11 U.S.C. § 362

Section 362(a) bars placing a debtor subject to the automatic stay on a verdict slip to apportion liability in litigation against other defendants.

Hadley, G. v. Moranz, J. · filed 2018-08-20(a)

Nonetheless, both Paley and Superior requested at trial that Walton be placed on the verdict slip and be apportioned a percentage of the liability for the loss of the sculpture. This would have been plainly inappropriate for two reasons. First, to do so would have been in violation of the automatic stay.

A challenge to alleged violations of § 362’s automatic stay becomes moot when the bankruptcy petition is dismissed.

Whaley v. City of Chicago · filed 2018-08-23

Because this Court affirmed the dismissal of Whaley’s petition, Whaley’s challenge to any purported violations of the automatic stay became moot.

Section 362(a) bars a creditor from filing an appeal against a debtor until the bankruptcy court grants relief from the automatic stay.

LB Steel, LLC v. Carlo Steel Corp. · filed 2018-09-28(a)

Here, the automatic stay resulting from LB Steel’s October 18, 2015 bankruptcy petition barred Walsh and Travelers from appealing the trial court’s October 14, 2015 Judgment Order until the bankruptcy court granted relief from the stay on December 23, 2015.

Section 362(a) stays an appeal as to a defendant who files a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition while the appeal is pending.

Cohen v. Hansen · filed 2019-01-11(a)

Therefore, pursuant to the automatic stay, 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), this disposition does not address or decide the appeal as to Defendant-Appellant Firebaugh.

Section 362(a) stays certain proceedings but does not deprive state courts of jurisdiction over them.

BMO Harris Bank N.A. v. Anderson · filed 2019-02-26(a)

First, §362(a) does not concern jurisdiction.

Section 362(a) bars a cross-appeal against a debtor while the automatic stay remains in effect; without relief from the stay, the cross-appellant cannot establish appellate jurisdiction.

LB Steel, LLC v. Carlo Steel Corp. · filed 2019-05-17(a)

Carlo Steel’s cross-appeal is also controlled by section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. ... As the record does not show that the bankruptcy court lifted the automatic stay to permit Carlo Steel to file its notice of cross-appeal from the trial court’s October 14, 2015, judgment order, Carlo Steel has not established that this court has jurisdiction over its cross-appeal.

Section 362(c)(4)(A)(i) prevents the automatic stay from taking effect in a new case when two or more of the debtor’s cases pending within the previous year were dismissed.

Marie Dawes -Smith · filed 2019-11-14(c)(4)(A)(i)

Furthermore, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §362(c)(4)(A)(i), because two or more cases of the Debtor were pending within the previous year but were dismissed when the Debtor filed this Chapter 13 case, the automatic stay provided in 11 U.S.C. §362(a) did not go into effect upon the filing of this Chapter 13 case.

Section 362(a)(1) does not make service of a summons and complaint voidable when the creditor takes no steps to prosecute until the stay ends and no prejudice to other bankruptcy parties is shown.

U.S. Bank N.A. v. Cid · filed 2019-12-11(a)(1)

Moreover, the mere service of the summons and complaint is not voidable where, as here, the plaintiff took no steps toward prosecuting the action until after the bankruptcy proceeding was dismissed and the stay terminated, and no prejudice to the other parties in the bankruptcy proceeding has been shown ( see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Ranalli , 140 AD3d at 1157; Kleinsleep Prods. v McCrory Corp. , 271 AD2d at 412; International Fid. Ins. Co. v European Am. Bank , 129 AD2d at 679).

Section 362(c)(3)(A) terminates the automatic stay as to a repeat-filing debtor, but does not terminate the stay as to property of the bankruptcy estate.

Rose v. Select Portfolio Servicing · filed 2019-12-10(c)(3)(A)

Having determined that § 362(c)(3)(A) does not terminate the automatic stay with respect to property of the bankruptcy estate, we conclude that Texas’s statute of limitations does not bar Defendants’ claim for judicial foreclosure.

Section 362 makes a judgment entered during the automatic bankruptcy stay void.

