11 U.S.C. § 362

Section 362(c)(2) ends the automatic stay when the bankruptcy case is closed or dismissed or the debtor is discharged; collection activity after discharge does not violate that stay.

Moran v. Saxenian Properties (In Re Moran) · filed 1989-10-03(c)(2)

The termination of the automatic stay is governed, inter alia by 11 U.S.C. § 362(c), and 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(2) provides that the stay will continue until the case is closed, dismissed, or the debtor is discharged. This court finds that the stay has not been violated as the actions of the defendant occurred after the Debtor was discharged.

Section 362(c) keeps the automatic stay in effect until a Chapter 12 plan is completed and discharge is granted, so a plan cannot authorize foreclosure upon default without court involvement.

Farmers & Merchants Bank of Des Arc v. Gore (In Re Gore) · filed 1989-12-20(c)

This provision is inconsistent with the Bankruptcy Code because it fails to recognize that the automatic stay remains in effect until the plan has been completed and the discharge granted.

Section 362 stays a creditor’s collection of a prepetition claim through setoff from the filing of the bankruptcy case until the debtor’s discharge when the property sought is not part of the estate.

In Re Vaughter · filed 1989-12-29

Any action to collect this part of its claim was stayed by 11 U.S.C. § 362 upon the filing of the case. The stay remained in force and effect until the entry of the Debtor's discharge (the Debtor's commissions are not property of the estate).

Section 362(c) terminates the automatic stay when confirmation of a Chapter 11 plan grants the debtor a discharge.

In Re Turning Point Lounge, Ltd. · filed 1990-03-07(c)

Therefore, the confirmation of a plan grants the debtor a discharge, the property is no longer property of the estate and by operation of § 362(c), the automatic stay is lifted.

Section 362’s automatic stay ceases to apply when the debtor receives a discharge; the discharge injunction under § 524 then governs.

Federal Deposit Insurance v. Peterson (In Re Peterson) · filed 1990-09-06

Once the debtor receives a discharge § 362 no longer is applicable but is replaced by the permanent injunction of § 524.

Under § 362(c)(2)(C), the automatic stay may run from the petition date until entry of the debtor’s discharge order.

In Re Wise · filed 1991-01-02(c)(2)(C)

Here, the automatic stay was in effect from the date the debtor and his former wife filed their petition, October 21, 1987, until the date their discharge order was entered, October 6, 1989, a period of twenty-three months and fifteen days.

Section 362’s automatic stay ends when the debtor receives a discharge, after which the discharge injunction governs.

Copper Kettle Marina, Inc. v. Dorner (In Re Dorner) · filed 1991-03-25(c)(2)(C)

When discharge is granted, the automatic stay of Section 362 is dissolved and replaced by permanent injunctive provisions of Section 524.

A discharge ends the automatic stay as to the debtor personally, while estate property remains protected until it leaves the estate.

In Re Swenson · filed 1991-07-11(c)(2)(C)

Thus it is, that even though the debtor has received a discharge and the automatic stay provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 362 are no longer in effect where he is personally concerned, the estate is still under the umbrella of these provisions.

Section 362(c)(2)(C) ends the automatic stay upon entry of the debtor’s discharge.

Anderson v. Chester Housing Authority (In Re Anderson) · filed 1991-07-25(c)(2)(C)

The Debtor’s discharge had eliminated the application of the automatic stay.

Section 362(c)(2)(C) terminates the automatic stay when a Chapter 7 discharge is entered.

Madison National Bank v. Chiapelli · filed 1991-08-23(c)(2)(C)

It is well established that a stay terminates upon the entry of the discharge in a Chapter 7 proceeding.

Section 362(c)(2)(C) ends the automatic stay when a discharge is granted, including when a Chapter 11 confirmation order grants a discharge.

Zamarello v. Commissioner · filed 1991-10-01(c)(2)(C)

Accordingly, we hold that the order confirming petitioner's chapter 11 plan of reorganization granted petitioner a discharge, and the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. section 362(a) was lifted when the order confirming the plan was entered.

The automatic stay ends upon discharge, so an order denying relief from the stay after discharge does not decide whether a creditor may continue its suit.

Green v. Welsh · filed 1992-02-04(c)(2)(C)

And the order denying Green relief from the automatic stay similarly involved no determination of Green’s right to continue her suit, because at the time Green sought relief there existed no automatic stay from which relief could be granted.

A bankruptcy discharge ends the automatic stay, permitting postdischarge enforcement of a valid prepetition lien.

Conklin v. Iowa District Court for Scott County · filed 1992-03-18(c)(2)

Here, a discharge was granted on June 12, 1990; thus, the automatic stay was no longer in effect and postdischarge enforcement of valid prepetition liens was no longer prohibited under the case law authority previously cited.

The automatic stay of a Tax Court proceeding ends upon the earliest of case closure, dismissal, or grant or denial of discharge; a later adversary proceeding alone does not extend it.

Jarrett v. Commissioner · filed 1992-03-26(c)(2)

All proceedings in this case were stayed during the time petitioners were in bankruptcy. 11 U.S.C. sec. 362(a)(8) (1988) . That stay remained in effect until the earliest of the closing of the case, dismissal of the case, or the granting or denial of a discharge. 11 U.S.C. sec. 362(c)(2) (1988) ; Smith v. Commissioner , 96 T.C. 10 , 14 (1991) . Petitioners were granted a discharge in bankruptcy and an order was issued by this Court lifting the stay. The subsequently filed adversary proceeding, without any stay orders from the bankruptcy court, does not preclude this Court from considering this case.

Section 362(a) keeps the IRS bound by the automatic stay until discharge is entered.

Unroe v. United States Ex Rel. Department of Treasury (In Re Unroe) · filed 1992-03-31(a)

The IRS remains bound by the automatic stay, 11 U.S.C. section 362(a), until discharge is entered, at which time the discharge injunction, 11 U.S.C. section 524(a), will apply.

Section 362(c)(2)(C) terminates the automatic stay upon discharge, even when an adversary proceeding remains pending.

Sanford v. Commissioner · filed 1992-03-26(c)(2)(C)

On that date, the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. sec. 362(a)(8) (1988) was terminated by virtue of the express terms of 11 U.S.C. 362(c)(2)(C) (1988) . Contrary to petitioner's assertions, the automatic stay did not continue in effect as a consequence of the pending adversary proceeding instituted by his former wife.

The automatic stay expires when discharge is granted, and a petition to reopen the bankruptcy proceeding does not reinstate it.

Johnson v. Cramer · filed 1992-04-03(c)(2)

Johnson’s liabilities were discharged in December 1990. The automatic stay expired at that time. Johnson’s suggestion that his petition to reopen the bankruptcy proceedings invoked the automatic stay provision of § 362 is unfounded.

The stay against collecting a prepetition claim bars imposing a tax lien on the debtor’s homestead while the bankruptcy case remains open and no discharge has been entered.

In re Rhodes · filed 1992-06-23(c)(2)

The debtors have not obtained a discharge and the case has never been closed. Therefore, 11 U.S.C. § 362 clearly prohibited the imposition of the tax lien on the debtors’ homestead.

Under § 362(c), confirmation of a Chapter 11 plan ordinarily ends the automatic stay when estate property vests in the debtor and the debtor receives a discharge.

Johnston v. Commodity Credit Corp. (In re Johnston) · filed 1992-06-26(c)

When a Chapter 11 plan is confirmed, several significant things occur. First, pursuant to § 1141(b), all property of the bankruptcy estate vests in the debtor. This essentially means that there is no longer a bankruptcy estate. Second, pursuant to § 1141(d), the debtor receives a discharge. The occurrence of these two events effectively eliminates the automatic stay in keeping with the aforesaid provisions of § 362(c).

