11 U.S.C. § 362

Section 362(a) imposes an automatic stay when a bankruptcy petition is filed, but conversion from Chapter 11 to Chapter 7 does not trigger a new stay.

In Re State Airlines, Inc. · filed 1989-07-31(a)

The filing of a petition operates as an automatic stay. A conversion order is not the filing of a petition. A conversion order does not trigger section 362.

Acts violating § 362(a)'s automatic stay are void from the outset.

Garcia v. Phoenix Bond & Indemnity Co. (In Re Garcia) · filed 1989-12-07(a)

Acts in violation of the automatic stay imposed by § 362(a) are void ab initio.

Section 362(a)(1) makes a judgment entered in a proceeding against a debtor during the automatic stay void; lifting the stay later validates only subsequent proceedings.

Ellis v. Consolidated Diesel Electric Corporation · filed 1990-01-18(a)(1)

However, the stay on judicial proceedings made the district court's action void; lifting the stay does not change the character of that action. The lifting of the stay thus validates only later judicial proceedings, not prior ones.

Lifting the automatic stay to let a secured creditor pursue accounts receivable can end the bankruptcy estate’s interest in those receivables, effectively abandoning them.

First National Bank of Maryland v. United States Wall Corp. (In Re Incor, Inc.) · filed 1990-03-16(d)(1)

A post-petition event, the lifting of the stay, destroyed InCor’s property interest in the accounts receivable. The lifting of the stay was essentially equivalent to an abandonment of the property.

Section 362(a)(1) makes an action commenced against a debtor without relief from the automatic stay void, and later stay relief does not validate it.

Backer v. Randall Enterprises, Inc. (In Re Randall Enterprises, Inc.) · filed 1990-06-15(a)(1)

It is axiomatic that actions undertaken prior to a party obtaining relief from stay are invalid, void and of no force and effect. ... Such acts are not cured or validated by subsequently obtained relief from stay.

A default judgment entered in violation of the automatic stay is void.

Overbey v. Murray · filed 1990-10-17(a)(1)

We find that the default judgment in this case, rendered in violation of the automatic stay, is void.

Section 362’s automatic stay does not void a state court divorce judgment or remove the state court’s jurisdiction, but the judgment has no effect on estate property in the trustee’s hands until the debtor recovers it.

Rauer v. McFee · filed 1990-12-04

The principle is set out in In re Willard, 15 B.R. 898 (1981) in which it was held that a state court judgment is not rendered void by the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362, but it has no effect on property of the estate [bankruptcy parlance: property of the marriage in this case] in the hands of the trustee until a debtor obtains it back from the estate. This is all we need to decide in this case since the bankruptcy was the basic reason for appellant’s motion to modify. The trial court had jurisdiction.

Section 362 permits a bankruptcy court to void postpetition default judgments obtained in violation of the automatic stay when the creditor has not obtained relief from the stay.

Drummond v. Janis (In Re Janis) · filed 1991-01-04

This Court has now determined that the Callejo lien is only valid in part. Any contrary determination by default judgment in the Courts of Texas and Hawaii has been rendered a nullity, since any default judgment was obtained in violation of the automatic stay imposed pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362.

Section 362(a) suspends enforcement of a debt accelerated before bankruptcy without undoing the acceleration; the full debt becomes enforceable when the stay is lifted.

Progressive Acquisition, Inc. v. Lytle · filed 1991-02-13(a)

We hold that the entire debt was accelerated prior to the initiation of the stay, but that the Lytles could not enforce the acceleration until the stay was lifted. Once the stay was lifted, the entire amount was again immediately due and payable.

A creditor that receives telephone notice of a bankruptcy filing from the debtor’s attorney and then demands payment of a prepetition debt before providing utility service willfully violates the automatic stay.

Coons v. City of Siloam Springs (In Re Coons) · filed 1991-01-30(h)

In the present case, the Court finds that the telephone call from the Debtors’ attorney, which the City admits receiving, was sufficient notice of the bankruptcy filing. A vague indefinite statement by the Debtors that they had filed bankruptcy, without giving the number of the case or where it was filed, would not be sufficient notice. However, a long distance telephone call by the Debtors’ attorney, informing the creditor of the filing, would be sufficient notice. A creditor, at this point, has the duty to inquire of the Court Clerk as to the filing. When the City ignored the notice from the Debtors’ attorney and extracted payment from the Debtors of their pre-bankruptcy debts before they would provide new service, they committed a willful violation of the automatic stay.

Section 362’s automatic stay prevents a foreclosure decision reached during the stay from having res judicata effect against the debtor.

In Re James C. REPLOGLE, Debtor. FIRST AGRICULTURAL BANK, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. James C. REPLOGLE and Claudia Replogl · filed 1991-04-04

Although Replogle was a party to the foreclosure action, and the bankruptcy judge had notice, the automatic stay issued in the Chapter 13 proceedings, 11 U.S.C. § 362, meant that the New York decision was not res judicata as to Replogle.

Section 362 stays a counterclaim against a debtor in bankruptcy, and the court cannot dismiss the stayed counterclaim with prejudice when the stay prevents it from proceeding.

Heritage Enterprises v. Silverio · filed 1991-04-17

During the trial court proceedings, defendants’ counterclaim was subject to an automatic stay because of plaintiffs bankruptcy. 11 USC § 362. ... We conclude that the dismissal with prejudice was beyond the court’s authority under the circumstances and was reversible error.

Section 362’s automatic stay takes effect upon filing a bankruptcy petition without any further act by the debtor.

General American Communications Corp. v. Landsell (In Re General American Communications Corp.) · filed 1991-04-25(a)

As the name suggests, however, the automatic stay is automatic and requires no affirmative act by a bankrupt debtor other than the filing of a petition.

Section 362’s automatic stay halts actions against the debtor and tolls Louisiana’s five-year abandonment period while the stay prevents prosecution.

Davis v. Johns-Manville Products · filed 1991-05-03

However, an automatic stay issued by a bankruptcy court pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362 abates actions filed against the bankrupt party and tolls the prescriptive period established by C.C.P. art. 561.

Section 362(c)(2) terminates the automatic stay when a bankruptcy case is dismissed, and reopening the case does not reinstate it.

In Re Gruetzmacher · filed 1991-05-17(c)(2)

The Court therefore holds that the reopening of the debtor’s bankruptcy case on January 23, 1990, did not reinstate the automatic stay provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 362.

Conversion of a bankruptcy case to Chapter 7 does not create a new automatic stay under § 362; an order lifting the stay before conversion remains effective afterward.

Aloyan v. Campos (In Re Campos) · filed 1991-07-18(a)

Conversion of a bankruptcy case to Chapter 7 does not trigger a new automatic stay. Thus, if an order lifting the automatic stay is entered before the case is so converted, the beneficiary of the order may proceed in accordance with the order notwithstanding conversion of the case.

Section 362’s automatic stay remains in effect on stayed claims when the action containing them is transferred for multidistrict pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 1407.

In Re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (No. Vi) · filed 1991-07-29

Transfer under § 1407 of an action containing claims against a defendant in bankruptcy has no effect on the automatic stay provisions of the Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. § 362). Claims that have been stayed in the transferor court remain stayed in the transferee court.

Section 362’s stay of arbitration does not extinguish a contractual right to attorney’s fees tied to prevailing in that arbitration.

Schleicher v. Murray Industries, Inc. (In Re Murray Industries, Inc.) · filed 1991-08-07

The blocking of arbitration under 11 U.S.C. § 362 should not be allowed to void Appellant’s right to attorney’s fees in Paragraph 16.

Conversion of a confirmed Chapter 11 case does not reimpose the automatic stay under Section 362.

Ohio, Department of Taxation v. H.R.P. Auto Center, Inc. (In Re H.R.P. Auto Center, Inc.) · filed 1991-08-09

Conversion does not reimpose automatic stay provisions of Section 362.