Buckley v. Waldrop Farms Homeowners Association, Inc. · filed 2020-05-04

The parties have indicated that the trial court entered the final judgment from which this appeal was taken after the appellant had filed a bankruptcy petition which automatically stayed the state court proceedings. See 11 USC § 362. “Any orders or judgments entered in violation of an automatic bankruptcy stay are void; they are deemed without effect and are rendered an absolute nullity.” Miller v. Lomax, 333 Ga. App. 402, 404 (3) (773 SE2d 475) (2015) (citation and punctuation omitted). Accordingly, the case is hereby remanded to the trial court with direction that it designate the final judgment as void.

Section 362(a) stays an appeal against a debtor after the debtor files a Chapter 11 petition; the appeal may proceed once the bankruptcy court lifts the stay as to that case.

Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc. · filed 2020-05-19(a)

Orexigen’s successor in interest, Province, Inc., as the Wind Down Administrator for Orexigen Therapeutics Inc.,1 has now filed a status report indicating that the bankruptcy court, per the parties’ stiuplation, has lifted the § 362 stay with respect to this case. We have therefore resubmitted this appeal for decision with respect to Orexigen.

Section 362's automatic stay is inapplicable after the bankruptcy case is dismissed.

(PC) Harrell v. County of Solano · filed 2020-05-21

Second (and to the extent plaintiff intends to rely upon it), the automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362 is inapplicable because plaintiff's bankruptcy case was dismissed.

Section 362(a) requires vacating a judgment entered against a bankruptcy debtor while the automatic stay is in effect, absent relief from the stay by the bankruptcy court.

BAY HARBOR PLAZA, LLC VS. SHAILI MANAGEMENT CORPORATION (L-2449-17, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) · filed 2020-07-27(a)

For the reasons that follow, we are compelled to vacate the judgment as against Shaili because of the legal effect of the automatic bankruptcy stay imposed by federal law under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). The stay, which is fully documented in the record and uncontroverted, clearly voids this monetary liability against that debtor, absent relief from the stay issued by the bankruptcy court.

Section 362’s automatic stay prevents a court from recommending disposition of a pending motion against a party whose liabilities are held by an entity that has filed for bankruptcy.

Pruitt v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation · filed 2020-07-30

Therefore, the automatic stay, 11 U.S.C. § 362, prevents the court from making a recommendation for disposition of the motion.

Section 362(a) bars a court from dismissing a case against a debtor during the automatic stay; a dismissal entered while the debtor is in bankruptcy is void.

Raeisi Group v. Velocity Commercial Capital CA2/7 · filed 2021-03-22(a)

The trial court lacked jurisdiction to dismiss Raeisi’s case against Hovsepian while Hovsepian was in bankruptcy. The dismissal must be set aside.

Section 362(a) can continue to stay a proceeding after the proceeding is remanded to state court.

Dean v. Clavet · filed 2021-03-24(a)

In all other respects, this proceeding shall remain subject to the automatic stay to the extent provided in 11 US.C. § 362(a).

Section 362(a) does not prohibit an appellate court from dismissing an appeal after the bankruptcy court lifts the automatic stay as to the trial court case.

Otto Simmank and Mina Simmank v. Glen Cronin and Janna Wallace · filed 2021-04-01(a)

Appellants’ April 30, 2020 motion also stated the bankruptcy court had lifted the automatic stay as to the trial court case on October 21, 2019. Accordingly, the automatic stay does not prohibit us from granting this motion to dismiss.

Section 362(a)(1) automatically and immediately stays the continuation of a prepetition action against a bankruptcy debtor.

Garcia v. Gonzalez · filed 2021-09-21(a)(1)

Pursuant to § 362 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, a stay created by the filing of a bankruptcy petition is automatic and immediate and precludes “the commencement or continuation . . . of a judicial, administrative, or other action or proceeding against the debtor that was or could have been commenced before the commencement of the case under this title, or to recover a claim against the debtor that arose before the commencement of the case under this title.”

Section 362(a)(1) immediately stays the commencement or continuation of a proceeding upon a bankruptcy filing; the stay suspends proceedings without depriving the court of jurisdiction.

Matter of City of Schenectady · filed 2021-11-10(a)(1)

Regarding Sacks and Ayers, the filing of a bankruptcy petition automatically stays "the commencement or continuation" of any action or proceeding (11 USC § 362 [a] [1]; see RPTL 1140 [1]; Levant v National Car Rental, Inc. , 33 AD3d 367, 368 [2006]; Emigrant Sav. Bank v Rappaport , 20 AD3d 502, 503 [2005]). ... As the court was not deprived of jurisdiction, it should not have dismissed the proceeding against Sacks. Instead, continuation of the proceeding should have been stayed against his property until the stay was or is lifted.

