Benchmark is entitled to in rem relief pursuant to section 362(d)(4)(B).

Section 362(d) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause, but missed post-confirmation payments alone may be insufficient when a confirmed plan gives the debtor more time to sell or refinance the collateral.

Jeffrey Lynn Hoffmann · filed 2022-02-04(d)

Considering the extended time given Debtor to sell or refinance, five missed post-confirmation payments totaling about $3,400, by itself, is not enough to constitute cause to grant relief from stay.

The automatic stay under § 362 may be lifted, to the extent it applies, as needed to permit arbitration.

Fort, Trustee v. Daileader · filed 2022-04-19

To the extent it is applicable, the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362 is lifted to the extent necessary to proceed with the arbitration; and 3. any further requested relief is denied.

Section 362(d) permits retroactive relief from the automatic stay when the debtor filed the bankruptcy petition in bad faith, so a state-court judgment entered during the stay does not violate a stay retroactively vacated by the bankruptcy court.

Howard v. City of San Diego CA4/1 · filed 2022-07-18(d)

A bankruptcy court may grant retroactive relief from such a stay, however, when the debtor filed the petition in bad faith. ... Thus, in light of the order retroactively vacating the bankruptcy stay that had issued automatically on December 4, 2020, Judge Taylor’s order of that date granting the City’s petition for release of the deposited funds and the corresponding judgment that followed did not violate the stay.

Section 362(a) requires relief from the automatic stay before a trustee may obtain turnover of property from a transferee who has filed bankruptcy.

Ferguson v. Taylor · filed 2022-08-15(a)

While neither party raised the issue, the Court takes judicial notice of the fact that Ms. Taylor filed her own chapter 7 voluntary petition on March 3, 2022 [Case No. 3:22-bk-70212], which resulted in the imposition of the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). Therefore, turnover of the properties is conditioned upon the trustee filing the appropriate motion for relief from stay in Case No. 3:22-bk-70212.

Section 362(d) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause to allow directors and officers to use shared insurance proceeds for defense costs even when the court does not decide whether the proceeds are estate property.

SVB Financial Group · filed 2023-05-22(d)

Here, too the Court need not decide whether the ABC Policies are property of the estate, because even if they are property of the estate, there is cause to lift the stay.

A scheme under § 362(d)(4) must involve multiple bankruptcy filings but may also include nonbankruptcy litigation.

In Re: Salma Merritt v. Derham-Burk · filed 2023-07-28(d)(4)

The statute requires that the scheme “involve[] . . . multiple bankruptcy filings,” not that the scheme solely consist of multiple bankruptcy filings.

Section 362 permits lifting the automatic stay to let state courts resolve disputed title when lifting it does not presently harm the debtor.

HOLMES · filed 2023-08-07

In either scenario, lifting the stay appropriately allows the state court process to unfold.

Relief from the § 362(a) stay is unwarranted when the request depends on abstention and remand that the court denies.

Jackson Family Dentistry, LLC v. Major Dental Partners, LLC · filed 2023-08-11(a)

The motion for relief from the §362(a) stay plainly depends on the defendants prevailing on their motion for abstention and remand as to the parties’ removed claims and counterclaims in this proceeding. Id. at 11–14. As this court denies the latter motion, for the reasons discussed above, there is not cause to grant the former.

Section 362(d) allows a party with a colorable claim to enforce a right against property to seek relief from the automatic stay.

Tucker v. SRS FS, LLC · filed 2023-08-14(d)

A party seeking stay relief need only establish that it has a “colorable claim” to enforce a right against property.

A party alleging violation of an order modifying the automatic stay bears the burden of showing that the challenged conduct exceeded the order’s limits.

LI v. DOBIN · filed 2023-08-18

The ambiguity of the Chinese proceedings undermines Li’s position, who as the moving party bore the burden of demonstrating that Zhang had violated the provisions of the stay relief order.

Multiple bankruptcy filings alone do not establish the scheme to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors required for in rem relief from the automatic stay under § 362(d)(4).

Cynthia A. Moore · filed 2023-09-27(d)(4)

The court concludes the Debtor has not engaged in a scheme to hinder, delay, or defraud the movant. Although, the Debtor filed four Chapter 13 cases, the Debtor is making significant efforts to prosecute this Fourth Case, and the record reflects the Debtor tendered post-petition payments to the Movant during the Third Case and during this Fourth Case.