Section 362 makes an action taken in violation of the automatic stay voidable at the bankruptcy trustee’s option rather than void from the outset.

Shorr v. Kind · filed 1991-11-01

Following Schwartz, we hold that as a matter of law the trial court’s entry of judgment after it granted motions for summary judgment was not void ab initio but was voidable at the option of Rodriguez’s bankruptcy trustee.

Section 362 generally requires a creditor that obtained relief from the stay in Chapter 7 to seek relief again after conversion to Chapter 13, unless stay relief was fully litigated or the conversion is clearly abusive.

Matter of Nichols · filed 1991-11-27(a)

On the first issue, we hold that the conversion of a case in Chapter 7 to a case in Chapter 13 establishes a new order for relief. In the typical case involving no response from the debtor, the creditor will need to file a new motion for relief from stay in the Chapter 13 case to proceed as against its collateral, even though relief from stay may have been previously granted in the Chapter 7 proceeding. ... However, such rights of a debtor may be cut off where the issue of relief from stay has been fully and fairly litigated in the initial proceeding or where the conversion is clearly an abusive filing with no real hope of fulfillment.

The automatic stay does not bar injunctions preserving recovery on claims that a court has permitted a creditor to pursue by modifying the stay.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Soderling · filed 1991-12-02(a)

The district court entered the preliminary injunctions at issue to preserve any recovery the FDIC may gain in its civil action. Thus, the injunctions do not violate the automatic stay provision of section 362(a).

An action taken in violation of the automatic stay is void when no statutory exception applies and the bankruptcy court has not annulled the stay.

Benjamin v. Chamberlin · filed 1991-12-18

We find that the better approach is to follow the rule that actions, such as this one, taken in violation of an automatic stay are void. While it is true that in some instances an action taken in violation of an automatic stay can be “voidable” rather than “void,” we do not believe that the present facts present such a situation. The action before this court does not fall within any of the statutory good-faith exceptions of the Bankruptcy Code, nor has the bankruptcy court chosen to annul the stay and thus breathe life into an otherwise void state district court judgment entered in violation of the automatic stay.

Section 362’s automatic stay continues after a stayed action is removed to bankruptcy court; removal itself does not terminate the stay.

Brateman v. Brateman Bros., Inc. (In Re Brateman Bros., Inc.) · filed 1991-12-20

While it appears that the automatic stay may not apply to the removal of pending litigation, the mere fact that litigation is removed does not operate to terminate the automatic stay.

Section 362 allows a lease to expire by its terms but requires stay relief before a lessor takes action against the debtor’s remaining rights in the property.

Sanden v. Chautauqua Capital Corp. (In Re Chautauqua Capital Corp.) · filed 1992-01-21

The automatic stay provided by § 362 does not prevent a contract, agreement or lease from expiring according to its terms post-bankruptcy. ... The Bankruptcy Code offers no basis for extending the leases beyond their stated termination dates, except that the automatic stay of § 362 requires that relief from such stay be obtained before a lessor may take action with respect to a debtor’s rights in the property.

An automatic stay arising from a Chapter 13 petition has no effect on property sales or title after that petition is properly dismissed.

In Re Charles Howard Strahler, Jr. Patricia Ann Strahler, Debtors. Charles Howard Strahler, Jr. v. Parkville Federal Sav · filed 1992-01-22

The first Chapter 13 petition having been properly dismissed, neither its filing nor any automatic stay issued by virtue thereof under 11 U.S.C. § 362 has any effect on the title to or sale of either of the properties involved in this case and located in Ocean City and Ellicott City, Maryland.

Violations of Section 362’s automatic stay are void rather than merely voidable.

In Re: Russell Schwartz Linda Schwartz, Debtors. Russell Schwartz Linda Schwartz v. United States · filed 1992-01-22(a)

Our decision today clarifies this area of the law by making clear that violations of the automatic stay are void, not voidable.

Section 362 does not make a withdrawal-liability demand against a bankrupt employer ineffective against nonbankrupt members of the same controlled group, even if the demand violates the automatic stay as to the debtor.

Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Slotky · filed 1992-02-24(a)(1)

But even if the demand violated the automatic stay, all that this would mean, it seems to us, so far as bears on this case (for the violation might of course expose the violator to contempt proceedings, as with any other violation of a judicial order), is that the pension plan could not proceed against Stevens unless the bankruptcy judge lifted the stay. The demand would still be effective against nonbankrupt members of the controlled group, such as Slotky.

Section 362 automatically stays judicial and administrative proceedings against a bankruptcy debtor, and actions taken in violation of the stay are void.

Ortiz v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board · filed 1992-03-06(a)

However, when Capone filed his petition for bankruptcy, all judicial and administrative proceedings against him were automatically stayed and any actions taken in violation of the automatic stay were void.

Section 362(a)(1) makes judicial proceedings taken during the automatic stay ineffective, including an appeal initiated by the debtor after filing for bankruptcy.

Bailey v. Campbell · filed 1992-03-31(a)(1)

Because judicial proceedings taken in violation of an automatic stay in bankruptcy are of no effect, Morrison’s appeal of the denial of his motion to vacate the default judgment does not bar the instant appeal.

Section 362(a) makes a judgment against a bankruptcy debtor void when entered while the automatic stay is in effect.

Haun v. Steigleder · filed 1992-05-29(a)

However, because there was an automatic stay in effect at the time of the judgment as to Clinton Manges, that part of the judgment pertaining to Clinton Manges was void, and must be set aside.

A pending motion to modify the § 362(a) automatic stay becomes moot when the debtor receives a discharge and the § 524(a)(2) permanent injunction takes effect.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Winterland (In Re Winterland) · filed 1992-06-09(a)

Although we proceed to adjudicate the merits of this appeal because of the lack of prejudice to the Debtor, expediency, and precedent allowing such action, we hold that in the future any pending motion for modification of the automatic stay under § 362(a) should be denied as moot once a discharge is granted and the permanent injunction of § 524(a)(2) arises.

Section 362(a)(5) protects a debtor’s property from foreclosure even after the property leaves the bankruptcy estate and returns to the debtor.

Seed-Faith Church of God v. Preliminary Home Federal Savings & Loan Association of San Diego · filed 1992-06-10(a)(5)

As property of the debtors, the automatic stay on the property would have remained in effect under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(5), which independently protects the debtor from a wide variety of actions against his or her property, including judicial or private foreclosure.

Section 362 does not prevent a court from remanding an improperly removed action when the bankruptcy petition was filed after the suit and removal.

County of Cook v. Mellon Stuart Co. · filed 1992-06-15

The subsequent bankruptcy filing and resulting stay under section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 362, do not prevent this court from remanding an improperly removed action.

A suit filed in violation of the automatic stay is voidable, and approval of a reorganization plan allowing the suit to proceed can cure the filing defect.

Harris v. Pettibone Corp. · filed 1992-06-25

The law of the Fifth Circuit as applied to the facts of this case compels one conclusion—by operation of law, the bankruptcy court cured the defect of plaintiffs’ initial filing when it approved the plan of reorganization which allowed plaintiffs to proceed with their tort action.

Section 362 grants prospective relief and does not retroactively invalidate a foreclosure completed while the automatic stay was lifted.

Piccolo v. Dime Savings Bank of New York · filed 1992-10-05

It would be fruitless to contend that the order of February 24, 1992 retroactively imposed the stay, making it effective prior to the foreclosure. Section 362 grants prospective relief.

Section 362(a)(1) makes an appellate opinion and judgment issued during the automatic stay void.

Howell v. Thompson · filed 1992-10-21(a)(1)

The court of appeals’ issuance of its opinion and judgment was void because it occurred after petitioner filed bankruptcy proceedings and during the pendency of the automatic stay provided by 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1).