Section 362(a) does not freeze a Georgia title pawn redemption period or prevent the pawned vehicle from leaving the bankruptcy estate when that period expires.

Betty J. Hamilton · filed 2022-01-13(a)

The Womack panel ignored this notion of internal dynamism when it held that the automatic stay froze the vehicle in the bankruptcy estate.

Section 362(a) does not freeze a Georgia title pawn redemption period when the debtor files bankruptcy before the pawn matures; the vehicle can leave the estate when the extended redemption period expires.

Lisa L Snyder · filed 2022-01-13(a)

Nothing in Northington so much as hinted that filing a bankruptcy petition before the title pawn maturity date would change this analysis and freeze the parties’ interests in the vehicle.

Section 362(a)(1) stays entry of a judgment against a debtor during an active bankruptcy case, and a judgment entered in violation of the stay is void.

Dobronski v. Garcia · filed 2022-03-04(a)(1)

However, Plaintiff obtained the Judgment in violation of the automatic stay, and therefore, the Judgment is void.

A defendant who obtained a stay of a claim under § 362(a)(3) cannot seek summary judgment on that claim while it remains stayed.

PC v. Girardi · filed 2022-08-09(a)(3)

Having obtained a stay of proceedings relating to that claim, defendants cannot appropriately seek summary judgment on it now. This aspect of their motions is overruled without prejudice.

Section 362(a)(1) makes judgments entered against a debtor during the automatic stay void, and lifting the stay does not make those judgments effective.

Triangle Cayman Asset Co. v. LG and AC, Corp. · filed 2022-10-24(a)(1)

We agree with Triangle that the January 3 Judgments were void and did not become effective when the automatic stay was lifted.

Section 362(a)(1) automatically stays proceedings against a debtor upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition, and proceedings held during the stay are void as against that debtor.

Joyner v. City Carter Leasing Inc. · filed 2022-12-01(a)(1)

Defendant Leonardo Chacon filed a bankruptcy petition in federal court on October 9, 2015, and proceedings in this matter were stayed automatically as against him upon filing of that petition (11 USC § 362[a][1]). As a result, the proceedings held while the automatic stay was in effect — including a jury trial, the resulting verdict against defendants, and the entry of judgment — are void and without vitality as against Chacon ( Rexnord Holdings, Inc. v Bidermann , 21 F3d 522, 527 [2d Cir 1994]; accord In re Heating Oil Partners, LP , 422 Fed Appx 15, 18 [2d Cir 2011]; Levant v National Car Rental, Inc. , 33 AD3d 367, 368 [1st Dept 2006]).

Section 362’s automatic stay does not bar a secured lender from repossessing and selling collateral after the stay has terminated and the court orders the debtor to surrender it.

Lucas J. Matlock · filed 2022-12-13

Nothing in the Bankruptcy Code, including the automatic stay, shall prevent or limit the operation of a provision in the underlying financing documents that would place the Debtor in default or prohibit the exercise of Lender remedies to repossess and sell the Subject Vehicle applying sale proceeds to its indebtedness.

Section 362’s automatic stay does not toll a state-law tax redemption period, even though it prevents the tax purchaser from proceeding to obtain a tax deed while the stay remains in effect.

In re Application of the County Treasurer & ex officio County Collector · filed 2022-12-28

Nothing in the automatic stay provision (11 U.S.C. § 362) or the provisions relating to the Chapter 13 plan (id. §§ 1321 to 1330) contain any language tolling applicable nonbankruptcy laws.

Section 362(c)(2)(B) terminates the automatic stay when a bankruptcy case is dismissed; reinstating the case does not retroactively restore the stay to invalidate a foreclosure sale during the dismissal.

In re Bruce Caldwell Williams · filed 2023-02-16(c)(2)(B)

A foreclosure sale that occurs between the dismissal of a case (and the resultant termination of an automatic stay) and the reinstatement of a case (and the resultant resumption of an automatic stay) therefore does not violate the automatic stay.

An order entered in violation of Section 362’s automatic stay is void ab initio.