Section 362(e) limits postponement of a ruling on stay relief when a proposed transfer of the property to the debtor remains unsupported and the moving creditor has not consented.

Sean Higgins · filed 2023-12-20(e)

Without evidence that the debtor will in fact be appointed as personal representative and will be able to transfer the Property to himself in the near future, the Court cannot withhold ruling on Matrix’s motion for relief from stay, especially without Matrix’s consent. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(e).

Section 362 permits a bankruptcy court to grant relief from the automatic stay for arbitration of a pension plan’s withdrawal-liability claim; the MPPAA’s arbitration provisions create a presumption favoring relief that the circumstances can overcome.

Yellow Corporation · filed 2024-03-27

The Court concludes that the most appropriate manner in which to do so is to treat the matter as a motion for relief from the stay in which the Court has the discretion to grant stay relief to permit arbitration. Bankruptcy courts should resist the perhaps natural inclination to view the goals of bankruptcy as paramount to all others. Instead, the MPPAA’s arbitration provisions should be treated as creating a presumption in favor of granting stay relief to permit arbitration.

Section 362(d) permits a creditor with an interest in the debtor’s property to request relief from the automatic stay as a party in interest.

In Re: Sanchez · filed 2024-09-11(d)

Because Appellee Bird Rock Home Mortgage had an interest as a creditor in Appellant’s home, Appellee was allowed to make its request since it is a “party in interest” that may request a bankruptcy court to grant relief from the stay under 11 U.S.C. 362(d).

Section 362(d)(4) permits in rem stay relief when a bankruptcy petition is part of a scheme to delay or hinder a secured creditor.

Maria A Karpuleon · filed 2024-12-06(d)(4)

Because the petition was filed as part of the Debtor’s scheme to delay or hinder the Bank, the Bank is entitled to in rem stay relief with respect to the Debtor’s residence.

Relief from a bankruptcy stay that extends to nondebtor defendants must be sought from the bankruptcy court.

McLemore v. County of Mahoning · filed 2024-12-30(d)

To allow this matter to proceed as to the non-debtor defendants strikes the Court as more akin to granting relief from the bankruptcy court’s stay order, a power vested in the bankruptcy court. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(d); Cathey v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 711 F.2d 60, 62 (6th Cir. 1983) (identifying the bankruptcy court as the “exclusive authority” to grant relief from a stay).

Section 362(a) prevents a prepetition judgment from attaching to property after one debtor becomes its sole owner, and the creditor cannot obtain stay relief merely to elevate its claim.

Peter Eric Steinke and Estate of Adriana Steinke · filed 2024-12-31(a)

The automatic stay provisions of § 362 prevent that remedy. The court is unable to find cause to lift the automatic stay to allow Harris to elevate the status of its claim.

Section 362(d) does not allow a creditor to establish cause for stay relief by choosing to litigate in two forums and then claiming prejudice from that choice.

Francis S Rathbun · filed 2025-02-11(d)

But it cannot establish cause for stay relief by making the affirmative choice to try its case in two different forums and then claiming that it is being disadvantaged and prejudiced by its own choice.

Section 362 gives the bankruptcy court exclusive authority to grant relief from an automatic bankruptcy stay.

Martell v. Wellpath LLC · filed 2025-02-11

This Court does not have the authority to grant relief from the automatic bankruptcy stay.

Section 362(d) permits prospective stay relief to pursue a state court claim, but retroactive annulment requires proof that the circumstances justify that exceptional relief.

Jill C. Sarcia · filed 2025-03-14(d)

Because the Movant failed to meet his burden of proof to show the circumstances of this case fall within the narrow group of cases justifying an annulment of the automatic stay, retroactive relief from stay will not be granted. Because the Movant did meet his burden of proof to allege he holds a claim that if successful might result in a determination by the state court that the Debtor defamed him, causing him harm, and that such defamation was malicious, prospective relief from stay will be granted.

A debtor’s lack of any legal or equitable interest in property is sufficient cause for relief from the automatic stay under § 362(d)(1) and (d)(2).

Elliott-Todd Parker Koger · filed 2025-04-14(d)(1), (d)(2)

Since a debtor’s (Koger’s) lack of any legal or equitable interest in the property is sufficient cause for relief from a stay,’ ... the Bankruptcy Court was compelled to grant stay relief under both sections 362(d)(1) and 362(d)(2).