Section 362(a)(1) postpones adjudication of a debtor’s liability until the automatic stay is terminated or modified, but does not bar that liability.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Harris · filed 1992-10-22(a)(1)

The automatic stay protecting Glasstream, on the other hand, did not constitute a legal bar to liability in the manner of a discharge; instead, it simply operated as a postponement of the right to adjudicate Glasstream’s liability.

Section 362 prevents a seed lien filed against a debtor during the automatic stay from making the filer a secured creditor.

EASTERN IDAHO PROD. CREDIT ASSOCIATION v. Idaho Gem, Inc. · filed 1992-11-24

The first method does not elevate EIPCA to the position of secured creditor because EIPCA must stand in the shoes of its assignor, Heinz. The seed lien Heinz filed in August of 1986 was inadequate to transform him into a secured creditor of Baker because Baker was under the protection of the bankruptcy court at the time of the filing.

Converting a Chapter 11 case to Chapter 7 does not trigger a new automatic stay under § 362.

Johnson v. Garden State Brickface and Stucco Co. · filed 1993-01-29

While we recognize that some cases have relied on § 348(d) to find that the date of conversion is controlling, ... this court concludes that a conversion from a Chapter 11 to a Chapter 7 petition does not trigger a new automatic stay.

Section 362(a) makes an attempted termination of a debtor’s franchise agreements after the bankruptcy petition is filed of no force and effect.

Halverson v. Halverson (In Re Halverson) · filed 1993-02-22(a)

By virtue of the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), which went into effect upon the filing of the petition, the attempted termination of the remaining franchises by McDonald’s Corporation was of no force and effect.

Section 362’s automatic stay, once modified or lifted by a final order, is not reinstated merely by converting the bankruptcy case to another chapter.

In Re Standfield · filed 1993-03-18(a)

The Court is of the view that once the automatic stay is modified or lifted in a case, that final judgment is not automatically vacated or annulled by the subsequent conversion of the case to another chapter.

A foreclosure judgment entered in violation of the automatic stay is void from the beginning and has no legal effect.

Matter of Cappadonna · filed 1993-04-01(a)(4), (a)(5)

Clearly, this judgement against the debtor was obtained in violation of the stay. As such, the judgement was void from the beginning and carries no legal force or effect now.

Section 362(a)(1) makes actions filed against a debtor during the automatic stay invalid and voidable; courts void them absent limited equitable circumstances.

Easley v. Pettibone Michigan Corporation · filed 1993-04-08(a)(1)

In summary, we hold that actions taken in violation of the stay are invalid and voidable and shall be voided absent limited equitable circumstances. We suggest that only where the debtor unreasonably withholds notice of the stay and the creditor would be prejudiced if the debtor is able to raise the stay as a defense, or where the debtor is attempting to use the stay unfairly as a shield to avoid an unfavorable result, will the protections of section 362(a) be unavailable to the debtor.

Conversion of a bankruptcy case from chapter 7 to chapter 13 does not reimpose the automatic stay under § 362(a) or undo an earlier order granting relief from the stay.

In Re Parker · filed 1993-04-12(a)

... this court finds that the conversion of the debtors’ chapter 7 case to chapter 13 did not cause the stay to be reimposed and that the conversion did not affect this court’s earlier order granting relief from stay to 801 Credit Union.

Section 362(a) stays an appeal arising from a proceeding against the debtor, and actions taken in that proceeding during the stay are void.

County Management, Inc. v. Grover L. R. Hillboldt and Charlotte B. Hillboldt · filed 1993-05-26(a)

This Court does not have jurisdiction over the cause because the trial-court proceeding was an action against the debtor, and, therefore, the automatic stay in bankruptcy applied to the appeal. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) (1988). Since the automatic stay applies to this cause, the trial court's ruling on appellant's motion for new trial was void, and appellant's filing of the certificate of cash deposit with the district clerk was of no effect, as were all subsequent actions by this Court.

An order lifting the automatic stay does not invariably revive a creditor’s duty to reinscribe a notice of assignment.

In The Matter Of Pernie Bailey Drilling Co., Inc. · filed 1993-05-28

The trustee relies heavily on dicta in Bond suggesting that an order lifting the automatic stay invariably revives the duty to reinscribe. We do not agree with this broad reading of Bond, and conclude to the contrary.

Section 362’s automatic stay renders void an appellate court order granting a briefing extension while the stay is in effect.

Schell v. Interglobal Technical Services, Inc. · filed 1993-06-30

The Court's August 22, 1986, order granting the motion for extension of time to file the appellee's brief is void as the order was granted during the pendency of the automatic stay in bankruptcy.

Section 362 makes complaints concerning prepetition debts filed against a debtor after the automatic stay takes effect null and void.

Trump Taj Mahal Associates v. Alibraham (In Re Trump Taj Mahal Associates) · filed 1993-07-01(a)(1)

Therefore, any complaints concerning pre-petition debts filed against the Debtor in the present case after the implementation of the automatic stay are declared null and void.

Section 362(a)(4)-(6) makes a creditor’s acceptance of a settlement offer void when that acceptance would create a lien against the debtor or estate property or collect, assess, or recover a claim against the debtor.

Gillilan v. Commissioner · filed 1993-08-18(a)(4)-(6)

It seems apparent, and respondent does not appear to contest, that respondent's purported acceptance of the offer was an impermissible act (i) to create a lien against either petitioner's husband's property or that of the estate, or (ii) to collect, assess, or recover a claim against petitioner's husband. 11 U.S.C. sec. 362(a)(4)-(6) . Accordingly, respondent's purported acceptance is void as it pertains to petitioner's husband.

An order entered while a debtor’s automatic stay applies is voidable rather than void.

Matter of Hipp, Inc. · filed 1993-10-18(a)

Also, assuming arguendo that the automatic stay from Oles' personal bankruptcy applied, it would render the November 9, 1987 order voidable, not void.

Section 362(c)(2)(C) permits execution of a nondischargeability judgment against a debtor’s property outside the bankruptcy estate without waiting for a general discharge or obtaining relief from the stay.

In Re William L. Embry, Debtor. Boatmen's Bank of Tennessee v. Embry · filed 1993-12-03(c)(2)(C)

We conclude, therefore, that once a Bankruptcy Court enters its judgment holding a debt nondischargeable, the automatic stay does not preclude execution of the judgment against property of the debtor which is not pi’operty of the estate.

Section 362(a) continues to protect against a landlord’s dispossession after a nonresidential lease is deemed rejected under § 365(d)(4); rejection does not itself create an exception to the automatic stay.

In Re Williams · filed 1994-08-22(a)

This Court is in agreement with the Adams court’s finding that section 365(d)(4) does not operate as an exception to the automatic stay provisions of section 362(a).

An action filed in violation of the automatic bankruptcy stay is voidable rather than void.

Southland Express, Inc. v. Scrap Metal Buyers of Tampa, Inc. · filed 1994-09-07(a)(1)

We believe the better reasoned approach is that stated by the Sixth Circuit; therefore, we hold that an action filed in violation of the automatic bankruptcy stay is voidable and not void.

Conversion from Chapter 13 to Chapter 7 does not impose a new automatic stay or alter an existing order lifting the stay to permit an appeal.

Vega v. Gasper · filed 1994-10-07(a)

The subsequent conversion to Chapter 7 did not invoke another automatic stay or modify this order.

An action violating the automatic stay is at most voidable and may be cured or validated by a later lifting of the stay.

United States v. Robert Willey and Sherry Willey, Brookridge Apartments, Ltd. Tiffany Square, Ltd. Rivergate Associates, · filed 1994-11-08

If the action of the district court on December 28, 1992 violated the automatic stay, the action at most was rendered voidable, in the sense that it could be cured or validated by a subsequent lifting of the stay.