Mason Louis Cottrell v. Louis Cottrell, Jr., Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, SWN Production Company, LLC, Jamestown Resource · filed 2023-05-01

This Court firmly established in syllabus point three of Rebuild Am., Inc. v. Davis, 235 W. Va. 245, 773 S.E.2d 11 (2015), that “[a]cts taken in violation of the automatic stay provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 362 (2010) are void ab initio.” ... Upon consideration and review, the Court has determined that the circuit court’s entry of the order now before us was an act done in violation of the automatic bankruptcy stay and is therefore void ab initio.

Section 362(a) does not bar a court from deciding a motion to remand while the automatic stay is in effect.

Carmela Susino on her own behalf and on behalf of the Estate of Decedent, Luciano Susino and his beneficiaries v. 3M Com · filed 2023-07-14(a)

Motions to remand do not disturb a petitioner’s “breathing spell,” or otherwise affect a defendant’s financial status.

Section 362(a)(1) does not automatically bar depositions of nondebtor codefendants in their individual capacities because another defendant filed for bankruptcy.

Sawicki v. Tampa Hyde Park Cafe' Properties, LLC · filed 2023-07-28(a)(1)

The Individual Defendants have not established THPC’s automatic stay bars Ms. Sawicki from deposing them in their individual capacities.

Section 362(a)(1) bars adjudication of claims and entry of default judgment against a defendant whose bankruptcy petition triggered the automatic stay.

Mohon v. Spiller II · filed 2023-10-04(a)(1)

Because the scope of a bankruptcy stay includes “the initiation of any steps, such as recording a notice of default, that would lead to foreclosure of property of the debtor’s estate,” the Court does not adjudicate or decide Defendant Smith’s alleged liability.

Section 362 bars completing the deposit of attached bank funds to execute a money judgment after the debtor files a bankruptcy petition.

Banco Popular de Puerto Rico v. Gómez Alayón y otros · filed 2023-12-19

Por ello, si Oriental Bank continuaba con el trámite de la consignación para cumplir con la ejecución de sentencia incurriría en una violación de la paralización automática ante la presentación de la petición de quiebra.

Section 362 automatically stays proceedings against a debtor and acts to obtain or control estate property during bankruptcy; periods covered by the stay toll the time to bring a foreclosure claim.

Santry v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC · filed 2024-08-14(a)

The Bankruptcy Code provides for an automatic stay of any judicial “proceeding against the debtor.” 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1). ... On May 7, 2019, Michael Santry filed for bankruptcy. See Dkt. No. 27-1 at 193. The case was dismissed July 16, 2019, tolling the statute of limitations 70 days. ... And so, that statute of limitations was tolled for a total of 311 days.

Section 362(a)(1) stays proceedings against the bankruptcy debtor but does not prevent a court from confirming an arbitration award against nondebtor parties who are jointly and severally liable with the debtor.

BUCHMILLER v. KRANNICH SOLAR WEST, LLC · filed 2025-02-20(a)(1)

Accordingly, the Court grants Defendant’s request and severs and stays this matter as to Roseburg only. Buchmiller and Houskeeper are not affected by the stay put in place through the bankruptcy proceeding; this Opinion and accompanying Order apply to Buchmiller and Houskeeper in full.

A bankruptcy court may limit the automatic stay in a future case as a remedy for a bad-faith filing, requiring the debtor to show cause before the stay applies to specified enforcement actions.

Adriana Corben · filed 2025-02-25

Specifically, in any such bankruptcy, the automatic stay will not apply to any action to enforce the Debtor’s obligations to her ex-husband unless and until the Debtor shows cause to reimpose the stay.

After a bad faith filing, a dismissal order may limit the automatic stay in the debtor’s future bankruptcy cases.

Adriana Corben · filed 2025-02-25

There can be little doubt that bankruptcy courts have the power to issue the less drastic version of dismissals with prejudice at issue here—provisions that, instead of barring future bankruptcy filings, limit the application of the automatic stay in future cases.

Section 362(c)(4) authorizes creditors to pursue their state-law rights when it prevents the automatic stay from taking effect, without a separate court order authorizing the action.