Section 362(c)(2)(C) ends the automatic stay upon discharge, allowing the Tax Court to resume a deficiency proceeding filed before the bankruptcy petition.

Stankevich v. Commissioner · filed 1992-08-13(c)(2)(C)

Since petitioners Fosters were discharged in the bankruptcy case on February 13, 1986, and the automatic stay which prevented this Court from exercising its jurisdiction to redetermine petitioners' tax liabilities was lifted, we may exercise jurisdiction on the merits of respondent's income tax deficiency determinations.

Section 362(c)(2)(C) ends the Chapter 7 automatic stay when the debtor is denied a discharge.

In Re Calder · filed 1992-08-25(c)(2)(C)

At the time of the execution the Chapter 7 automatic stay had been lifted because of the denial of discharge, see 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(2)(C); Watson v. City Nat'l Bank (In re Watson), 78 B.R. 267, 270 (Bankr.C.D.Cal.1987), and Calder had not requested a continuation of the Chapter 7 stay. Absent a stay, there was no bar to Job's execution.

Section 362(c) terminates the automatic stay when the dismissal order is entered, with no ten-day continuation.

In Re Franklin Mortgage & Investment Co. · filed 1992-09-14(c)

The dismissal thus automatically terminated the automatic stay. 11 U.S.C. § 362(c). Nothing in the language of § 362(c) suggests that the automatic stay of § 362(a) continues in effect for any period beyond the time of entry of the order of dismissal.

Section 362’s automatic stay does not stop the running of a prepetition franchise termination notice period.

In Re Diversified Washes of Vandalia, Inc. · filed 1992-10-06

This court holds that the automatic stay does not prevent the time from running on the termination notice.

Section 362(c)(2) ends the bankruptcy stay upon the debtor’s discharge, allowing stayed Tax Court proceedings to resume.

McAlister v. Commissioner · filed 1993-04-15(c)(2)

Our jurisdiction herein is triggered by respondent's timely notice of deficiency, petitioners' timely filed petition, and the expiration of the bankruptcy stay due to petitioners' discharge from bankruptcy.

Section 362’s automatic stay ends upon discharge and is replaced by the permanent injunction under section 524(a), making a postdischarge motion to lift the stay improper.

In the Matter of Lewis Anson David Edgeworth, M.D., Debtor. Donna Elaine Houston v. Lewis Anson David Edgeworth, M.D. · filed 1993-06-30

Technically, this motion was improper because the discharge had extinguished the stay and replaced it with a permanent injunction under section 524(a).

Section 362(c)(2)(C) terminates the automatic stay when a Chapter 7 discharge is granted, leaving later state court proceedings outside the stay.

In Re Carter · filed 1993-07-06(c)(2)(C)

Pursuant to § 362(c)(2)(C), the automatic stay terminated on October 13, the date a discharge was granted.

The automatic stay ends when a Chapter 7 debtor receives a discharge.

In re Burks · filed 1995-03-02(c)(2)(C)

Section 362(c) provides that the automatic stay ends when a discharge is granted. In this ease a discharge was granted on June 28, 1993, before any improper actions were taken by DPU.

Section 362’s automatic stay ends when a Chapter 7 discharge is entered, allowing a creditor to resume state court enforcement of support obligations.

In re Ball · filed 1995-05-09(c)(2)(C)

Accordingly, now that the discharge has been entered, and the automatic stay no longer exists, 11 U.S.C. § 362, Gnau is free to resume her actions against the debtor, including requesting that the arrest warrant be acted upon by the sheriff.

Section 362(c)(2)(C) terminates the automatic stay when the debtor receives a discharge, allowing a stayed alimony modification motion to proceed.

Peabody v. Peabody, No. 504914 (Jul. 10, 1995) · filed 1995-07-10(c)(2)(C)

The automatic stay imposed at the commencement of a bankruptcy proceeding terminates upon the debtor's discharge. 11 U.S.C. § 362 (c)(2)(C). As the discharge was granted March 14, 1995, the stay was terminated on that date, and the plaintiff's motion for alimony modification is properly before this court.

Under § 362(c)(2)(C), the automatic stay ends when the bankruptcy court grants a Chapter 7 debtor a discharge.

Zimmerman v. Commissioner · filed 1995-09-13(c)(2)(C)

Based on the unambiguous language of 11 U.S.C. section 362(c)(2)(C) , we hold that the automatic stay was terminated in this case on June 5, 1992, the date the bankruptcy court granted petitioners their discharge.

Section 362’s automatic stay of collection proceedings terminates upon the debtor’s discharge.

Odom v. Columbia University · filed 1995-11-15(c)

Section 362, which provides for an automatic stay of collection proceedings while the bankruptcy is pending, automatically terminates upon the debtor’s discharge.

Under § 362(c)(2), the automatic stay expires when the debtor is granted a discharge.

White v. White · filed 1996-06-14(c)(2)

We disagree since pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Sec. 362(c)(2) the stay expired when his discharge was granted.

Section 362(c)(2)(C) ends the automatic stay as to a Chapter 7 debtor and the debtor's post-petition property when the debtor is denied a discharge.

In Re Stoecker · filed 1996-10-17(c)(2)(C)

Accordingly, pursuant to the plain meaning of the statutory language contained in § 362(c)(2)(C), the automatic stay was not in effect as to the Debtor and any post-petition property of the Debtor when these actions were taken.

Section 362(c)(2)(C) terminates the automatic stay when the debtor receives a Chapter 7 discharge.

In Re Mulvania · filed 1997-09-22(c)(2)(C)

Since the Debtor was granted a discharge in his Chapter 7 on December 21, 1987, the automatic stay terminated on that date. 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(2)(C).

The automatic stay terminates when the bankruptcy proceeding is dismissed.

In Re: Stith v. · filed 1998-03-17

Therefore, whether the stay was properly lifted is moot because, even if the stay should not have been lifted, it termi- nated when the bankruptcy proceeding was dismissed.

Section 362(c)(2)(C) terminates the automatic stay when a denial of discharge becomes final; an interlocutory discharge ruling does not terminate it.

Williams v. United States (In re Williams) · filed 1998-12-07(c)(2)(C)

The automatic stay was not lifted by the Bankruptcy Court’s Citibank decision because it was not a final determination denying discharge and only such a final decision can terminate the stay.

An automatic stay imposed when a bankruptcy case begins terminates upon the debtor’s discharge.

Christian v. Christian, No. Fa78-0224263 (Jul. 11, 1999) · filed 1999-07-11(c)(2)(C)

Any automatic stay imposed at the commencement of a bankruptcy proceeding terminates upon the debtor's discharge.

The automatic stay ends when the debtor receives a discharge, so an action commenced afterward does not violate the stay.

McLeod v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (In Re McLeod) · filed 2000-02-10(c)(2)

As Defendant correctly notes, its action (commenced September 24, 1998), does not violate the stay, which ended when the discharge was granted on June 1, 1998.

Section 362(c)(2)(C) ends the automatic stay when the debtor receives a discharge.

In Re Miller · filed 2000-03-24(c)(2)(C)

However, because the actions of Chateau occurred after the discharge was entered, the stay was no longer in effect. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(2)(C).

Section 362(c)(2)(C) ends the automatic stay upon a general discharge, so the stay no longer bars an injunction action against the debtor.