Section 362(d) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when the debtor has no legal or equitable interest in the property.

Seven Rivers Leasing Corporation, Inc. · filed 2025-05-16(d)

Because the Court finds that the Blue Hangar is not property of Seven Rivers’ bankruptcy estate, the Court grants the motion for relief from stay for cause under § 362(d) in this case.

A creditor may continue litigation after relief from the automatic stay only within the limits set by the bankruptcy court’s order modifying the stay.

Hacker v. Jaime-Valdez · filed 2025-06-13(d)

The court acted outside its authority when, despite the automatic stay and the bankruptcy court's limited order modifying the stay to permit pursuit of plaintiff's claim only as to the amount of the insurance proceeds, it denied defendant's motion to mold the verdict and awarded a judgment far in excess of that amount.

A holder of a foreclosure judgment against estate property is a party in interest that may move for relief from the automatic stay.

Eileen Adams v. · filed 2025-09-03(d)

Nationstar held a foreclosure judgment in its favor. That makes it a “party in interest” to Adams’s bankruptcy estate, as a holder of a judgment against the estate’s property, the house. 11 U.S.C. §§ 362(a)(2), 362(d). So Nationstar moved for relief from the automatic stay. Id. § 362(d).

Irreparable harm is not a factor in deciding whether to lift the automatic stay.

Jonelle Lesley Hepburn · filed 2025-09-30

As the Court explained to the Debtor at the hearing, irreparable harm is not a factor in considering whether to lift the automatic stay.

In a motion for relief from the automatic stay to exercise setoff, the court may decide competing creditors’ rights to the funds when the parties have fully briefed the issue and expect it to be resolved in that proceeding.

Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company v. Capital Credit Union · filed 2025-10-20(d)(1)

Accordingly, we find it was appropriate for the bankruptcy court to determine CCU and Hartford’s respective rights to the funds during the hearing on the Motion.

Section 362(d) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when a debtor-tenant cannot pay post-petition rent.

Payne · filed 2025-11-14(d)

As noted above, Payne’s inability to pay post-petition rent constitutes cause to lift the automatic stay.

Section 362 bars a creditor from seeking a body attachment against a debtor when relief from the automatic stay was limited to recovering collateral.

Higgins · filed 2025-12-02(a)

The stay relief granted by this Court on October 20, 2021, was specifically confined to the creditors’ recovery of the Halloween UCC Collateral and the additional items that the debtor had agreed to give them. The creditors never asked this Court to lift the stay so that they could seek and obtain a body attachment order in state court, and the Court did not lift the stay for such a purpose.

Section 362(d)(4) permits two years of in rem relief from the automatic stay when multiple bankruptcy filings affecting real property are part of a scheme to delay, hinder, or defraud creditors.

Linda Ann Lee · filed 2025-12-17(d)(4)

Based on this record, the Court concludes the Debtor filed this petition as part of a scheme to delay, hinder, or defraud creditors involving multiple bankruptcy filings affecting the property, within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(4). Accordingly, the Movant is entitled to in rem relief regarding the Property for a period of two years.

Section 362(d) does not provide cause to lift the automatic stay for a creditor to pursue claims that belong to the bankruptcy estate and that the creditor is not entitled to prosecute.

ShiftPixy, Inc. · filed 2026-01-12(d)

The Court concludes that, because APIZZA is not entitled to pursue its claims against the Abshers for breach of fiduciary duty and fraud and that such claims are property of the estate, APIZZA failed to demonstrate cause for relief from the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. §362(d).

Relief from the automatic stay permits judicial proceedings against the debtor to continue during bankruptcy.

VARKEY · filed 2026-03-04

However, it is well established that “[i]f relief from the stay is granted,” as it has been here, “judicial proceedings against the debtor may then continue.”

Section 362(d) permits a court to annul the automatic stay retroactively for cause after weighing the circumstances relevant to stay relief.

Michael E Hindes · filed 2026-03-31(d)

Based on the facts and circumstances of the matter and duly weighing the Stockwell factors, cause exists to grant retroactive stay relief.

Section 362(d)(1) gives the bankruptcy court exclusive authority to grant relief from the automatic stay, so a request to lift the stay must be brought there.

Stringer · filed 2026-04-30(d)(1)

Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction to lift the automatic stay. ... If Plaintiff believes she is entitled to relief from the automatic stay, she must present her request to the bankruptcy court.