Johnson v. Struebing · filed 2025-09-29(c)(4)

Having reviewed the statutes and case law, the Undersigned finds the Bankruptcy Court correctly applied the law and reached the appropriate conclusion. On this particular point, the lower court explained why the Trustee’s argument fails: By intentionally removing the stay protection in this context, Congress is authorizing actions that the automatic stay normally protects against. Any other interpretation would defeat the entire purpose of § 362(c)(4). A court lifting the automatic stay serves to authorize creditors to exercise their rights under state law. Matter of Sullivan Cent. Plaza I, Ltd., 935 F.2d 723, 726 (5th Cir. 1991) (“In practical terms, the lifting of the stay and vacation of the TRO constituted authorization to conduct a foreclosure sale as provided under state law.”) (emphasis added). Similarly, when the Bankruptcy Code itself removes stay protection, the same authorization must be imputed. Here, the Bankruptcy Code clearly authorizes creditors to pursue their state law rights through the application of § 362(c)(4). This authorization defeats the Plaintiff’s claim for § 549 avoidance.

Section 362 requires vacatur of a garnishment order entered after the debtor filed a bankruptcy petition.

Trividia Manufacturing Solutions, Inc. v. Smartscience Laboratories · filed 2025-11-03

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362 Smartscience is entitled to an automatic stay. “[T]he automatic stay requires an immediate freeze of the status quo by precluding and nullifying post-petition actions.” ... Accordingly, the October 30, 2025, order granting Trividia’s motion for Writ of Garnishment (Doc. 57) is VACATED.

Section 362 makes a summary judgment order void ab initio insofar as it purports to extend to co-defendants protected by the automatic stay.

Hardy v. 3M Company · filed 2025-11-07

However, under Rebuild America, Inc. v. Davis, 235 W. Va. 245, 773 S.E.2d 11 (2015), and Cottrell v. Cottrell, No. 20-0761, 2023 WL 3168317 (W. Va. May 1, 2023) (memorandum decision), a summary judgment order that purports to extend to co-defendants protected by the automatic stay provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 362 is void ab initio.

Mandatory abstention and remand do not lift the automatic stay against the debtor; the action remains stayed until the bankruptcy court modifies or lifts the stay.

Barber · filed 2025-11-07

Both actions will be remanded to the Circuit Court, but will remain stayed as to the Debtor until the automatic stay is modified or lifted by this Court.

Mandatory abstention and remand do not lift the automatic stay against the debtor; the action remains stayed until the bankruptcy court modifies or lifts the stay.

Barber · filed 2025-11-07

Importantly, both of these actions remain stayed as against the Debtor notwithstanding mandatory abstention.

The automatic stay ends when a bankruptcy case is dismissed and does not apply retroactively to creditor actions taken before the case is reinstated.

Mersad Rahmanovic · filed 2026-01-06(c)(2)(B)

This means that the automatic stay is not in effect during the period between dismissal and reinstatement.

Section 362(a) makes a money judgment entered against a debtor in violation of the automatic stay void.

In the Matter of the Marriage of: Merissa Ourada & Kameron Ourada · filed 2026-01-08(a)

Because entry of the money judgment was made in violation of the bankruptcy automatic stay, it was a void action.

Section 362(a) triggers an automatic stay when a bankruptcy petition is filed, making a later default eviction judgment and writ of possession erroneous.

Dalencour v. BTI 1179, LLC · filed 2026-01-28(a)

Nonetheless—and as counsel for appellee has properly and commendably conceded—the default final judgment and writ of possession were entered in error, in light of the automatic stay triggered by appellant’s filing of the bankruptcy petition.

Section 362(a) automatically stays an action against a debtor when the debtor commences a Chapter 11 bankruptcy case.

Roberts · filed 2026-02-09(a)

The automatic stay against Unlimited became effective upon its commencement of its Chapter 11 bankruptcy case.

Section 362(a)(1) bars a state court from considering a debtor’s motion to strike a default judgment while the bankruptcy stay is in effect.

C.M. v. Rillema, K. · filed 2026-04-20(a)(1)

The automatic stay similarly constrained Rillema’s filing of a petition to strike the First Default Judgment and the trial court’s authority to consider and hold a hearing on it, as this constituted a continuation of judicial proceedings against Rillema, which was prohibited by section 362(a)(1).

Section 362(a)'s automatic stay does not extend the time to exercise a contractual option.

In Re G-N Partners · filed 1985-04-09(a)

First it should be noted that everyone agrees that the automatic stay found in 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) does not act as an extension of the time to exercise the option.

Section 362’s automatic stay prevents a secured creditor from obtaining estate receivables under nonbankruptcy law until the stay is lifted.