Creator's Way Associated Labels, Inc. v. Mitchell (In Re Mitchell) · filed 2000-05-24(c)(2)(C)

Mitchell has already received his general discharge. Thus, the automatic stay no longer bars an injunction action.

Section 362(c)(2)(C) ends the automatic stay when a discharge is entered, ending any protection supplied by a stipulation lifting the stay.

Chateau Communities, Inc. v. Miller · filed 2000-08-28(c)(2)(C)

Further, since the stay expired upon discharge, on October 25, 1999, any safe harbor provided by the stipulation to suspend the stay no longer existed upon discharge.

The automatic stay of Tax Court proceedings terminates when the debtor receives a bankruptcy discharge.

Taylor v. Commissioner · filed 2001-11-20(c)(3)

First, the Tax Court had jurisdiction to dismiss Mr. Taylor’s case because the stay provision of § 362(a) terminated when Mr. Taylor was granted a discharge by the bankruptcy court, see 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3), and a stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 524 was not appropriate because Mr. Taylor’s tax liability assessment was not finalized prior to his filing for bankruptcy.

Section 362(c)(2)(C) ends the automatic stay when the bankruptcy court grants a discharge.

Arzoomanian v. State Farm Insurance · filed 2002-01-02(c)(2)(C)

The BAP properly dismissed appellants’ appeal because an automatic stay pursuant to section 362 immediately dissolves upon issuance of a discharge by the bankruptcy court.

The automatic stay terminates when a debtor receives a discharge, so later collection acts are outside the stay.

Kanipe v. First Tennessee Bank (In Re Kanipe) · filed 2002-09-16(c)(2)(C)

Although the debtors allege that First Tennessee’s actions violated the automatic stay provisions of § 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, both the garnishment and the filing of the conditional judgment occurred after the debtors were granted a discharge, when the automatic stay was no longer in place.

Section 362(c)(2)(C) ends the automatic stay upon discharge, so the stay does not govern post-discharge recoupment.

In Re Jones · filed 2002-10-10(c)(2)(C)

It is well established that the automatic stay does not prohibit recoupment, as distinguished from setoff. This is of course, a correct statement of the law; however, it has no application whatsoever once a debt- or receives a discharge, by virtue of 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(2)(C). This section provides, in general, that a stay of any other act under subsection (a) of that section continues until the earliest of the time a discharge is granted.

The automatic stay of actions against a debtor expires when a discharge is granted, leaving no stay from which to grant relief.

Ruvacalba v. Munoz (In Re Munoz) · filed 2002-12-26(c)(2)(C)

First, the existence of a discharge means that there is no automatic stay from which relief may be granted to permit an action against the debtor. Insofar as the automatic stay bars actions against the debtor, the stay automatically expires upon the grant of a discharge.

Section 362(c)(2)(C) ends the automatic stay when a debtor receives a discharge, leaving creditors free to pursue state-law remedies without further stay relief.

In Re Silvestri · filed 2003-06-19(c)(2)(C)

Regarding our practice of granting relief from stay, in these cases where discharges have entered and the stay lifted pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(2)(C), any further relief would be redundant, as these creditors are already free by operation of law to pursue their state law remedies.

Section 362(c)(2)(C) terminates the automatic stay when a bankruptcy court grants a debtor a discharge.

Carskadon v. Comm'r · filed 2003-08-11(c)(2)(C)

On May 28, 2003, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order granting petitioners a discharge under 11 U.S.C. sec. 727, which served to terminate the automatic stay. See 11 U.S.C. sec. 362(c)(2)(C). Accordingly, on July 8, 2003, this Court ordered that the stay of proceedings in this case is lifted.

Section 362(c)(2)(C) terminates the stay of collection activities against a debtor when the debtor receives a discharge.

In Re Perviz · filed 2003-11-20(c)(2)(C)

For collection activities, such as those at issue here which are prohibited by § 362(a)(6), the stay terminates when the debtor is granted a discharge, an event which occurred in this case on December 6, 2002.

Entry of a Chapter 7 debtor’s discharge terminates the automatic stay against the debtor, rendering a request to determine its applicability to state enforcement proceedings moot.

Nebraska Ex Rel. Linder v. Strong (In Re Strong) · filed 2004-02-23(c)(2)(C)

We, however, overlook that omission because Count Three of the plaintiffs complaint has been rendered moot. The bankruptcy court’s entry of the debt- or’s discharge has terminated the automatic stay.

Entry of the debtor’s discharge terminates the automatic stay and renders a request to determine its applicability moot.

State of Nebraska v. Strong · filed 2004-02-23(c)(2)(C)

We, however, overlook that omission because Count Three of the plaintiff’s complaint has been rendered moot. The bankruptcy court’s entry of the debtor’s discharge has terminated the automatic stay. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(c). For the same reason, i.e. mootness, we lack jurisdiction to review the bankruptcy court’s determination regarding the automatic stay.

The automatic stay's protections end when the bankruptcy court lifts, modifies or terminates the stay, without further action in another forum to restart procedural deadlines.

Lucas v. Integrated Health Services of Lester, Inc. · filed 2004-06-02

The imposition of the stay under 11 USC § 362 is automatic upon filing of the bankruptcy petition, and the protections afforded to the debtor attach immediately. In our view it follows that the protections afforded by the stay should end on the date the stay is lifted, modified or terminated by order entered in the bankruptcy court, and no other action need be taken in any other forum to recommence the clock ticking.

Under Section 362(c)(1), the stay against lien enforcement on a Chapter 7 homestead ends when the exemption becomes final and the property leaves the bankruptcy estate.

In Re Biazo · filed 2004-07-20(c)(1)

Where the debtors claimed the property as an exempt homestead, the property ceased to be property of the estate once the exemption claim became final. ... In those cases, then, once the objection time passed, the automatic stay no longer protected the debtors’ homesteads and South’s clients were free to enforce their liens against them.

In a Chapter 7 case, discharge terminates the stay against creating a lien on the debtor’s property, so a subsequent tax lien does not violate that stay even before the case closes.

Mollo v. United States Treasury Department, Internal Revenue Service (In Re Mollo) · filed 2004-11-09(c)(2)(C)

Section 362(a)(5) prohibits acts to create a lien against property of the debtor to the extent that the lien secures a prepetition claim. In a Chapter 7 case, the stay prohibiting the creation, perfection or enforcement of a lien against property of the debtor continues only until the time a discharge is granted. 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(2)(C). In the instant case, the discharge had been granted prior to the filing of the tax lien. Thus, creation of the lien did not violate Section 362(a)(5).

Under Section 362(c), the automatic stay ends as to property when it leaves the bankruptcy estate through abandonment and as to actions against a Chapter 7 debtor when the debtor receives a discharge.

In Re Hyde · filed 2005-09-26(c)

Section 362(c) governs the duration of the automatic stay. It provides that the stay against property terminates when the property is no longer property of the estate. Because the Chapter 7 Trustee filed a Notice of Abandonment, the Debtor’s Property is no longer property of his bankruptcy estate, and thus the Fund did not violate the automatic stay, as opposed to the discharge injunction in seeking to attach the proceeds. Similarly, in a case under Chapter 7, the stay of an action against the Debtor terminates when the Debtor receives his discharge. It is undisputed that the discharge order had entered at the time the Fund commenced its action in the state court.

The automatic stay of proceedings against a debtor expires upon the debtor’s discharge.

Walter v. Placontrol, Inc. · filed 2005-12-16(c)(2)(C)

We note that Walter’s motion did not involve the stay of proceedings that arises automatically under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) from a debtor’s having filed a bankruptcy petition, because that stay expired as against Walter himself upon his discharge on April 28, 2003. 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(2)(C).