Conversion from Chapter 13 to Chapter 7 does not impose a new automatic stay or alter an order lifting the stay for a pending appeal.

Maria Vega, Eva Trevino, on Behalf of Herself and as Next Friend of Pedro Trevino v. Gasper · filed 1994-11-10(a)

The subsequent conversion to Chapter 7 did not invoke another automatic stay or modify this order.

An order merely lifting the automatic stay under § 362(d) operates prospectively and does not validate a complaint filed while the stay was in effect.

Stallings v. Spring Meadows Apartment Complex Ltd. Partnership · filed 1995-01-25(d)

The order of the bankruptcy court lifting the stay neither annulled the stay nor granted any type of retroactive relief. Although the Stallings could have refiled their complaint once the stay was lifted, the order did not reach back in time to validate the Stallings' earlier-filed complaint.

Section 362 stays proceedings upon a bankruptcy filing, but does not invalidate a judgment entered before the stay; execution remains stayed until the bankruptcy court modifies the stay.

Middlebrooks v. Fleet Finance, Inc. · filed 1995-03-13

Although the Middlebrooks filed a petition for bankruptcy on July 28, 1994, which entitled them to an automatic stay of proceedings under 11 USC § 362, the writ of possession which they contest was granted on July 18, 1994. As this judgment was entered prior to the automatic stay, the trial court did not err. Further, the execution of the writ of possession, in fact, was stayed until the United States Bankruptcy Court modified the stay by specifically authorizing Fleet Finance to continue this dispossessory proceeding.

Section 362(a) stays probate proceedings concerning a debtor’s interest in an inheritance, and a probate order entered in violation of that stay is void.

Schieffler v. Pulaski Bank & Trust Co. (In Re Molitor) · filed 1995-03-15(a)

The probate proceeding, insofar as it concerned the Debtor or any property the Debt- or might be entitled to, became subject to the automatic stay the moment the bankruptcy petition was filed, and all actions should have abated in the probate proceeding until relief from the automatic stay was granted. ... Since the opinion and order of the probate court were entered in violation of the automatic stay the opinion and order are void and without effect.

Section 362 stays collection on pre-bankruptcy claims, preventing claimants from seizing the debtor’s deposits while the stay is in place.

Baham v. Trustee in Bankruptcy of the Estate of Metzner · filed 1995-07-24

With a stay in place, no claimant may seize the deposits, and thus there is no need to post additional amounts to replenish any amount since no seizure occurred.

Section 362 renders an IRS assessment made during the automatic stay void when no equitable circumstances justify upholding it.

Conway v. United States · filed 1995-08-18

Defendant admits that the instant assessment was made during pendency of the plaintiffs bankruptcy case and therefore violated the automatic stay provisions. ... Defendant has failed to demonstrate any other equitable considerations sufficient to convince the court that its assessment should be upheld. Accordingly, I find and conclude that the IRS assessment against the plaintiff is void.

Section 362 prevents an appellate decision from applying to parties protected by the bankruptcy stay.

MBD Enterprises, Inc. v. American National Bank of Chicago · filed 1995-09-06

Accordingly, the summary judgment from which the appeal is taken is affirmed with the proviso that our decision does not apply to those parties who are protected by 11 U.S.C. section 362 or excluded by the appellate court order of October 23, 1992.

Reinstating a dismissed bankruptcy case does not retroactively reimpose the automatic stay during the period of dismissal.

G.E. Capital Mortgage Services, Inc. v. Thomas (In Re Thomas) · filed 1995-12-12

Furthermore, the reinstatement of this case does not retroactively reimpose the automatic stay.

Section 362’s automatic stay is no longer in effect after the bankruptcy case is dismissed.

In Re Robinson · filed 1996-02-16

Inasmuch as this bankruptcy case was dismissed in December 1995, there is no automatic stay in effect.

Abandonment of estate property ends the automatic stay’s protection of the estate’s interest in that property.

Ellenberg v. Bouldin (In Re Bouldin) · filed 1996-03-15(a)

Abandonment eliminates the protection of the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) as to the estate’s interest in the property.

Section 362(a) keeps the automatic stay in effect when a partnership petition is treated as involuntary and the original order for relief is vacated, if the original petition date remains the filing date.

In Re SWG Associates · filed 1996-08-13(a)

That being the case, the automatic stay is not affected by the decision of this Court herein.

Section 362(a) makes a judgment obtained against a debtor after the debtor files for Chapter 13 ineffective against the debtor.

Lewis-Gale Clinic, Inc. v. Root (In re Root) · filed 1996-08-15(a)

This judgment was ineffective against Mr. Root as being a violation of the automatic stay imposed by 11 U.S.C. § 362(a).

Section 362(a)(1)’s automatic stay is not triggered by a collusive bankruptcy filing made in violation of a court order barring further Bankruptcy Code filings.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for Goldome v. Cortez · filed 1996-09-17(a)(1)

Since it was filed two months after the Florida bankruptcy court’s order and was collusive, the California proceeding violated the Florida court’s 12-month prohibition against further Bankruptcy Code filings by Cortez and hence was ineffective to trigger the automatic stay provisions of § 362(a)(1).

A judgment foreclosing a lien on property of the bankruptcy estate in violation of § 362’s automatic stay is void from the outset and has no effect.

Jennings Enterprises, Inc. v. Carte · filed 1997-01-27

In the case sub judice, the trial court correctly concluded that defendants’ judgment foreclosing a claim of lien on property belonging to the bankruptcy estate was void for being in violation of the automatic stay in bankruptcy provided by 11 USC § 362. That judgment was void ab initio, was without effect, and was an absolute nullity.

Section 362(a) does not suspend student loan payment due dates or toll the five-year HEAL loan dischargeability period under 42 U.S.C. § 294f(g).

Roa-Moreno v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (In Re Roa-Moreno) · filed 1997-03-06(a)

Finally, § 362(a) does not provide that payments do not become due, contrary to the conclusion of the Saburah court. 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). Thus, the automatic stay does not toll the five-year expiration period vis-a-vis 42 U.S.C. § 294f(g).

Section 362 stays an appeal as to a party who has filed for bankruptcy while the appeal may proceed against nondebtor codefendants.

Nbd Bank, N.A., Successor by Merger to Inb National Bank, Northwest v. Charles J. Fulner, Jr., Timothy B. Ayers Carson P · filed 1997-03-18

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362 this court has, therefore, stayed the proceedings as to him, and it has proceeded to decision with the respect to the other two defendants/appellants.

Section 362(a) no longer protects a debtor or the debtor’s assets after the bankruptcy case is dismissed.

Johnson v. Internal Revenue Service (In Re Johnson) · filed 1997-06-16(a)

The IRS correctly asserts that once this bankruptcy case was dismissed, the debtor and her assets were no longer protected by the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a).

An unnecessary IRS notice of proposed assessment issued during the automatic stay does not invalidate an assessment issued after the stay expires.

Riley v. United States · filed 1997-07-07

Neither the Bankruptcy Code nor the Internal Revenue Code requires that we render "void ab initio" an assessment for $680,000 in unpaid taxes because that assessment was issued after a "void" notice that the agency was under no obligation to issue in the first place.

When a bankruptcy court reinstates a dismissed case and treats it as continuously filed, the automatic stay may be treated as remaining in effect during the interval between dismissal and reinstatement for purposes of a state tax sale in error.

Ballinger v. Hickory Point Bank & Trust · filed 1997-08-14(c)(2)

Because the bankruptcy court treated the stay as remaining in effect, and such a position is in conformity with the stated legislative intent of allowing the orderly resolution of all claims against a creditor’s estate, we will treat the stay as remaining in effect for purposes of granting a petition for sale in error.

Section 362 makes a nondebtor contractor’s decisions on a debtor’s change order requests ineffective during the automatic stay.