Maislin Industries, U.S., Inc. v. A.J. Hollander Co. · filed 1986-10-20

Second, the receivables will remain property of the estate until either the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362 is lifted and CIBC obtains the receivables under applicable non-bankruptcy law, or until CIBC obtains them pursuant to a provision to that effect in a reorganization plan.

Section 362’s automatic stay is not triggered by a bankruptcy petition filed on a corporation’s behalf by officers whose authority to act has been suspended by a receivership order.

United States v. Vanguard Inv. Co., Inc. · filed 1987-08-07

However, the Court proceeded with the hearing believing that actions by any of the suspended directors, officers, or employees purporting to put Vanguard into bankruptcy were a nullity; and therefore, did not invoke the automatic stay provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 362. Thus, plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction and temporary receivership is ripe for disposition.

Section 362's automatic stay protects a debtor even when amounts secured by liens are presently due.

General Industries, Inc. v. Shea (In Re General Industries, Inc.) · filed 1987-10-30

All amounts secured by these three liens are presently due. The Debtor, however, is entitled to the protection of the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362.

Section 362(a)'s automatic stay takes effect immediately upon filing the bankruptcy petition.

In Re Axona International Credit & Commerce Ltd. · filed 1988-08-11(a)

In addition, the automatic stay of § 362(a) of the Code is immediately effective upon the filing of the petition.

Section 362's automatic stay makes a postpetition tax sale and the resulting tax deed void.

Phoenix Bond & Indemnity Co. v. Shamblin (In re Shamblin) · filed 1989-06-30(a)

The tax sale and subsequent tax deed violated the automatic stay and are void.

Section 362 stays a postpetition tax sale that creates a lien against estate property; a sale conducted in violation of the stay is void.

Phoenix Bond & Indemnity Co. v. Shamblin (In re Shamblin) · filed 1989-06-30(a)(4)

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

Section 362(a)’s automatic stay applies to Chapter 11 debtors and requires dismissal of pending summary judgment motions to enforce claims against them while the stay applies.

BAMCO 18 v. Reeves · filed 1989-07-05(a)

The automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) (1978) is applicable therefore to Reeves and Hospitality. ... As a result of the bankruptcy stay, these motions for summary judgment against Reeves to enforce these claims must be dismissed at this time with leave to renew on the original papers when and if it is appropriate to do so.

Once the automatic stay is lifted, § 362(a)(7) does not enhance a secured creditor’s rights in a state-law collection action.

MNC Commercial Corp. v. Joseph T. Ryerson & Son, Inc. · filed 1989-07-11(a)(7)

In the instant case, however, the conflict between Section 362(a)(7) and MNC’s state law rights is a mirage because the lifting of the automatic stay removed this matter from “the system provided by [the Code].” Section 362(a)(7) is thus inapplicable and cannot create a conflict with state law in the present litigation.

Section 362 does not make a creditor accountable for acting before a bankruptcy petition is filed merely because the debtor has announced an intention to file.

Alten v. Anders (In Re Alten) · filed 1989-12-05

Until a petition is actually filed, a creditor cannot be held accountable for the debtors’ stated intention to file bankruptcy.

Section 362(a)’s automatic stay protecting a bankrupt guarantor does not prevent creditors from pursuing a nonbankrupt borrower.

Colorado National Bank v. Adventura Associates, L.P. · filed 1991-02-22(a)

Adventura is not under the protection of the bankruptcy laws. That its Guarantor is so protected does not block Adventura’s creditors from proceeding to obtain relief from Adventura.

Section 362 imposes the automatic stay immediately when a bankruptcy petition is filed, without requiring the showing ordinarily needed for an injunction.

CNA Insurance Companies v. Family Health Services, Inc. (In re Family Health Services, Inc.) · filed 1991-07-18

The automatic stay is a unique injunction in that it is imposed immediately by operation of law when a bankruptcy petition is filed, and requires no showing of the elements that are otherwise uniformly required before any other form of injunctive relief is issued by federal or state courts.

Section 362(a)'s automatic stay bars IRS collection proceedings until the stay is lifted.

Wekell v. United States · filed 1992-05-04(a)

The automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) acts as an absolute bar to IRS collection proceedings until it is lifted.

Dismissal of a bankruptcy petition relinquishes the bankruptcy court's jurisdiction to continue the automatic stay under § 362.