Section 362 permits denial of relief from the automatic stay when a secured creditor’s lien is adequately protected.

General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Anderson (In Re Anderson) · filed 1980-10-15

The depreciation rate of the collateral would not exceed the balance due at any time during the course of the plan extension and the Plaintiff also receives adequate protection for its lien. ... ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED, that the Plan should be and is hereby confirmed, and the prayers of the complaint seeking either delivery of the collateral to Plaintiff or for relief from the stay imposed by 11 U.S.C. § 362(e) are denied.

A creditor seeking relief from the automatic stay must commence an adversary proceeding by filing a complaint; an application does not suffice.

National City Bank of Rome v. Purdy (In re Purdy) · filed 1981-04-02(d)

However, an action to obtain relief from the automatic stay is an adversary proceeding under Rule 701 of the Bankruptcy Rules which must be commenced by the filing of a complaint in accordance with Rule 703 of the Bankruptcy Rules. The requirements of these two rules cannot be eluded by the filing of an “application”.

Relief from the automatic stay must be sought through an adversary proceeding under Bankruptcy Rule 701.

In Re Carla Charcoal, Inc. · filed 1981-09-28

The United States’ request that the automatic stay be lifted was denied. According to Bankruptcy Rule 701, any proceeding seeking relief from a stay must be instituted as an adversary proceeding.

Section 362(d) permits the court to authorize cancellation of a postpetition insurance policy under its cancellation clause, conditioned on return of the premium.

In Re Douglas · filed 1982-03-01(d)

DIP also agreed at the hearing to allow Glens Falls to make an oral “request” under 11 U.S.C. Section 362(d) to seek a termination of the automatic stay so that, if granted, the insurance policy covering the Chapter 11 partnership could be cancelled by Glens Falls with bankruptcy court authorization. ... 2. That Glens Falls be and it is hereby authorized to cancel the post-Chapter 11 insurance policy in question upon its return of the full premium to the DIP.

Section 362 permits denial of relief from the automatic stay when the proposed state-court determination would not bind the bankruptcy court.

Hall v. Cooper (In Re Cooper) · filed 1982-10-01

Appellants argue that the Bankruptcy Court erred by failing to lift the automatic stay to allow them to obtain a determination from the Orphans’ Court with respect to ownership and traceability of the proceeds of the subject bank accounts. This argument also fails since, as stated below, the subsequent Orphans’ Court decision does not overrule nor vitiate the Bankruptcy Court’s prior decision. Even if the Bankruptcy Court had lifted the stay, a further decision by the Orphans’ Court would not have been binding on the Bankruptcy Court.

Section 362(d) provides a motion in bankruptcy court as a means to seek relief from a stay.

Bankr. L. Rep. P 69,857 in Re Ernest Davis, Sr. · filed 1984-03-30(d)

Additionally, 11 U.S.C. Sec. 362(d) provides a mechanism for seeking relief from a stay by motion in the bankruptcy court.

Section 362(d) provides a way to seek relief from a stay by motion in the bankruptcy court.

In re Davis · filed 1984-03-30(d)

Additionally, 11 U.S.C. § 362(d) provides a mechanism for seeking relief from a stay by motion in the bankruptcy court.

Section 362 permits relief from the automatic stay so plaintiffs may proceed to final judgment in state court.

In Re Palm Beach Heights Development & Sales Corp. · filed 1985-07-25

1. Stay relief is granted to the plaintiffs in Palm Beach County Circuit Court Case No. 78 2283 CA(L) 01C to proceed to final judgment in that case.

Section 362’s automatic stay may be modified to allow a utility to apply a security deposit to unpaid postpetition service charges.

Peoples Gas System, Inc. v. Thatcher Glass Corp. (In Re Thatcher Glass Corp.) · filed 1986-04-15

Accordingly, PGS’s motion is granted, and it is Ordered that the automatic stay is modified to allow PGS to deduct $187,927.65 from the security deposit paid by Thatcher, representing the balance due for post petition natural gas computed at the GSCI rate, and that, after making this deduction, PGS shall return the balance of the deposit, together with accrued interest, to Thatcher.

A court granted relief from the automatic stay after finding the creditor held a valid, perfected security interest, which resolved the debtor’s sole objection.

In Re Falk Interiors, Inc. · filed 1986-07-25

The debtor’s only objection to this motion for relief from stay was with respect to the validity of the security interest. Therefore, it is the conclusion of the court that the Falkavages should be granted relief from the 11 U.S.C. § 362 automatic stay.