Section 362(c)(2)(C) protects a Chapter 13 debtor from collection of postpetition student-loan interest until discharge is issued after completion of the plan.

Sallie Mae Servicing Corp. v. Ransom (In Re Ransom) · filed 2005-12-27(c)(2)(C)

The automatic stay protects the debtor until the discharge is issued after the completion of the plan. 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(2)(C).

Section 362(c)(2) terminates the automatic stay upon a Chapter 11 discharge despite retained jurisdiction until plan consummation, and the applicable version of § 362(b)(9) exempts postpetition tax audits and assessments from the stay.

Wood v. United States (In Re Wood) · filed 2006-03-02(c)(2), (b)(9)

While the Court retained limited jurisdiction until the consummation of the Plan, there is no provision within the retention of jurisdiction indicating that the automatic stay was extended until consummation of the Plan. Accordingly, the Court is unpersuaded by Debtor’s argument that the retention of jurisdiction extended the automatic stay and holds that the automatic stay was lifted on February 6, 1995 pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(2). ... As previously held in the Order, the Court finds that under 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(9) postpetition tax audits and assessments do not violate the automatic stay.

Section 362(c)(2)(C) ends the automatic stay when a discharge is granted or denied.

Zilog, Inc. v. Corning (In Re Zilog, Inc.) · filed 2006-06-14(c)(2)(C)

We don’t understand why the district court discussed the automatic stay. By August 21, 2002, the automatic stay had long since disappeared; it was only the discharge injunction that was relevant. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(2)(C) (“[The automatic stay] continues until . . . the time a dis- charge is granted or denied.”).

The automatic stay terminates when a discharge is granted or denied.

Zilog, Inc. v. Rose Marie Corning · filed 2006-06-15(c)(2)(C)

We don't understand why the district court discussed the automatic stay. By August 21, 2002, the automatic stay had long since disappeared; it was only the discharge injunction that was relevant See 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(2)(C) ("[The automatic stay] continues until . . . the time a discharge is granted or denied.").

The automatic stay of actions against the debtor terminates upon discharge, so restrictions in an order granting stay relief no longer govern prosecution of the claim.

In Re Jones · filed 2006-08-04(c)(2)(C)

Although the language of the relief from stay order specifically referenced only Ms. Byer’s right to “enforce her right to compensation from Debtor’s insurance carrier and Movant’s insurance carrier,” the automatic stay — which is what the order addressed — terminated once the debt- or received her discharge. At the present time, therefore, the relevant restriction on Ms. Byer’s enforcement of her claim is not the relief from stay order but rather the discharge injunction.

Section 362(c)(2)(C) terminates the automatic stay upon an individual Chapter 7 debtor’s discharge, even if a related adversary proceeding remains pending.

Onaka v. Onaka · filed 2006-08-30(c)(2)(C)

That discharge terminated the automatic stay pursuant to the express terms of 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(2)(C). ... However, Clarence’s position is untenable insofar as an adversary proceeding is a proceeding distinguishable from the bankruptcy case.

The automatic stay does not apply to a creditor's collection activities occurring after the debtor's discharge.

Deceder v. Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency (In Re Deceder) · filed 2006-08-31(c)(2)(C)

The material collection activities of PHEAA post-dated the Debtor's discharge. Accordingly, the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) is not implicated.

Under the pre-amendment statute, discharge terminates the automatic stay against the debtor, including assessment of nondischargeable taxes, even if estate property has not yet revested in the debtor.

United States v. White · filed 2006-10-11(c)(1), (c)(2)(C)

While § 362(c)(1) provides that an automatic stay of acts against property of the estate will not be terminated until the property is no longer part of the estate, § 362(c)(2) provides that a discharge can terminate the automatic stay with respect to acts against the debtor, regardless of whether the debtor has been vested with the estate. ... An IRS tax assessment is clearly an action against a debtor.

Under § 362(c), the automatic stay is no longer in effect when confirmed liquidating plans have transferred estate assets to liquidating trusts and the bankruptcy estates have ceased to exist.

Boles v. Turner (In Re Enivid, Inc.) · filed 2007-03-16(c)

The automatic stay is no longer in effect in the enivid and Sabine cases, ... and the assets of the bankruptcy estates were transferred to the Liquidating Trusts which were established pursuant to Chapter 11 plans confirmed over two years ago. The Debtors’ assets and the Examiner’s rights vested in the Liquidation Trusts, and the bankruptcy estates ceased to exist, having been succeeded by the Liquidating Trusts.

Section 362(c)(2)(C) terminates the automatic stay against the debtor by operation of law when a Chapter 7 discharge is denied.

Chabot v. Washington Mutual Bank (In Re Chabot) · filed 2007-05-10(c)(2)(C)

The automatic stay was terminated by operation of statute, 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(2)(C), upon denial of the Debtor Chabot’s discharge.

Section 362(c) does not bar a debtor from seeking to avoid an attachment on property outside the bankruptcy estate after the automatic stay has ended.

In Re Rodrigues · filed 2007-07-05(c)

Moreover, the Debtor was not precluded by the automatic stay from avoiding an attachment on the account as the property was not part of his bankruptcy estate, and the stay did not apply to his actions as it was no longer in effect.

For an individual Chapter 7 debtor's exempt property, the automatic stay ends upon discharge if the case has not already closed or been dismissed, permitting subsequent filing of federal tax lien notices.

Owens v. United States (In Re Owens) · filed 2007-12-18(c)(2)(C)

The date on which debtor received or was denied a discharge is the earliest of the various times set forth in § 362(c)(2) for determining when the automatic stay no longer was in effect with respect to property of the debtor. This bankruptcy case has not been dismissed and remains open to the present time. Debtor received a discharge on April 19, 2005, at least nine months before IRS filed the above notices of federal tax liens. As a result, the automatic stay no longer was in effect with respect to debtor’s property interest in the marital residence when IRS filed the notices of federal tax liens. We conclude in light of these considerations that IRS violated neither § 362(a)(4) nor § 362(a)(5) when it filed the notices of tax liens.

A discharge in bankruptcy terminates the automatic stay of an action against the debtor.

Original Pizza Pan, Inc. v. Hodgkinson, 90134 (6-26-2008) · filed 2008-06-26(c)(2)

The discharge lifted the bankruptcy stay in this case. 11 U.S.C. § 362 (c)(2).

Entry of a discharge terminates the automatic stay as to the debtor under § 362(c)(2)(C).

Mitchell v. Bard Alan Bigelow · filed 2008-09-16(c)(2)(C)

The discharge, which terminated the stay under § 362, was entered on January 4, 2006.

The automatic stay bars collection of tax claims in Chapter 7, but collection of nondischargeable debt may resume after discharge.

In Re Frankum · filed 2009-01-05(c)(2)(C)

When a debtor files under Chapter 7, all collection proceedings, including tax claims, are automatically stayed. However, once a debtor is granted a discharge collection efforts may continue on nondischargeable debt.

Section 362(c)(2) terminates the automatic stay upon discharge, ending the debtor’s protection from foreclosure.

In Re West · filed 2009-01-09(c)(2)

Once a debtor receives a discharge, there is no longer an automatic stay protecting the debtor from foreclosure. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(2).

A foreclosure sale conducted after dismissal of a bankruptcy case and before its reinstatement does not violate the automatic stay.

Hannan v. Mackinac Savings Bank · filed 2009-02-12

Hannan’s primary argument is that the foreclosure sale violated the automatic stay granted by the Bankruptcy Court. At the time of the foreclosure sale on April 18, 2008, however, there was no automatic stay in place.