In Re 865 Centennial Avenue Associates Ltd. Partnership · filed 1996-10-01

The dismissal of this bankruptcy petition results in the "concomitant dismissal of all pending adversary proceedings” and inter alia the bankruptcy court's relinquishment of subject matter jurisdiction to continue the automatic stay provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 362.

Section 362’s automatic stay, together with § 365, suspends termination of a defaulted lease when a bankruptcy petition is filed, preserving the debtor lessee’s opportunity to cure before deciding whether to assume it.

Coleman Oil Co v. Circle K Corp. (In re Circle K Corp.) · filed 1997-10-22

Section 365, in conjunction with the automatic stay provision of section 362, accordingly suspends, once the bankruptcy petition is filed, the termination of a lease that is in default; it extends... a debtor lessee’s opportunity to cure any defaults until the debtor has the chance to decide whether to assume the lease.

Lifting the automatic stay allows a state court partition suit to proceed but does not itself transfer the property to the state court.

High Plains Oil, Ltd. v. High Plains Drilling Program-1981, Ltd. · filed 1997-10-31

Contrary to the conclusion of the Court of Appeals, the bankruptcy court did not surrender the leasehold interest to the state district court, but instead the lifting of the stay merely allowed the partition suit to proceed.

Section 362’s automatic stay does not, as a matter of law, prevent a lender from being a possessor of the property for tort liability purposes.

Thornhill v. Ronnie's I-45 Truck Stop, Inc. · filed 1997-05-01

(3) the lessee’s [Ronnie’s] 11 U.S.C. § 362 bankruptcy stay prevents as a matter of law AICC being a Section 328E(a) “possessor” of the motel. We answer the first two issues in the affirmative and the third issue in the negative.

Section 362’s automatic stay does not toll a statute of limitations during bankruptcy.

Husmann v. TWA · filed 1999-03-08

Husmann relies on the automatic stay provision of section 362 to come within the five-year period. The Bankruptcy Code does not provide that a statute of limitations is tolled during the period of bankruptcy. It provides that the action must be commenced within thirty days after notice of the termination or expiration of the stay. See 11 U.S.C. § 108(c)(2).

Section 362’s automatic stay does not determine whether a debtor may use assigned rental income as cash collateral.

In Re Gaslight Village, Inc. · filed 1980-11-07

What might constitute adequate protection to justify a continuation of the automatic stay under Code § 362 is not necessarily determinative of the debtor’s right to continue to use rental proceeds under Code § 363.

A foreclosure sale conducted in violation of the automatic stay under § 362(a) is void and without effect.

Blue Mountain Investments, Ltd. v. Bone (In Re Blue Mountain Investments, Ltd.) · filed 1995-08-18(a)

The Tenth Circuit has consistently held that actions taken in violation of a § 362(a) stay are void and without effect.

Section 362’s automatic stay does not toll the automatic termination of non-compete provisions triggered by the debtor’s payment default under an integrated contract.

Property Technologies, Ltd. v. TelNet Corp. (In Re Property Technologies, Ltd.) · filed 2002-01-25

This ruling was based upon the following findings: 1) The contract among the parties, including the non-compete provisions, constituted a single integrated contract under Virginia law; 2) under the contract, PTL’s failure to make the non-compete payments to Muller and Perez that came due on January 2, 2001, rendered the non-compete agreements void 30 days later on or about February 2; and 3) the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362 did not toll the automatic termination of the non-compete provisions pursuant to the integrated contract.

Section 362 automatically stays a debtor’s appeal upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition.

Orenshteyn v. Citrix Systems, Inc. · filed 2005-09-09

Because Orenshteyn’s appeal has been automatically stayed by his filing of a bankruptcy petition, we determine that the appropriate course is to dismiss pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.10 (if appeal is subject to bankruptcy stay, clerk may dismiss without prejudice to reinstatement within 30 days after lifting of bankruptcy stay or conclusion of bankruptcy proceedings).

Section 362(c)(3)(A) does not terminate the automatic stay as to property of the bankruptcy estate after 30 days in a successive case.

Nachimson v. United States of America ex rel Internal Revenue S · filed 2019-08-23(c)(3)(A)

Because Holcomb provides that the stay does not terminate under Section 362(c)(3)(A) with respect to property of the estate, and all of Debtor’s prepetition and postpetition property became property of the estate, the Court concludes the tolling provision of the hanging paragraph of Section 507(a)(8) was not impacted by the automatic nature of Section 362(c)(3)(A).