Section 362 relief allowing a secured creditor to exercise a prebankruptcy conditional lease assignment does not itself trigger § 365’s assumption and cure requirements.

Heller Financial, Inc. v. Air Atlanta, Inc. (In re Air Atlanta, Inc.) · filed 1987-05-28

The Court is of the opinion that lifting the stay as to such a creditor/assignee does not constitute an assumption or an assignment of the type that § 365 was intended to encompass.

Section 362(d) requires a creditor seeking relief from the automatic stay to give notice and obtain court approval.

Travelers Insurance Co. v. American Agcredit Corp. (In re Blehm Land & Cattle Co.) · filed 1988-09-29(d)

Under §§ 362, 363, and 364, it is clear that the creditor, in seeking relief from the stay, and the trustee, in using estate property out of the ordinary course or incurring unsecured debt, must give notice and obtain court approval before taking any action authorized by these sections.

Section 362 requires bankruptcy court authorization before a claimant commences or continues state court litigation against a debtor.

Chambers v. Marathon Home Loans (In Re Marathon Home Loans) · filed 1989-01-18

The process of requiring the bankruptcy court first to authorize the commencement or continuation of such state court litigation pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362 affords ample assurance that horrible events will not occur.

Relief from the automatic stay to initiate foreclosure permits a mortgagee to pursue foreclosure remedies, including appointment of a receiver to collect rents.

Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. v. Nazar · filed 1989-07-17

Relief from stay “to initiate a foreclosure proceeding” necessarily allows Freddie Mac to pursue whatever foreclosure rights it has under the mortgage, state law or federal law.

Section 362(d) permits a party in interest to seek relief from the automatic stay but does not require the Commissioner to seek it to file an amended answer after the stay ends.

Reed v. Commissioner · filed 1990-03-12(d)

Petitioners further assert that they were prejudiced by respondent's failure to move the Bankruptcy Court for leave to lift the automatic stay to allow respondent to file the amended answer with this Court. Petitioners argue that by not seeking to lift the stay, respondent was denying petitioners the opportunity of disposing of the adjustments at issue in the Bankruptcy Court. However, respondent was under no duty to bring such a motion before the Bankruptcy Court.

The automatic stay may be terminated to let a foreclosure purchaser seek possession when the debtor has forfeited the remaining redemption right and the property is outside the estate.

In Re Read · filed 1991-07-15

The debtor has forfeited his last remaining right in the property — the statutory right to redeem. The property is not property of the debt- or or of the estate. AmSouth Bank, as owner, has the right to proceed against the debtor to attempt recovery of possession. ... ORDERED that the motion of AmSouth Bank to terminate the automatic stay in this case is GRANTED, and the objection to confirmation is SUSTAINED.

Section 362(d) stay relief litigation should resolve direct defenses to a lienholder’s request, including challenges to the security interest or debt.

National Westminster Bank, U.S.A. v. Ross · filed 1991-08-13(d)

Defenses of nonperfection of the security interest, unconscionability, challenges to the outstanding indebtedness, usury, the statute of frauds and lack of consideration generally constitute “direct defenses” to the lienholder’s request for relief from the stay and should be determined as part of the stay litigation.

A court may condition continuation of the automatic stay on timely mortgage and Chapter 13 plan payments.

In Re King · filed 1991-08-13

For the foregoing reasons, the United States’ motion is hereby DENIED. Continuation of the stay is conditioned upon the debtor’s making all payments to FHA and to the Chapter 13 trustee on a timely basis. Payments to FHA shall be made directly to the county supervisor or as FHA otherwise may direct by written instruction. Upon any failure of the debtor to make payments as required hereunder, FHA shall be entitled, upon presentation of an affidavit of default, to an order granting to it relief from the stay.

Section 362(d) permits relief from the automatic stay so a mortgagee may proceed to foreclosure when the debtor cannot cure or modify the mortgage through a Chapter 13 plan.

In Re Parks · filed 1998-11-12(d)

The mortgagee’s motion to lift stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d) to proceed to foreclosure sale is granted.

Relief from the automatic stay permitting a creditor to obtain a foreclosure judgment also permits the foreclosure court to determine the amount owed when the order does not limit that authority.