Under § 362(c)(1), the stay of acts against estate property ends when that property ceases to be property of the estate, which may occur at discharge under the plan’s terms.

Moffitt v. America's Servicing Co. (In Re Moffitt) · filed 2009-06-22(c)(1)

Due to the plan’s specific language regarding when property of the estate ceased to exist, the Court must find that under § 362(c)(1), the automatic stay was no longer in effect once the Moffitts’ discharge was entered on April 6, 2006.

Under § 362(c)(2)(C), deferring entry of discharge keeps the automatic stay protecting the debtor in effect because the stay otherwise expires when discharge is entered.

In Re Roderick · filed 2010-03-08(c)(2)(C)

It is also significant that an incidental consequence of Rule 4004(c)(2) discharge deferral is that the automatic stay, which otherwise expires upon entry of discharge, continues to protect the debtor.

Section 362(c)(2)(C) ends the automatic stay when a Chapter 7 discharge is issued, so a creditor who files suit afterward need not seek relief from the stay.

In Re Morris · filed 2010-06-07(c)(2)(C)

In this case, Morris’s discharge was issued on October 21, 2008, at which time the automatic stay terminated. Benham did not file her state court lawsuit until April 9, 2009, over five months after Morris’s discharge. Quite simply, there was no stay to seek relief from at the time the lawsuit was filed.

Section 362(c)(2) ends the automatic stay upon entry of a discharge, so conduct after discharge cannot support sanctions for violating the stay.

Malec v. Cook County Clerk (In Re Malec) · filed 2011-01-04(c)(2)

According to 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(2) the automatic stay continues until the entry of a discharge. Since the complained of conduct occurred after entry of the discharge, when the stay no longer existed, the Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions for violation of the automatic stay is denied.

Section 362(c)(2)(C) ends the automatic stay of personal claims when a chapter 7 debtor receives a discharge, leaving no stay to lift under section 362(d).

In Re Gibellino-Schultz · filed 2011-04-11(c)(2)(C)

At the outset, I note that the entry of discharge precludes my terminating the bankruptcy stay in favor of Woloshin under section 362(d).

Section 362(c)(2)(C) ends the automatic stay of acts against a debtor when discharge is granted.

In Re Greater American Land Resources, Inc. · filed 2011-07-14(c)(2)(C)

As a result, the automatic stay as to property of the debtor is similarly discontinued because under § 362(c)(2)(C), “the stay of any other act under subsection (a) of this section terminates when discharge is granted.”

The automatic stay terminates when the debtor receives a discharge, making a later motion for relief from stay moot.

In Re Schultz · filed 2011-07-22(c)(2)(C)

After reviewing the Reconsideration Motion, the court finds that it entered the Order in error because the entry of the Debtor’s discharge terminated the automatic stay by operation of law on May 17, 2011.

Section 362(c)(2)(B) ends the automatic stay when the bankruptcy case is dismissed.

Frances Scarborough V. · filed 2012-01-10(c)(2)(B)

An automatic stay is dispelled when the underlying case is dismissed.

Section 362’s automatic stay ends when the debtor receives a discharge, and a § 524 injunction takes its place.

Ackerman v. Eber · filed 2012-07-09(c)(2)(C)

The stay dissolved when the bankruptcy judge issued a discharge under § 727, replacing the stay with an injunction under § 524.

Section 362(c)(2)(C) ends the automatic bankruptcy stay on the date the debtor is discharged.

Sawyer v. Comm'r · filed 2012-07-17(c)(2)(C)

The automatic bankruptcy stay terminated on the date of discharge. See 11 U.S.C. sec. 362(c)(2)(C) (2006).

Section 362(c)(2)(B) terminates the automatic stay when a bankruptcy case is dismissed, permitting a creditor to garnish funds held by the Chapter 13 trustee after dismissal.

Rice v. Ables (In re Price) · filed 2013-01-09(c)(2)(B)

This is because the automatic stay is terminated on dismissal and property in the hands of the trustee is no longer property of the estate.

Section 362(c)(2) automatically ends the stay as to a debtor upon the debtor’s chapter 7 discharge.

Dennis v. Hall (In re Hall) · filed 2012-11-19(c)(2)

However, the Debtor has already received his chapter 7 discharge in the underlying bankruptcy case ... which resulted in the automatic termination of the stay as to him personally.

The automatic stay of actions against a Chapter 7 debtor terminates when the court grants the debtor a discharge.

Mountain Valley Community Bank v. Freeman · filed 2014-03-26(c)(2)(C)

The automatic stay, as it applied to the commencement of actions or proceedings against Freeman, terminated when the court granted discharge on February 17, 2011.

Section 362(c)(2)(C) ends the automatic stay of proceedings against a debtor to recover prepetition claims when the debtor receives a discharge.

In re Mason · filed 2014-04-22(c)(2)(C)

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(2)(C), the stay preventing commencement or continuation of judicial proceedings against the Debtor to recover pre-petition claims was terminated on February 7, 2013, when Debtor’s discharge was entered.

Section 362(c)(2) ends the automatic stay when the bankruptcy court grants a discharge.

Connery v. Norsworthy · filed 2014-04-25(c)(2)

The automatic stay lifted in August 2008 when the bankruptcy court granted a discharge, see 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(2), and the district court had the authority to reinstate the case against Norsworthy on its own motion.

Section 362(c)(2)(C) ends the automatic stay of acts against a Chapter 7 debtor when discharge is granted or denied.

Russell v. Russell · filed 2014-06-17(c)(2)(C)

The bankruptcy code provides that a stay of any act against a Chapter 7 debtor continues until the time a discharge is granted or denied. 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(2)(C). Once her discharge was granted on July 19, 2012, the stay was terminated, thus mooting any appeal of that issue.

Section 362(c)(2)(C) terminates the automatic stay when the debtor receives a discharge.

In re Tucker · filed 2014-08-29(c)(2)(C)

After the Debt- or received her discharge on February 12, 2014, the automatic stay of Section 362 terminated. 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(2)(C).

Termination of the automatic stay under § 362(h) does not extinguish a debtor’s right to redeem collateral.

In re Thompson · filed 2015-09-23(h)

But Congress did not create a deadline to redeem at which time the right terminated when the stay was lifted pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(h).

Section 362(c)(2)(C) ends the automatic stay’s protection of a chapter 7 debtor when the discharge is entered.

United Healthcare Workerswest v. Borsos (In re Borsos) · filed 2016-01-22(c)(2)(C)

As a matter of law, the automatic stay’s protection of the debtor expired with entry of the discharge on April 8, 2011.

Section 362(c)(2)(C) ends the automatic stay by operation of law when the bankruptcy court grants a Chapter 7 discharge.

Otero v. Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing · filed 2018-11-06(c)(2)(C)

Additionally, regardless of whether a creditor moves for relief from the automatic stay under § 362(d), the stay expires by operation of law upon the bankruptcy court’s grant of a Chapter 7 discharge for the debtor.

Section 362(c)(2)(C) ends the automatic stay upon the debtor’s discharge, allowing foreclosure after the stay ends.

United States v. Seeley · filed 2018-11-08(c)(2)(C)

Here, the bankruptcy stay lifted when, on December 28, 2016,the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts granted an Order of Discharge and closed theSeeleys’bankruptcycase.

The automatic stay ends when the bankruptcy petition is dismissed, allowing a court to fix the amount of a fee obligation imposed before the petition was filed.