Allied Fire & Safety Equipment Co. v. Dick Enterprises, Inc. · filed 1997-08-22(a)(1)

Furthermore, Dick Enterprises’s decisions on Allied’s change order requests were ineffective during the automatic stay.

Section 362(a)(2), (4), and (5) stays enforcement of a judgment lien during bankruptcy but does not suspend the lien’s duration under state law.

Hazel v. Van Beek · filed 1998-04-23(a)(2), (4), (5)

Wintermute erroneously cites 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(2), (4), (5) for the proposition that a federal bankruptcy petition stays a period prescribed by state statute for enforcing a judgment lien. Wintermute, 70 Wash.App. at 746, 855 P.2d 1186. The statute merely states the bankruptcy petition stays enforcement of the lien and says nothing about the effect of that injunction on the statutory life of the lien under state law.

Section 362(a) does not necessarily prevent a judgment against a debtor’s codefendants from having preclusive effect against the debtor in a later action.

Jordache Enterprises, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance · filed 1998-11-24(a)

Accordingly, we hold that a debtor in bankruptcy who is a party to an action but whose participation in the action is automatically stayed by the provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 362 may be precluded by the principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel from relitigating the same claims or issues of which there was a final adjudication as to his co-defendants, in a subsequent action.

Section 362(c)(1) ends the stay of acts against estate property when that property is abandoned, but § 362(a) continues to protect it as property of the debtor.

In Re Pilz Compact Disc, Inc. · filed 1999-01-07(c)(1)

Section 362(c)(1) states that the stay of an act “against property of the estate” ends when the property is no longer property of the estate. However, section 362(a) creates a statutory protection for property of the debtor as well as for property of the estate. ... Accordingly, were the inventory abandoned by the trustee to the debtor, the stay under section 362(a) would continue insofar as it enjoins actions against property of the debtor.

A complaint filed against a debtor in violation of the automatic stay is void and does not invoke the state court’s subject matter jurisdiction.

Cohen v. Salata · filed 1999-03-25(a)(1)

Based on the foregoing analysis, we hold that the filing of the plaintiff’s complaint against the defendants in violation of the automatic stay provisions of section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code was void and did not invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the circuit court.

Section 362(a)(1) prevents a creditor from binding a debtor through issue preclusion to a postpetition judgment against a nondebtor when the stay kept the debtor from defending the claim.

Health & Welfare Plan for Employees of Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Eagleston (In Re Eagleston) · filed 1999-07-15(a)(1)

That unequivocal enactment would be subverted and indeed overturned if the debtor was held subject to results of a trial that went forward after the bankruptcy was filed, but before the automatic stay had been modified. It is immaterial that Eagleston may have been physically present in the District Court in his capacity of legal representative of another entity — he cannot be forced into defending a cause of action that is subject to the automatic stay merely out of fear that he may be subject to issue preclusion if he opts to stand on his statutorily created rights.

An order lifting the automatic stay allows an appeal to proceed and makes an objection based on the stay moot.

Gipson v. Taylor · filed 1999-08-27

The Bankruptcy Court's order lifting the stay to allow all matters raised as issues before this Court to be resolved de novo by this Court renders moot Plaintiffs' bankruptcy stay issue in this appeal.

Section 362(c) does not automatically restore an automatic stay that expired when a closed bankruptcy case is reopened.

Menk v. Lapaglia (In Re Menk) · filed 1999-11-05(c)

Likewise, to the extent that the automatic stay expired in conjunction with closing, it does not automatically spring back into effect.

Section 362’s automatic stay voids an appellate opinion issued after a party files for bankruptcy while the appeal is pending.

Gregory G. Hall and Scott Hall D/B/A Statesman Construction v. Robert Needham D/B/A Needham Construction · filed 1999-11-18

Because the filing of the bankruptcy proceeding invoked an automatic stay of these proceedings, our original opinion was void. See Hood v. Amarillo Nat'l Bank, 815 S.W.2d 545, 547 (Tex. 1991); see also 11 U.S.C. § 362 (1988); Tex. R. App. P. 8.

Section 362(a) makes a transfer of an entire case void when it includes a debtor protected by the automatic stay and the debtor’s claims have not been severed.

In re Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. · filed 1999-11-18(a)

Therefore, unless the trial court’s signing of the transfer order during the period of the automatic stay implied a severance of the claims against Southwestern Bell, the purported transfer of the entire case was void.

Section 362(h) treats postpetition collection after a creditor receives reasonable, actual notice of the bankruptcy filing as a willful stay violation, even when formal notice has not arrived.

In Re Flack · filed 1999-09-02(h)

The Court concludes that as of the March 30, 1999, phone conversations with the Debtor and Mr. Schafer, the Creditor had reasonable, actual notice of the bankruptcy fifing, and was as of that time and date obligated to stop all collection efforts.

A bankruptcy petition filed in violation of a court-imposed bar on refiling may be treated as void from the outset, so it does not trigger the automatic stay.

In Re: Robert E. Casse, Debtor Robert E. Casse, Debtor-Appellant v. Key Bank National Association, Creditor-Appellee · filed 1999-12-10

Finally, the bankruptcy court’s treatment of the debtor’s Chapter 13 filing, as void ab initio is consistent with established authority. ... The court’s obvious rationale in lifting the stay ab initio was, because Rowe’s Chapter 13 petition was filed in bad faith and in violation of the 180-day ban, the petition was a nullity and consequently, the automatic stay never actually came into effect. ... We agree with that analysis, which is not affected by the fact that the bankruptcy court’s order in the case at bar was based upon sections of the Code other than § 109(g) and its 180-day ban.

Section 362 makes an appellate opinion and judgment issued after the bankruptcy filing during the automatic stay nullities.

Texas Water Commission v. Boyt Realty Co. · filed 1999-12-31

The April 7th opinion and judgment were nullities because of the existence of the automatic stay in bankruptcy.

Section 362’s automatic stay does not toll the deadline for a bankruptcy trustee to file a tax refund claim under I.R.C. § 6511.

United States v. Neary (In Re Armstrong) · filed 2000-03-08

The automatic stay contained in Bankr. Code § 362 would prohibit further action against property in the bankruptcy estate by the IRS. The stay would not, however, extend indefinitely the time for a trustee to take action against the IRS.

An automatic stay protecting an unrecorded property interest does not defeat an otherwise valid tax deed to that property.

Girard Savings Bank v. Worthey · filed 2000-06-06

We therefore find that a stay on an unrecorded interest in property does not serve to defeat an otherwise valid tax deed to that property.

A state administrative ruling on the scope of the automatic stay does not preclude a bankruptcy court from reviewing that issue independently.

Contractors' State License Board of California v. Dunbar (In re Dunbar) · filed 2001-04-04

We hold that pursuant to Gruntz v. County of Los Angeles (In re Gruntz), 202 F.3d 1074 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc), the decision of the state ALJ does not preclude the bankruptcy court’s independent review.

Section 362(a)(1) makes a magistrate judge’s action taken during an automatic stay void, but permits judgment entered after the stay expires based on findings made before the stay began.

Middle Tennessee News Co. v. Charnel of Cincinnati · filed 2001-05-08(a)(1)

Although we must consider the magistrate judge's action void because taken in violation of the stay, it was not necessary for, nor a material element in, the district court's entry of judgment. The independent accountant made his findings before the stay went into effect and no one, at any time, objected to the substance of the findings. Consequently, we believe the district court's judgment, adopting these findings, did not violate the stay.

Section 362(a) takes effect when the bankruptcy petition is filed and does not invalidate an eviction completed earlier that day.

In Re Burgos · filed 2001-06-27(a)

The automatic stay was therefore not in effect at the time the debtor was evicted because the eviction preceded the filing of his bankruptcy petition.