Community Bank of Homestead v. Torcise · filed 1998-12-11

Nothing in the relief from stay order suggests that the foreclosure action that it authorized was to be conducted without a determination of indebtedness.

Section 362(d) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause, including to allow a creditor to foreclose; the stay does not prevent the creditor from asserting a deficiency claim in bankruptcy court.

Delta Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Internal Revenue Service · filed 1987-01-30(d)

Delta claims the automatic bankruptcy stay in the Olano involuntary bankruptcy proceedings prevents the bank from seeking a deficiency. Nevertheless, 11 U.S.C. § 362(d) provides that a bankruptcy court may grant relief from a stay. Relief may include terminating, annuling, modifying or conditioning ^gtay for cause including situations where’creditor’s interest in the property is inadequately protected. Delta obtained a lift of the Olano bankruptcy stay pursuant to § 362(d) in order to foreclose on the Olano’s house, but has made no further efforts to satisfy the remainder of the Olano debt. Furthermore, nothing prohibits Delta from filing and asserting its claim for the deficiency in the bankruptcy court and having that claim duly administered in the bankruptcy proceedings.

Section 362’s stay may be modified to permit arbitration of grievances under a collective bargaining agreement.

International Molders & Allied Workers Union v. Smith Jones, Inc. (In Re Smith Jones, Inc.) · filed 1981-12-29

1. The stay incident to the commencement of the Chapter 11 proceeding of Smith Jones, Inc. should be and the same hereby is modified to permit commencement and continuation of arbitration proceedings under the respective collective bargaining contracts with respect to each of the grievances referred to in the complaints in the above captioned adversary proceedings.

Section 362 permits relief from the automatic stay so a lessor may terminate a lease if the debtor fails to assume it by the court’s deadline.

Cody Management Ass'n v. Vermont Real Estate Investment Trust (In Re Vermont Real Estate Investment Trust) · filed 1982-11-01(d)(1)

3.In the event that the lease is not assumed, Cody Management Association, Inc., is granted relief from the stay as provided for by 11 U.S.C. § 362, so that it may take whatever action is necessary to terminate the lease.

Section 362(f) permits relief from the automatic stay to prevent irreparable harm when a new bankruptcy filing delays a foreclosure the court previously allowed, unless the debtors assure payment of arrears and foreclosure costs.

Merchants & Mechanics Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Lewis (In re Lewis) · filed 1982-11-24(f)

Equitable estoppel stemming from this Court’s decision on 30 June 1982 in the Chapter 13 case, however, dictates that the sale of the premises on December 4 in the state court cannot be stymied by the automatic stay invoked by the Chapter 11 petition despite the good faith intentions of Debtors and despite the possibility of adequate protection to the Plaintiff from its mortgage lien unless all delinquencies and incurred court costs are paid or assured to Plaintiff before December 4.

Section 362 requires a creditor to obtain relief from the automatic stay before continuing a pending state court collection action after the bankruptcy case is reopened.

In Re Johnson · filed 1983-06-30

Second, it can file a complaint in this court for the purpose of lifting the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362 for the purpose of allowing it to continue to prosecute its pending case in the state court. Creditor should be aware that until the stay is lifted, any further action in the state court is at its peril.

Section 362(d) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause, including prolonged foreclosure delay, missed mortgage payments, and property mismanagement.

Fravert v. Imperial Management, Inc. (In Re GWF Investments, Ltd.) · filed 1983-08-12(d)

Upon review of the record, it is the determination of the Court that conditional relief from stay should be granted. In this regard, the Court specifically finds that “cause” has been established pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d).

A creditor seeking relief from the automatic stay because its debt exceeds the collateral’s value must prove the collateral’s value.

Farmers & Merchants Bank of Long Beach v. Hoffer (In Re Hoffer) · filed 1983-12-02(d)(1)

The bank seems to be predicating its request on the fact that the indebtedness under the security interests on the vehicles exceeds their fair market value. If proven, the bank would have presented the court with a prima facie case under § 362(d)(1).

Section 362 stays enforcement of a claimed setoff while the parties’ rights are examined; relief to permit setoff may be denied when the creditor shows neither mutuality of debt nor other cause.

D & B Auto Parts, Inc. v. Freeborn (In Re Freeborn) · filed 1989-06-01

The automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362 does not defeat the right of setoff. Rather it stays its enforcement pending an orderly examination of the debtor’s and creditor’s rights. ... IT IS ORDERED that, the mutuality of debt having not been shown, and cause having not otherwise been presented, the Movant’s request for relief from the automatic stay to permit a setoff against the Debtor’s claim which is property of this estate, is denied without prejudice; and that this hearing be concluded.