GAETA VS. RUDI HENDEL (L-3484-13, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) · filed 2020-01-14(a)(2)

That respite was achieved by the nullification of the order specifying the amount of fees. Once the bankruptcy proceedings were dismissed, however, defendants returned to the same legal footing as before the bankruptcy petition was filed. Defendants faced the pre-existing obligation, and the court was again obliged to fix the specific amount owed.

The automatic stay expires when a Chapter 7 debtor receives a discharge, so later conduct cannot violate it.

Marvin B. Smith, III v. Murphy · filed 2021-03-18(c)(2)(C)

That the automatic stay expired in June 2016 -- when the bankruptcy court entered an order discharging the Smiths’ Chapter 7 debt -- is clear. Thus, no automatic stay was in effect or could be violated at the time of Murphy’s complained-of acts in February 2017 and May 2017.

Section 362(c)(2)(B) terminates the automatic stay when the bankruptcy case is dismissed.

In Re: Fred H Siemon · filed 2021-05-27(c)(2)(B)

Thus, even if it had not been properly lifted by the Relief Order, the automatic stay terminated upon the dismissal of the case. 11 U.S.C. §362 (c)(2)(B).

Section 362(c)(2)(C) ends the automatic stay as to acts against the debtor’s property upon discharge.

In re: Ariel Barel v. · filed 2021-09-21(c)(2)(C)

Regardless, the automatic stay expires by operation of law upon discharge as to acts against the property of the debtor.

Section 362(c)(2)(C) ends the automatic stay of acts other than acts against estate property when a Chapter 7 debtor receives a discharge.

Joseph Scott Raley and Karen Sue Raley · filed 2021-11-02(c)(2)(C)

Under the plain language of §362, although the stay of an act against property of the estate continues until such property is no longer property of the estate, the stay of any other act under subsection (a) is lifted when a Chapter 7 discharge is granted.

Section 362(c)(2) ends the automatic stay when the bankruptcy case is dismissed, allowing a state court to proceed.

RIC Metuchen LLC v. Borough of Metuchen · filed 2022-08-01(c)(2)

Here, the court is not constrained because the bankruptcy case was dismissed January 27, 2022, and the matter was terminated May of 2022. See 11 U.S.C. §362(c)(2) (stay continues “until the earliest of” the case’s closure, or dismissal, or grant of discharge).

Section 362(c)(2)(C) ends the automatic stay when the debtor receives a discharge.

Jesse Dakota Yount · filed 2023-03-24(c)(2)(C)

The stay expired when the Debtor received his discharge. 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(2)(C).

Section 362(c)(2) terminates the automatic stay when a debtor is granted a discharge.

Brandy McWhorter and Barry Rhone · filed 2025-03-11(c)(2)

Even if the Court had not entered its order granting relief from the automatic stay on November 25, 2024, the stay was lifted by operation of law on December 6, 2024, when the Order Discharging Both Debtors was entered. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(2) providing that the stay terminates at the time a discharge is granted or denied.

In an individual Chapter 7 case, the automatic stay ends when the debtor is granted or denied a discharge.

Treetop Rentals LLC v. Belkis Brito. · filed 2025-04-16(c)(2)(C)

In Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings for individuals, an automatic stay ends at "the time a discharge is granted or denied." 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(2)(C). In this case, an order denying the defendant's discharge entered on June 4, 2021. That order terminated the automatic stay.

Section 362(c)(2) ends the automatic stay when an individual Chapter 7 debtor receives a discharge, which may moot an appeal of an order granting stay relief.

In re Thon L Luony Goak · filed 2026-03-06(c)(2)

Additionally, it is probable that Debtor’s appeal of the Order will, in any event, be mooted by the termination of the automatic stay by operation of law when Debtor receives his discharge, and that is likely to occur before the appeal is resolved.

Section 362(c)(2)(C) ends the automatic stay in an individual Chapter 7 case when the debtor receives a discharge.

Campbell · filed 2026-06-01(c)(2)(C)

In a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case where the debtor is an individual, the automatic stay ceases to be in effect when such debtor receives a bankruptcy discharge.

Section 362(c) terminates the automatic stay when a Chapter 7 discharge is granted.

General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Rosenow (In Re Rosenow) · filed 1982-05-19(c)

It is further ordered that GMAC is not entitled to return of its collateral even though the stay was terminated pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(c) when the Chapter 7 discharge was granted.

Section 362(c)(2)(C) ends the automatic stay when a Chapter 7 discharge is entered.

In Re Bryant · filed 1990-12-19(c)(2)(C)

The prior Chapter 7 discharge was entered on October 6, 1989; and, therefore the automatic stay was lifted as of that date. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(2)(C).

Section 362’s automatic stay was no longer in effect after the debtor’s discharge, so the creditors’ later motion for relief from the stay came too late.

Paeplow v. Foley · filed 1991-05-07

The creditors sought to get relief from the automatic stay over Mr. Paeplow’s estate in order to proceed on the in rem action in state court, but filed this motion after discharge had been granted and the stay was no longer in effect.

The automatic stay ends upon discharge, making a post-discharge motion to lift it improper.

Matter of Edgeworth · filed 1993-06-01

In April 1991, Houston filed a motion to lift the stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362. Edgeworth did not respond, and the bankruptcy court granted the motion on May 22, 1991. Technically, this motion was improper because the discharge had extinguished the stay and replaced it with a permanent injunction under section 524(a).

Section 362(c)(2)(C) ends the stay of acts against a debtor when the debtor receives a discharge, allowing collection of nondischargeable debts.

Marine Midland Bank v. Huber (In Re Huber) · filed 1994-07-01(c)(2)(C)

Since Huber’s discharge has entered, Marine is now free to enforce against Huber these non-dischargeable debts. (11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(2)(C)).

Section 362(c)(2)(C) ends the automatic stay as against the debtor when the debtor receives a discharge.

In Re Gibson · filed 1994-09-06(c)(2)(C)

Upon entry of the discharge of the debtor, the stay, imposed by section 362 of the. Bankruptcy Code, is automatically dissolved as against the debtor.

Section 362(c)(2)(C) ends the automatic stay when a discharge is granted.

In Re Joanne M. Weston, Debtor. Joanne M. Weston, Dba: Weston Enterprises v. First Interstate Bank Franklin S. Cibula · filed 1995-01-10(c)(2)(C)

Because the discharges entered by the bankruptcy court were never stayed, they lifted the automatic stay, see 11 U.S.C. Sec. 362(c)(2)(C), and permitted Weston's creditors to conduct the foreclosure.

Section 362(c)(2)(C) ends the automatic stay when the debtor receives a discharge.

In Re Bacon · filed 1997-07-29(c)(2)(C)

If a new enforcement action was all CHA sought to achieve in this case, it could have awaited the passage of time since the Debtor's discharge is accompanied by the automatic termination of the stay. 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(2)(C). Indeed a review of the docket in this case reveals that the discharge was granted after the hearing and during the contemplated briefing period in this contested matter. Thus, the stay has lifted.

Section 362(c) ends the debtor’s protection under the automatic stay upon discharge.

Brock v. American Security Bank (In Re Brock) · filed 1982-11-02(c)

That is, although the automatic stay is no longer in effect, the effect of discharge under § 524(a) of the Code is in effect but relates and affects only the personal liability of the debtor and, accordingly, the lien, not having been avoided by either the debtor or the trustee in the pre-discharge period, now survives unaltered in this post-discharge period.

Under § 362(c)(2)(C), as then in effect, the automatic stay ended when a Chapter 7 debtor was denied a discharge.

Brannon v. Commissioner · filed 1988-09-28(c)(2)(C)

Based upon the information available to the Court at this time, therefore, it appears that the automatic stay was lifted on August 31, 1983, approximately eighteen months before the subject notices of deficiency were mailed to petitioners on February 12, 1985.