Section 362(a)(8) automatically stays Tax Court proceedings when the taxpayers file for bankruptcy and nullifies an opinion issued during the stay.

Gary D. and Lindy H. Combrink v. Commissioner · filed 2001-08-23(a)(8)

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. sec. 362(a)(8)(1988), the proceedings in this Court were automatically stayed on January 29, 2001, thus nullifying our Opinion filed May 15, 2001.

Section 362(a)(1) bars an appellate court from deciding a case against a debtor while the automatic stay remains in effect, until the bankruptcy court grants relief or the stay lapses.

Johnson v. K-Mart Corporation · filed 2001-11-21(a)(1)

In view of Kmart Corporation’s filing of a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition, and in compliance with 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1), no decision will be rendered in this case until the bankruptcy court grants relief from the automatic stay or the stay lapses.

A foreclosure or judicial sale that violates § 362 has no legal effect, regardless of notice, unless the bankruptcy court retroactively annuls the stay.

Elbar Investments, Inc. v. Pierce (In Re Pierce) · filed 2001-11-25

This Court concludes that a foreclosure or judicial sale that violates the § 362 automatic stay has no legal effect, regardless of whether the parties knew that the statutory stay existed, unless the bankruptcy court retroactively annuls the stay and thereby authorizes (validates) the sale.

Section 362(a) bars enforcement of a default judgment entered while the debtor is in bankruptcy unless the creditor obtains relief from the automatic stay.

Estelle v. Robinson · filed 2002-01-22(a)

Although Estelle was granted a default judgment against Robinson on April 10, 1997, by the trial court, the judgment could not be enforced because Robinson was in bankruptcy at that time, and there is nothing in the record to suggest that Estelle had obtained relief of the debt from the automatic stay provision of the bankruptcy code (11 U.S.C. § 362(a)).

Lifting or modifying the automatic stay removes or changes the bar on collection but does not, by itself, extinguish the bankruptcy estate’s interest in the property.

Catalano v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue · filed 2002-01-28

When a bankruptcy court lifts, or modifies, the automatic stay, it merely removes or modifies the injunction prohibiting collection actions against the debtor or the debtor’s property. Although the property may pass from the control of the estate, that does not mean that the estate’s interest in the property is extinguished.

Section 362 stays an appeal as to parties in bankruptcy proceedings but does not stay the appeal as to other parties.

River Oaks Homeowners Protection Committee, Inc. v. Edington & Associates · filed 2002-04-01

This court has been notified that Clyde Emery and Nona Emery are in bankruptcy proceedings. Therefore, this appeal is stayed as to them. See 11 U.S.C. § 362. That does not have the effect of staying the appeal as to the other parties.

Section 362(a) suspends proceedings outside bankruptcy but does not divest those courts of personal jurisdiction over the bankrupt party.

Tancredi v. ACandS, Inc. · filed 2002-10-31(a)

Personal jurisdiction is unaffected by a party’s bankruptcy filing and the attendant automatic stay: a bankruptcy stay merely suspends other court proceedings outside the bankruptcy proceeding, and does not divest those courts of jurisdiction over the bankrupt.

Section 362(a) stays judicial proceedings against the debtor upon a bankruptcy petition, making a court dismissal entered during the stay void.

SINDLER v. Brennan · filed 2003-01-31(a)

A petition in bankruptcy creates an automatic stay of all judicial proceedings against the debtor. (11 U.S.C. § 362(a).) Judicial proceedings in violation of the automatic stay are void.

Section 362(a) stays judicial and non-judicial proceedings automatically and immediately upon a bankruptcy filing, without formal service or particular notice to a party.

Green v. K-Mart Corp. · filed 2003-04-04(a)

The filing of a bankruptcy petition operates as a stay of all judicial and non-judicial proceedings, with certain enumerated exceptions. 11 U.S.C. Section 362(a). The stay is effective automatically and immediately upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition. Formal service of process is not required, and no particular notice need be given in order to subject a party to the stay.

An order lifting the automatic stay generally does not finally decide the underlying claim for purposes of collateral estoppel or res judicata.

State v. Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania · filed 2003-05-22

However, an order granting a creditor relief from the automatic stay will not generally constitute a final judgment on the claim for the purposes of collateral estoppel or res judicata (see Grella v Salem Five Cent Sav. Bank, 42 F3d 26, 31-32 [1994]; In re Pandeff, 201 BR 865, 870 [1996]).

Section 362(a) automatically stays a tax sale of the debtor’s property after a bankruptcy petition is filed, and a sale conducted in violation of the stay has no legal effect.

In Re: Pierce · filed 2004-01-29(a)

Critically, 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) automatically stayed the tax sale proceedings; thus, the bankruptcy court correctly held that the tax sale conducted on August 15, 2000, was null and without legal effect.

The automatic stay does not constitute good cause for a procedural default that occurred before the bankruptcy petition was filed.

United States v. Hassell · filed 2003-12-02(a)

The Hassells’ third extended deadline for submitting an answer to the Government’s complaint was August 5, 2002. Clearly, the subsequent stay could not constitute good cause for the default.

Actions taken in violation of the automatic stay are void, but a bankruptcy court may validate them.

Carr v. McGriff · filed 2004-06-14(a)(1)

Although an action in violation of the stay is void, the bankruptcy court has the power to validate it.

Section 362(a) renders nonministerial judicial actions against a debtor void absent relief from the automatic stay, which only a bankruptcy court may terminate, annul, or modify.

Emigrant Savings Bank v. Rappaport · filed 2005-07-18(a)

Any nonministerial or “judicial actions taken against a debtor are void ab initio, absent relief from the automatic stay” ..., and “only a bankruptcy court has jurisdiction to terminate, annul, or modify the automatic stay” ... . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should not have granted the motion ... .

A creditor with actual knowledge of a bankruptcy filing is subject to the automatic stay even if the debtor did not give it notice of the filing.

KCH Services, Inc. v. Nordam Group, Inc. · filed 2006-07-14(h)

However, regardless of how it obtained the information, Nordam was aware of the KCH chapter 11 filing. ... Accepting KCH's argument would leave creditors like Nordam in the untenable position of taking their claim straight to the debtor and incurring liability for violation of the automatic stay, or bringing their claim in the bankruptcy proceeding only to have it rejected for not being initially presented directly to the debtor.

A defendant cannot be held to have knowingly violated the automatic stay without knowledge that the stay in favor of the debtor existed.

Wellington Apartment, LLC v. Clotworthy (In Re Wellington Apartment, LLC) · filed 2006-08-24(a)(3)

Therefore, the defendants cannot be held to the standard of knowing, and cannot be deemed with the requirement of knowing, that the stay in favor of the debtor existed. Without the nexus between their knowledge and their improper actions in dealing with the debtor’s property, they cannot be saddled with the burden of knowingly violating the automatic stay imposed in favor of the debtor.

Section 362(a) does not require a creditor that assigned a debt before bankruptcy to notify the assignee of the debtor’s bankruptcy, and failure to give that notice does not support relief for a stay violation.

Hatfield v. Providian (In Re Hatfield) · filed 2006-11-13(a)

As such, the Court, regardless of whether the Plaintiffs position is sound policy, has no legal basis to impose a duty on an assignor to provide notice to an assignee of a debtor’s bankruptcy. ... Therefore, for all these reasons, the Plaintiffs complaint for injunctive relief and damages against the Defendant states no claim, and thus must be Dismissed.

A technical automatic-stay violation caused by a debtor's unauthorized removal and return of collateral does not defeat an existing artisan's lien priority where the artisan did not cause the violation and the competing lender suffered no harm.

Bellamy's, Inc. v. Genoa National Bank · filed 2007-03-09

It is fundamentally unfair to punish the Artisan for a technical violation of the automatic stay which occurred as a result of the Debtor’s actions, not the Artisan’s actions.