Section 362(d) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause; the party seeking relief must demonstrate sufficient cause.

In Re Chateaugay Corp. · filed 1989-08-16(d)

Pursuant to § 362(d) of the Code, a court may grant relief from the automatic stay “for cause”. ... However, neither reason is compelling; the Trust has failed to demonstrate sufficient cause to warrant relief from the stay.

Section 362(d)(1) requires an unsecured creditor seeking relief from the automatic stay to establish cause; adequate protection and equity in property do not apply to unsecured claims.

In Re Pioneer Commercial Funding Corp. · filed 1990-05-17(d)(1)

In order for an unsecured creditor to obtain relief from the automatic stay imposed under 11 U.S.C. § 362, the creditor must establish cause for such relief in accordance with 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1), because the concepts of adequate protection of an interest in property and the existence of an equity interest in property do not apply to unsecured claims.

Section 362(a)'s automatic stay can be modified to permit a secured creditor to continue foreclosure proceedings.

In re Jean · filed 1990-05-23(a)

3. That the stays afforded by 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) in favor of the Debtor and 11 U.S.C. § 1301(a) in favor of any co-debtor (collectively, the “Automatic Stay”), be, and hereby are, modified to permit Northern Trust to continue with its foreclosure proceedings against the following described real property (the “Apartment Property”): ... including but not limited to a deficiency judgment against the Debtor and her co-debtor husband under the promissory note and mortgage being foreclosed.

Section 362(d) permits a court to lift the automatic stay for cause so creditors can pursue state court proceedings when doing so will not prejudice the bankruptcy estate.

In Re Makarewicz · filed 1990-11-19(d)

Based on the foregoing, this Court finds that the creditors have demonstrated sufficient cause to warrant the lifting of the automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d).

Section 362(d) permits retroactive modification of the automatic stay to a date after the bankruptcy petition was filed in extremely limited circumstances.

Matter of Barker-Fowler Elec. Co. · filed 1992-06-30(d)

Based on the discussion above, this court holds that although retroactive modification of the stay to a date certain beyond the filing date is authorized under § 362(d), it is not warranted under these facts.

Section 362’s automatic stay may be modified to permit a secured creditor to foreclose on its collateral.

Security Pacific Credit Corp. v. Savannah, Ltd. (In Re Savannah, Ltd.) · filed 1993-01-29

Pursuant to the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, IT IS THE ORDER OF THIS COURT that the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. Section 362 is hereby modified so as to permit Security Pacific Credit Corporation to take all steps necessary or appropriate to foreclose on its collateral, including without limitation the sending of any notices permitted or required under state law or the documents between the parties, the advertisement and conduct of a foreclosure sale, and the filing and prosecution of an action to confirm said foreclosure sale in accordance with O.C.G.A. Section 44-14^161, along with the filing and prosecution of any appeals therefrom which may be necessary.

Section 362(d) relief-from-stay proceedings are summary proceedings that do not resolve a genuine dispute over the debtor’s property interest.

In Re Finkley · filed 1996-11-21(d)

Similarly in the present case, the court should not determine the extent of Finkley’s property interests in a motion for rehef from stay. Such a summary proceeding should be limited to determining, as the court has already done, that the property at issue is adequately protected (since Finkley is making payments for current rent), and that it is necessary for her reorganization.

Section 362(d) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when continuing litigation in a familiar forum promotes judicial economy.

Johnson v. Engineering Dynamics · filed 1997-07-21(d)

The court lifted the automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d) and (g) to allow the entire litigation to go forward in the Louisiana district court. Without getting into the argument over who had the burden to prove “cause” for this relief, we affirm the district court’s implicit finding that cause was shown. It makes eminent sense to continue the lawsuit in a forum which already had experience with it, where the issues against SSI and the individual defendant Guntur could all be resolved, and where damage issues would not have to be bifurcated.

Section 362(d) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause so the court that issued an injunction can decide whether it was violated.

In Re Veit · filed 1998-08-21(d)

In the circumstances of the instant case, where the issue is whether an injunction already issued by a state court has been violated, it is more appropriate for the Missouri Court to determine whether its injunction has been violated, than for this Court to retain jurisdiction over the issue. ... For all the foregoing reasons, it is the conclusion of the Court that pursuant to Section 362(d), relief from stay should be granted to United Carpet to pursue its remedies in the Missouri Court.