Section 362(c)(2)(C) terminates the automatic stay when the court enters a discharge order.

Schmiel v. Judge (In Re Schmiel) · filed 1989-02-08(c)(2)(C)

The entry of the Discharge Order will terminate the automatic stay.

Section 362(c)(2)(C) ends the automatic stay when a denial of discharge becomes final.

In Re Williams · filed 1995-12-12(c)(2)(C)

(4) The automatic stay is deemed lifted under 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(2)(C) as of April 14, 1995.

Section 362(c)(2) ends the automatic stay of an action against the debtor when a discharge is granted, if the case has not already been closed or dismissed.

In re Daniels · filed 2013-05-02(c)(2)

The Motion for Relief from Stay was pending for over three years post-discharge, at a time when the § 362(a) stay had already been extinguished and replaced by the discharge injunction of § 524(a). Reinstating the Motion for Relief from Stay would have served no purpose as that motion became moot upon entry of the discharge.

Section 362(c)(2) terminates the automatic stay when the debtor receives a discharge.

Akey v. Comm'r · filed 2015-11-24(c)(2)

On September 18, 2015, respondent informed the Court that the U.S. Bankruptcy Court had granted a discharge to petitioner on September 11, 2015, thereby terminating the automatic stay. See id. (c)(2). Accordingly, on September 30, 2015, we lifted the stay in these cases and issued to petitioner an order to show cause as to why our opinion should not be released and our decisions entered.

Section 362(c)(2)(C) ends the automatic stay as to an individual Chapter 7 debtor when the debtor receives a discharge.

Douglas Leroy Blunkall · filed 2020-04-13(c)(2)(C)

Granting of a discharge to an individual in a Chapter 7 case terminates the automatic stay as to that debtor by operation of law, replacing it with the discharge injunction.

Section 362(c)(2) ends the automatic stay when an individual Chapter 7 debtor receives a discharge, making a pending motion for stay relief moot.

Ernesto Alanzo Fierro · filed 2023-06-20(c)(2)

In addition, the Motion for Relief is now moot, since the automatic stay has terminated.

For stay relief under § 362(d)(2)(A), equity in property bought through a contract for deed is the property value minus the payments remaining due under the contract.

David Brian Miller · filed 2023-11-15(d)(2)(A)

Because of the similarity of contracts for deed with mortgage transactions, in this case the Court determines the estate’s equity in the Residence is the difference between the property value and the payments remaining due under the Contract.

Section 362(d)(2) allows relief from the automatic stay when the debtor has no equity in property and cannot show both that the property is needed for reorganization and that an effective reorganization is realistically possible.

Tyrelle Lamar King · filed 2022-07-28(d)(2)

In other words, not only must the property be necessary to the debtor for him to reorganize, but he must be able to reorganize. ... Tyrelle having failed to meet his burden of proof, stay relief is warranted.

Section 362(d)(2) permits relief from the automatic stay when the debtor has no equity in the property and the property is unnecessary for a reorganization.

David Zackowski · filed 2022-06-10(d)(2)

As both conditions of subsection 362(d)(2) are met here, I conclude the Movant is entitled to relief from stay under that provision.

Section 362(d)(2) requires relief from the stay when the debtor has no equity in the property and the property is unnecessary for an effective reorganization; property in a Chapter 7 case is unnecessary for that purpose.

Matthew D. Daniels and Jaclyn E. Daniels · filed 2021-10-14(d)(2)

The evidence supports granting relief under subsection (2). “Equity” is defined as “the difference between the property value and all encumbrances against it.” In re Belton Inns, Inc., 71 B.R. 811, 817 (Bankr. S.D. Iowa 1987). Debtors have no equity in the Property. Debtors scheduled the Property with a fair market value of $130,000.00, and scheduled Van Grootheest as the secured creditor. (ECF Doc. 1 at 23, 32). The last payment was received on July 23, 2012. Substantial interest has accrued in the interim. Debtors have not disputed that the balance due exceeded $160,000.00 at the time of the hearing. Debtors filed for Chapter 7 relief. By definition then, the Property is not necessary for an effective reorganization. In re Martens, 331 B.R. at 398. The Court therefore grants relief under section 362(d)(2).

Under § 362(d)(2), when a creditor fails to show that the debtor lacks equity in the property, the debtor need not prove that the property is necessary for an effective reorganization.

Riverstreet Ventures, LLC · filed 2021-09-20(d)(2)

Because Lion has failed to meet its burden to show that there is no equity in the property, no need exists for the Debtor to prove that the Property is necessary for an effective reorganization.

For stay relief under § 362(d)(2)(A), property should be valued at or near the final hearing when determining whether the debtor has equity.

Michael Jacques Jacobs · filed 2021-05-24(d)(2)(A)

Consistent with the purpose of the “no equity” requirement for stay relief under § 362(d)(2), this Court concludes that property should be valued under § 362(d)(2)(A) at or near the time of the final hearing on the motion for relief from stay.

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

Gregory Wayne Lattea and Angela Lee Lattea · filed 2021-03-15(d)(2)

In its straightforward evaluation of the MFR, the Court determines that relief from the stay is warranted under § 362(d)(2) because there is clearly no equity in the Property and the Property is not necessary for an effective reorganization.

Section 362(d)(2) does not allow relief from the automatic stay when the debtor has equity in the property, so the court need not decide whether the property is necessary for an effective reorganization.

W. Kent Ganske · filed 2021-01-29(d)(2)

Having determined that the Debtors have equity in the Baileys Harbor Property, there is no need for the Court to address in this decision whether the Baileys Harbor Property is necessary for an effective reorganization. Because the Debtors have equity in the Baileys Harbor Property, Winfield’s Motion for Relief from Stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2) is denied.

When a debtor has no equity in property, § 362(d)(2)(B) requires the debtor to show that the property is essential to an effective reorganization in prospect to avoid relief from the stay.

Stanley-Trafton Holdings, LLC · filed 2020-11-24(d)(2)(B)

And the Debtor did not meet its burden of demonstrating that the property is “essential for an effective reorganization that is in prospect.”

Under § 362(d)(2), a Chapter 7 debtor cannot show that retaining property is necessary for an effective reorganization because Chapter 7 involves liquidation.

In Re: Samuel Ehrenfeld · filed 2020-09-28(d)(2)

And because Ehrenfeld is seeking Chapter 7 bankruptcy, he seeks liquidation of his estate, not reorganization. See In re DBSD N. Am., Inc., 634 F.3d 79, 98 (2d Cir. 2010) (noting that Chapter 7 bankruptcy “involve[s] a liquidation of the debtor, not a reorganization”). Thus, he cannot show that retention of the property is necessary for an effective reorganization.

Section 362(d)(2) permits relief from the automatic stay only when the debtor lacks equity in the property and the property is unnecessary for an effective reorganization.

Clifton C. Brown, II · filed 2019-08-01(d)(2)

Because both prongs of Section 362(d)(2) must be met before relief may be granted, the Court finds that the Section Motion should be and hereby is DENIED.

A debtor lacks equity under § 362(d)(2) when debts secured by liens on the property exceed its value.

Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Schleicher & Stebbins Hotels, L. L.C. · filed 2019-06-18(d)(2)

A debtor lacks equity in the property for purposes of § 362(d)(2) when the debts secured by liens on the property exceed the value of the property.

Section 362(d)(2) requires relief from the automatic stay when the debtor has no equity in the property and cannot show a reasonable possibility of an effective reorganization.