The automatic stay leaves a pending action undismissed, and the action may proceed once the stay is lifted.

Jones v. A-Best Prod. Co., 2006ca00195 (4-9-2007) · filed 2007-04-09(a)

In the trial court's November 17, 2005 judgment entry, the trial court states that it stayed the matter pending the resolution of the bankruptcy proceedings. The judgment entry does not state that the matter had been dismissed. Therefore the trial court's approach is consistent with the automatic stay provisions of the Federal bankruptcy statute. ... Appellants may proceed with their action once the bankruptcy stay has been lifted.

The automatic stay operates without requiring notice or awareness that a bankruptcy petition has been filed.

In Re Wiencko · filed 2007-07-01(a)

By its very terms, the automatic stay operates automatically-awareness that a petition was filed is not a prerequisite to the operation of 11 U.S.C. § 362.

Section 362(a)(1) applies to a creditor’s postpetition suit even without notice of the bankruptcy, and a judgment entered in violation of the stay is void.

In Re Brooks · filed 2009-01-27(a)(1)

Because the Municipal Court Judgment is void, the Proof of Claim is not based on the state court default judgment and therefore is not a secured claim. ... The Court rejects the Firm’s argument, made without benefit of citation to law, that the automatic stay does not apply to it because it was not notified of Mr. Brooks’ bankruptcy.

The automatic stay no longer applies after the bankruptcy case is dismissed.

Kukui Gardens Corp. v. Holco Capital Group, Inc. · filed 2009-11-23(a)

Presently, the automatic stay is inapplicable to the Court’s decision because Holco’s bankruptcy case has been dismissed.

Section 362(c) ends the automatic stay when a bankruptcy case is dismissed; reinstatement does not make the stay cover acts taken between dismissal and reinstatement.

Webb Mtn, LLC v. Executive Realty Partnership, L.P. (In Re Webb Mtn, LLC) · filed 2009-11-25(c)

Under the intricacies of the Bankruptcy Code, all events that occurred during the gap period between dismissal and reinstatement were covered by neither the automatic stay nor the cloak of bankruptcy.

The automatic stay renders an involuntary postpetition transfer of estate property void from the outset.

Search Market Direct, Inc. v. Jubber (In Re Paige) · filed 2011-02-02

Because the Domain Name was property of the estate at the time the petition was ... filed, the automatic stay rendered any involuntary post-petition transfer void ... ab in-itio.

Section 362(c)(4)(A)(i) prevents the automatic stay from taking effect, even as to property of the estate, when a debtor had two or more qualifying cases pending and dismissed within the preceding year.

Wanda Bates v. BAC Home Loans · filed 2011-03-23(c)(4)(A)(i)

No exception is made for property of the estate. The debtor’s arguments about whether the stay was “terminated” as to the debtor or the debtor’s property are therefore misplaced because no stay ever went into effect in this case.

Section 362(c)(1) terminates the stay against estate property when abandonment removes that property from the estate.

In Re Vicente · filed 2011-03-28(c)(1)

Because the Property is no longer property of the estate, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(1), the automatic stay imposed against the Debtor’s Property by section 362(a)(2) and section 362(a)(3) terminated on February 3, 2011.

A prior confirmation order providing that future bankruptcy filings will not stay foreclosure prevents the automatic stay from interrupting that foreclosure in a later case, but does not bar a new petition or plan.

In re Sud Properties, Inc. · filed 2011-07-20

Therefore, the Confirmation Order allows First Bank to foreclose without interruption from this bankruptcy case. The provision only provides that a future bankruptcy filing will not stay the foreclosure.

Conversion of a bankruptcy case to another chapter does not reimpose an automatic stay that was previously lifted.

Agri-Best Holdings, LLC v. Atlanta Cattle Exchange, Inc. · filed 2011-08-02

Finally, Wells Fargo’s ability to pursue this action in Agri-Best’s stead is not defeated by the fact that the automatic stay was lifted while the bankruptcy proceedings were in Chapter 11, before the conversion to Chapter 7. As the Eleventh Circuit cogently explained, conversion from one chapter to another after the automatic stay is lifted does not have the effect of reimposing the stay.

The automatic stay requires an existing bankruptcy case and cannot be reinstated after the case is dismissed.

In re: Bay Vista Apartments, LLC · filed 2011-12-19(a)

A stay requires the existence of a bankruptcy case, and this Panel cannot reinstate the stay once the bankruptcy case has been dismissed.

Section 362(a)(1)'s automatic stay does not toll the deadline to file a motion for attorney fees.

Lewow v. Surfside III Condominium Owners Ass'n., Inc. · filed 2012-02-02(a)(1)

Likewise, the automatic stay here did not toll the running of the period of time in which Association was required to file its motion for attorney fees.

Section 362 stays further proceedings in an appeal as to an appellant who files a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition until the stay is lifted.

Boat Ramp Road Partners, LLC v. First State Bank, Inc. · filed 2012-02-29

Although originally a party to this appeal, Lorenzetti has notified this Court that he has filed a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, Case No. 11-77404-JEM and any and all further proceedings in this matter have been stayed pursuant to 11 USC § 362 as to that appellant. Thus, as it pertains to him, we hereby remand this appeal to the trial court, with leave to Lorenzetti to reinstate this appeal by filing another notice of appeal within 30 days after the lifting of the stay, if that occurs.

Reinstating a dismissed bankruptcy case does not retroactively restore the automatic stay or invalidate creditor actions taken while the stay was terminated.

In re Murphy · filed 2013-06-07

Since the Debtor here did not seek any of these forms of relief, the re-imposition of the automatic stay in this case did not void the sheriffs sale retroactively.

A foreclosure sale conducted in violation of the automatic stay is voidable and must be voided unless the stay was retroactively annulled or limited equitable circumstances apply.

BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP v. Taylor · filed 2013-06-20(a)(6)

Upon our conclusion that the foreclosure sale violated the automatic stay, we conclude that the sale was voidable, and because there was no retroactive annulment of the stay and there were no equitable circumstances present as an exception to the operation of the stay, the foreclosure sale was invalid and of no effect.

Section 362’s automatic stay stops a pre-petition wage garnishment when the debtor files for bankruptcy.

In re Strickland · filed 2014-01-13

By virtue of the automatic stay of § 362, on the day of the Debtors’ bankruptcy filing, the pre-petition wage garnishment ceased to be in effect as an actual monthly expense.

A foreclosure sale conducted while the automatic stay is in effect is void.

In re: John E. Hudson · filed 2014-01-14

If the stay was in effect, then the sale is void.

Section 362(a) stays claims against an individual debtor, so a summary judgment motion on those claims is not properly before the court and may be denied without prejudice.

Perry v. Bath & Body Works, LLC · filed 2014-01-28(a)

However, as noted by Defendants in footnote 1 of their brief, the case was stayed as to McKay-Loescher as an individual as a result of the automatic bankruptcy stay prior to the filing of the instant motion. ... Thus, because the motion brought by McKay-Loescher in her individual capacity is not properly before the Court, the Court denies the motion without prejudice as to the claims against her individually.

Section 362(c)(2)(B) ends the automatic stay when the bankruptcy case is dismissed, making a dispute over relief from the stay moot after an unchallenged dismissal.

In re Sykes · filed 2014-02-14(c)(2)(B)

An unchallenged dismissal of a bankruptcy case moots a dispute about a stay because the stay, to be valid, requires a pending bankruptcy case.

Section 362(a) prevents holders of unperfected security interests and unsecured creditors from filing or recording to gain priority while the bankruptcy case is pending.

Colony Beach & Tennis Club Ass'n v. Colony Lender, LLC (In re Colony Beach & Tennis Club, Inc.) · filed 2014-03-21(a)

As long as the bankruptcy case is pending, however, the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) will prevent holders of unperfected security interests and general unsecured creditors from filing or recording anything to jump ahead in priority.