Section 362 allows a court to grant a secured creditor relief from the automatic stay for sufficient cause.

In Re Tofsrud · filed 1999-02-17

The Court finds sufficient cause to grant Ramsey the relief it requests under both Motions. ... The Motion by Creditor Ramsey National Bank for Relief from Stay is GRANTED pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362.

Section 362(d) permits relief from the automatic stay so a creditor can exercise setoff rights that survive confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan.

In Re Bare · filed 2002-11-12(d)

This matter comes before the Court on the motion of the United States of America, Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) to lift the automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d) to allow it to apply Richard O. Bare and Carol Bare’s (the “Debtors”) 2001 income tax overpayment against their pre-petition tax liabilities. For the reasons set forth below, the Court hereby grants the motion to lift the automatic stay to allow the IRS to apply the Debtors’ 2001 income tax overpayment against their pre-petition tax liabilities.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when a creditor has a valid right of setoff.

In Re New Haven Foundry, Inc. · filed 2002-11-19(d)(1)

Accordingly, GM’s motion for relief from stay to allow setoff is granted.

Section 362 does not require stay relief for a separate action asserting individual rights; those rights do not support lifting the stay for a petition filed solely on behalf of the debtor’s estate.

In re Pacific Thomas Corporation · filed 2021-08-05

We agree with the bankruptcy court that, to the extent Whitney has any rights separate and apart from Pacific to challenge the ... Certificates, he is free to pursue them through his own action without the need for relief from stay. However, it was simply not proper for Whitney to ... pursue his individual rights, if any, through [the Petition], which was clearly filed on behalf of the estate. ... This Court finds the above-quoted reasoning persuasive.

Section 362(d)(2) permits relief from the automatic stay when the debtor has no equity in the property and the property is not needed for an effective reorganization; property in a Chapter 7 liquidation cannot be needed for an effective reorganization.

In re Purdy · filed 2018-09-18(d)(2)

The properties in issue cannot be "necessary to an effective reorganization" under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2) because the Debtor is proceeding under Chapter 7, which is a liquidation proceeding, not a reorganization.

When the automatic stay is lifted only to determine the amount of sanctions, the district court may set that amount but may not impose a payment deadline or enforce the award.

Campbell · filed 2026-04-28(a)

The only reason the Court is ruling on the instant motion is because the bankruptcy court lifted the mandatory stay so that this Court could determine the monetary amount—if any—owed to Radiance by Campbell. Given that Campbell is in bankruptcy, this Court does not believe that it had the authority to impose a deadline for payment or otherwise threaten further contempt, as the distribution of Campbell’s assets is for the bankruptcy court to ... determine. Given this unique procedural posture, the Court determines only the appropriate amount of sanctions owed to Radiance.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay so a mortgage holder can foreclose when the debtor makes no payments on its valid mortgage and proposes to treat its claim as unsecured.

In Re Hughes · filed 2009-03-16(d)(1)

TCF filed the present motion seeking relief from stay under U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) to foreclose its mortgage on Hughes’ homestead. ... ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: ... 1. TCF National Bank’s motion is granted; ... 2. The automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code is immediately terminated as to TCF National Bank; and ... 3. TCF National Bank is authorized to foreclose its mortgage on the following real property legally described as: ... Lot 7, Block 20, Tanners Lake Heights Flat No. 4, Washington County, Minnesota.

A bankruptcy court may lift the automatic stay on its own initiative in appropriate circumstances to allow related litigation to proceed in another court.

In re: Michele Renee Clark · filed 2014-11-04(d)

In these circumstances, we do not perceive an abuse of discretion in the bankruptcy court’s decision to lift the automatic stay of § 362 to allow the State Court Litigation to proceed in the California state courts prior to moving forward with the Adversary Proceeding, and we conclude that the bankruptcy court did not err in entering the Case Management Order.

Section 362(d)(2)’s no-equity condition can be established from a prebankruptcy foreclosure judgment fixing the property’s value and the debt owed.

Ulish Booker, Jr. · filed 2020-01-30(d)(2)

I further conclude that based on the February 4, 2019 foreclosure judgment in the Foreclosure Case, there is no equity in the real property. See, 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2).