In re Stincic · filed 2016-09-29(d)(2)

Section 362(d)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code provides for relief from stay of an act against property if the debtor has no equity and the property is not necessary to an effective reorganization. ... There is neither equity nor any adequate protection, While the property is Stincic’s home, he has failed to demonstrate any reasonable pos-sibility of reorganization. For the forego-ing reasons, the Motion for Relief from Stay is granted.

Section 362(d)(1) permits denial of relief from the stay when equity in the property, together with proposed plan payments, adequately protects the creditor’s interest.

In re Ferrouillat · filed 2016-10-24(d)(1)

Angel Homes did not contest Debtor’s valuation of his home in his schedules, therefore this Court holds that there is $57,858.37 of equity in the Property and that, combined with the proposed plan payments is sufficient to provide Angel Homes adequate protection throughout the term of Debtor’s confirmed plan.

Section 362(d)(2) allows the stay to remain in place for property in which the debtor has no equity when the property is necessary for an effective reorganization achievable within a reasonable time.

In re Couture Hotel Corp. · filed 2015-09-02(d)(2)

But, with a few modifications, the Debtor could file a new plan that would address this Court’s concerns (an “Amended Plan”), and the current Plan’s projections clearly show that the Dallas Hotel would be necessary for an effective reorganization. An Amended Plan, however, must be submitted relatively soon in order to protect Mansa’s rights; otherwise, the Debtor will have failed to carry its burden to show that an effective reorganization may be accomplished in a reasonable period of time.

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 prospect.

In re Geneva Anhx IV LLC · filed 2013-07-26(d)(2)

The Debtors have conceded they have no equity in the Park Vista property that ANCHORBANK seeks to foreclose. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court determines that the Debtors do not have a reasonable possibility of a successful reorganization within a reasonable time. Accordingly, the property is not necessary to an effective reorganization that is in prospect. Therefore, the automatic stay should be modified pursuant to section 362(d)(2) to permit ANCHORBANK to continue to prosecute the foreclosure action pending in the Rock Island County Circuit Court.

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

Bryant v. HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc. (In Re Bryant) · filed 2011-07-11(d)(2)

Debtor does not reside at the property so it is not necessary for her reorganization. Debtor’s schedules reflect there is no equity in the property and counsel concedes there is no equity. For these reasons, I find HSBC is entitled to relief from the automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d).

Property is necessary to an effective reorganization under § 362(d)(2) only if it is logically required for a reorganization with a reasonable possibility of succeeding within a reasonable time.

AgSouth Farm Credit, ACA v. Del-A-Rae, Inc. (In Re Del-A-Rae, Inc.) · filed 2011-03-29(d)(2)

Accordingly, for property to be “necessary to an effective reorganization,” it must be logically required for a reorganization which has a reasonable possibility of succeeding within a reasonable time.

Under § 362(d)(2), property is necessary to an effective reorganization if it is logically required for a reorganization that has a reasonable possibility of succeeding within a reasonable time.

Community West Bank v. HSD Partners, LLC (In Re HSD Partners, LLC) · filed 2011-04-01(d)(2)

Accordingly, for property to be “necessary to an effective reorganization,” it must be a logically required for a reorganization which has a reasonable possibility of succeeding within a reasonable time.

Section 362(d)(2)(A) measures a debtor’s equity in property by subtracting all obligations secured by the property from its value.

Bank One, Colorado, N.A. v. Steffens (In Re Steffens) · filed 2002-03-22(d)(2)(A)

As is discussed above (fn.2), all of the liens against the property must be considered in determining whether the Debtors have equity in the property under § 362(d)(2)(A).

Under § 362(d)(2), a creditor seeking stay relief because confirmation is allegedly futile must prove by a preponderance that an effective reorganization is not in prospect.

In Re Annicott Excellence, LLC · filed 2001-01-18(d)(2)

However, the Court finds that Allied and LaSalle failed to prove by a preponderance that there is no possibility of confirmation. Therefore, the Court finds that confirmation, and thus an effective reorganization, are “in prospect” and therefore that relief from stay should be denied.

Section 362(d)(2) permits relief from the automatic stay when the debtor has no equity in the property and fails to show that it is needed for an effective reorganization.

Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance v. Shady Grove Tech Center Associates Ltd. Partnership (In Re Shady Grove Tech Cente · filed 1998-09-23(d)(2)

The second question set forth in the Remand Order is whether this court would grant relief from stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2) without regard to the causes found under § 362(d)(1). This court’s conclusion is that the Debtor failed to prove that the property is needed for an effective reorganization, as that phrase has been defined by the courts. With that finding, and there being no dispute that there is no equity in the property, relief from stay should also be granted for this third alternative ground.

Under § 362(d)(2)(B), a debtor without equity in property must show that it is necessary to a feasible reorganization to resist relief from the automatic stay.

Steeves v. Bernstein, Shur, Sawyer & Nelson, P.C. · filed 1998-08-14(d)(2)(B)

The speculative nature of this alleged future income stream would give Steeves little help in meeting her burden pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2)(B) to show that the reorganization was feasible.

Under § 362(d)(2), a Chapter 13 debtor’s home is irrebuttably presumed necessary for an effective reorganization.

In Re Donahue · filed 1998-05-27(d)(2)

Again, there is an irrebuttable presumption that a chapter 13 debtor’s home is necessary for an effective reorganization.

A Chapter 13 debtor’s home is irrebuttably presumed necessary to an effective reorganization for purposes of relief from stay under § 362(d)(2).

In Re Donahue · filed 1998-06-01(d)(2)

Again, there is an irrebuttable presumption that a chapter 13 debtor’s home is necessary for an effective reorganization.

Section 362(d)(2) does not permit relief from the automatic stay when the debtor’s home is necessary to financial reorganization, even if the debtor has no equity in it.

Brown v. Minor Heights Fire District (In Re Brown) · filed 1998-05-08(d)(2)

While there is no direct evidence of the value of the property, this Court must assume that there is equity of at least the value of the secured claim against the debtor, but even if there is none, certainly the debtor’s home is necessary to her financial reorganization, and for that reason relief from stay may not be granted pursuant to this subsection.

Section 362(d)(2) permits relief from the automatic stay when the debtor has no equity in a residence and fails to show it is necessary to an effective reorganization.

In Re White · filed 1997-12-11(d)(2)

Based upon these figures, the Debtors have no equity in the Quarterhorse property. ... In sum, we find that the Debtors have failed to meet their burden of showing that the Quarterhorse property is necessary to an effective reorganization. Accordingly, we find that the stay shall be lifted under § 362(d)(2) to allow the Bank to pursue its foreclosure on the Quarterhorse property.

Section 362(d)(2) permits relief from the automatic stay when the debtor has no equity in the property; in a Chapter 7 liquidation, effective reorganization is irrelevant.

Powers v. American Honda Finance Corp. · filed 1997-12-11(d)(2)

A court may lift an automatic stay, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2), when the debtor does not have an equity in [the] property and [the] property is not necessary to an effective reorganization. Further, in a Chapter 7 liquidation case, effective reorganization is irrelevant.

Section 362(d)(2) allows relief from the automatic stay against property only if the debtor lacks equity in it and it is unnecessary to an effective reorganization; a creditor offering no evidence of those requirements is not entitled to relief.

In Re Johnson · filed 1997-09-25(d)(2)

This section allows a bankruptcy court to grant a creditor relief from the stay for an act against property if: (A) the debtor does not have an equity in such property; and (B) such property is not necessary to an effective reorganization; ... Fleet has offered no evidence that satisfies these statutory requirements.