Section 362 prevents a district court from adjudicating claims against a debtor while the automatic stay remains in effect.

Eastom v. City of Tulsa · filed 2014-04-25

Indeed, because of the automatic stay, the district court lacked power to adjudicate the McFadden claims.

Once a bankruptcy court lifts the automatic stay under § 362 to permit litigation to continue, the state court may proceed to judgment in that litigation.

Kvassay v. Kvassay CA2/2 · filed 2014-05-14

In the instant case, once the bankruptcy court lifted the stay allowing the trust litigation to continue, the trial court had jurisdiction to rule on the applicability of the discharge injunction and to impose judgment against appellants.

Section 362(a)(1) stays state court proceedings against a debtor until relief from the stay is entered on the bankruptcy court docket; an order issued through proceedings held while the stay remains in effect is void.

Cavaretta v. Bixby CA2/8 · filed 2014-09-02(a)(1)

An order granting relief from the automatic stay is effective when that order is entered on the bankruptcy court’s docket. ... The order granting the Probate Code section 859 petition is void because the court issued the order in proceedings held in violation of the stay, and, therefore, it must be reversed.

Section 362(a)(1) bars both parties from proceeding in a stayed action against the debtor personally, including service of a statement of damages on the debtor and the debtor’s filing of responsive papers.

Weakly-Holt v. Foster · filed 2014-10-21(a)(1)

Service of a statement of damages on defendant personally was prohibited by the automatic stay and would have served no purpose. The automatic bankruptcy stay prevents either party from proceeding with the stayed action.

Section 362's automatic stay against acts to obtain estate property does not imply a creditor's consent to the debtor's continued possession or make the debtor a tenant at will.

Paint Rock Turf, LLC v. First Jackson Bank · filed 2014-11-26(a)(3)

Because the automatic stay cannot be construed as a grant of permission by First Jackson for Paint Rock as a defaulting debtor in possession to remain on the property, Paint Rock, while in bankruptcy, was not a tenant at will of First Jackson, and Lamar is inapplicable.

An action commenced during the automatic stay is void ab initio, and termination of the stay does not retroactively give the state court subject matter jurisdiction absent bankruptcy court relief.

Kochhar v. Bansal · filed 2015-02-27(a)

Absent relief from the bankruptcy court, however, the termination of the stay could not retroactively vest subject matter jurisdiction in the circuit court when the court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case when suit was filed.

Section 362 imposes an automatic stay on a pending action against a debtor but does not require dismissal of that action.

Goodwin v. Landquest Development, LLC · filed 2015-08-12

However, neither our rules nor 11 U.S.C. § 362 require the dismissal of the action.

Section 362(a)(1) stays continuation of a prepetition action against the debtor, and a judgment entered in violation of the stay is void unless the stay has been lifted or modified.

England v. Janice Kolbe, as Guardian of the Estate of Edna Moon · filed 2015-11-30(a)(1)

Thus a judgment rendered in derogation of the automatic ... bankruptcy stay is void.

Section 362 automatically stays the continuation of prepetition litigation and debt collection, and an order entered in violation of the stay is void.

Homeland Group, LLC v. Lawson (In re Credo-Lawson) · filed 2016-02-26

Under 11 U.S.C. § 362, the stay automatically applies to the continuation of any efforts by any party to collect on pre-petition debts or to continue pre-petition litigation, subject to certain exceptions not applicable here. ... Based on the foregoing, the order denying Credo-lawson’s motion for reconsideration is void.

Section 362(a)(1) bars filing a notice of appeal during an automatic stay, and a notice filed in violation of the stay is void.

Hewett v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2016-06-01(a)(1)

These two principles we announced in AmMed—that a notice of appeal is a continuation of a judicial proceeding, and that the Bankruptcy Code prohibits the filing of such a notice during an automatic stay—comport with the broader (and broadly held) view that the filing of a notice of appeal during the pendency of a bankruptcy stay should be deemed void as a violation of the automatic stay.

Known creditors who receive no notice of a bankruptcy filing or sale motion do not violate the automatic stay by continuing their prepetition action.

Encanto Restaurants, Inc. v. Aquino Vidal (In re Cousins International Food Corp.) · filed 2016-06-14(a)

The court concludes that as known creditors the Aquinos did not receive notice of the Debtor’s bankruptcy filing or of the sale motion. As such, they could not have violated the automatic stay.

Section 362(c)(3)(A) ends the automatic stay as to the debtor and the debtor’s property after 30 days when a debtor files again within one year of a dismissed case, but the stay continues as to property of the estate.

In re Roach · filed 2016-08-25(c)(3)(A)

The Court now clarifies that on a second filing, the automatic stay does not terminate with respect to property of the estate. Therefore, the automatic stay remains in effect as to property of the estate under 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(1).

Section 362(a) stays an appeal by a debtor from an action brought against him and prevents him from perfecting that appeal while the stay is in effect.

Kimes v. Lawyer's Title Insurance Corporation · filed 2016-12-14(a)

The stay also prevented Kimes from perfecting his appeal, which is considered a continuation of the action against him.

Section 362’s automatic stay can leave claims against a bankrupt party unresolved, making a district court judgment nonfinal as to all parties.

Gillette v. Gaming Entertainment · filed 2017-05-16

After reviewing the supplemental briefs, this court has determined that the district court’s judgment of September 14, 2016, is nonfinal due to the bankruptcy of appellee RDI Caesars Riverboat Casino. See 11 U.S.C. § 362; Maritime Elec. Co., Inc. v. United Jersey Bank, 959 F.2d 1194, 1203–09 (3d Cir. 1991). This court therefore lacks jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court has not disposed of all claims by all parties.

Section 362 makes a state court judgment entered after the debtor files a bankruptcy petition void and ineffective because the filing triggers the automatic stay.

Grassmann v. Brown (In re Brown) · filed 2017-06-23

The Court agrees with Defendants that the judgment entered in the State Court Action on November 12, 2015, was void and ineffective because Defendants filed their Petition three days earlier on November 9, 2015, thereby triggering the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362.

Section 362(a) stays a creditor’s garnishment process upon a bankruptcy filing, preventing its lien from attaching to funds paid to the garnishee after the petition date.

In re Lively · filed 2017-10-12(a)

As the Maitlands' garnishment process, issued out of Jefferson County, is clearly judicial process, its effects were stayed as of the date of the petition in bankruptcy. Therefore, going forward from the date of the petition, the Maitlands' garnishment lien did not attach to any amount paid over to the Autauga County Circuit Court Clerk after the date of the petition.

Section 362(a) does not toll a state-law redemption period when the debtor’s property rights expire automatically without affirmative creditor action.

Max v. Northington (In Re Northington) · filed 2017-12-11(a)

While Section 362(a)’s text undoubtedly prevents creditors from taking steps to actively pry assets out of a debtor’s estate, it does not separately prevent those assets from evaporating on their own—as here, “automatically”—pursuant to the ordinary operation of state law.

The automatic stay ceases to be effective when the bankruptcy case is dismissed, leaving no relief available on an appeal seeking to extend it.

In Re. West · filed 2018-05-07

Because the automatic stay which the Appellant sought to extend is no longer effective following the dismissal of the action, this Court is unable to afford the Appellant any relevant relief.

Section 362(a)(1) stays continuation of a personal collection suit after conversion when section 348(d) treats the underlying postpetition claim as prepetition.

In re Ludkowski · filed 2018-07-24(a)(1)

Thus the continuation of the Collection Suit after the conversion of the case from one under chapter 7 to one under chapter 13 on its face violates the in personam stay under section 362(a) as it is the continuation of a judicial action or proceeding against the Debtor to collect on a claim that is deemed to have arisen before the commencement of the Case by section 348.