Section 362(a) precludes joining a party that has filed a bankruptcy petition in pending litigation.

Nevarez v. DynaCom Management, LLC · filed 2024-04-11(a)

Here, MLand’s bankruptcy petition precludes its joinder. See In re MLand Maint., LLC, No. 23-10924 (Bankr. D. Del.); see also Gen. Elec. Cap. Corp. v. Sheffield Sys., Inc., No. 01 C 6342, 2002 WL 1759823, at *2 (N.D. Ill. July 29, 2002); 11 U.S.C. § 362(a).

Section 362(a)(6)'s automatic stay stops interest from continuing to accrue on a judgment after the debtor files a Chapter 7 petition.

Corydon E Moulton · filed 2026-02-06(a)(6)

Interest continued to accrue at that rate until August 18, 2025 when Debtor filed his chapter 7 petition (the Petition Date), which operated as an automatic stay against continued interest accrual.

Section 362(a)’s automatic stay does not prevent a federal court from deciding a pending motion to remand for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Moya · filed 2026-03-31(a)

Generally, a party’s bankruptcy filing imposes an automatic stay on the continuation of pending litigation as to that party. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). Federal courts have generally held, however, that a bankruptcy stay does not affect a court’s ability to consider a pending motion to remand for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 362(a)(4) and (5) stay acts to create, perfect, or enforce liens against estate or debtor property; a lien order entered without relief from the stay is void.

Maryland Casualty Co. v. Westinghouse Credit Corp. (In Re Hanson Dredging, Inc.) · filed 1981-10-19(a)(4), (a)(5)

That order comes within the terms of the automatic stay provision, 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(4) “any act to create, perfect, or enforce any lien against property of the estate,” ... As such, it is null and void because no judgment was entered lifting the stay.

Section 362(a)(4) stays acts to create, perfect, or enforce liens against estate property.

In Re Paul · filed 1986-11-20(a)(4)

The automatic stay prevents them from taking any further action to perfect their lien, but the same stay may not stem the advance of time which threatens to extinguish the perfection of their security interests existing at the time of the petition. ... The intended effect of the stay, therefore, is to fix rights and priorities as of the time of petition filing and to prohibit any further acts to advance those rights and priorities. ... We conclude that the time which Georgia Pacific and C & S Lumber had to renew their attachments under MASS. GEN.L. ch. 223, § 114A was tolled by the Debtors’ petition. ... In fact, § 362(a)(4) arguably forbids such acts. ... The policy of the automatic stay obligates this Court to put on blinders and focus on that date for the purpose of determining validity and priority of their lien.

Section 362(a) does not automatically void a later foreclosure because the lender began military-relief proceedings during the stay when the debtor was not entitled to protection under that law.

Hull v. Attleboro Savings Bank · filed 1988-02-23(a)

Assuming without deciding that the bank violated the provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), it does not follow that the foreclosure and the foreclosure sale were void. As alleged by the plaintiff, the only action taken by the bank during the automatic stay period was to commence proceedings under the Act.

Section 362(a)(1)'s automatic stay permits an appellate court to summarily affirm that a minor labor dispute has no role in federal court.

Air Line Pilots Association, International v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc. · filed 1989-09-13(a)(1)

This court's decision in Air Line Pilots Ass'n, Internat'l v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., 869 F.2d 1518 (D.C.Cir.1989), determines that the court is authorized to grant summary affirmance in this case, notwithstanding the automatic stay in effect as a result of Eastern's bankruptcy petition. See 11 U.S.C. Sec. 362(a)(1) (1984).

Section 362’s automatic stay does not bar remand of a state court action related to a bankruptcy case.

Baxter Healthcare Corp. v. Hemex Liquidation Trust · filed 1991-10-23

This action not being stayed by section 362, the court turns to the question of remand.

A suit filed against a debtor during the automatic stay is voidable rather than void from the outset, and the bankruptcy court may validate it.

Hester v. Brewster · filed 1997-12-30(a)(1)

Clearly, the trial judge’s conclusion that the suit was void ab initio, although prompted by reliance on the holding in United Building Co. v. Harp, supra, was nonetheless a mistake of law, and thus the summary judgment based on that error must be vacated.

Section 362 can postpone a divorce court’s hearing on unresolved financial issues until the bankruptcy court grants relief or enters a discharge order.

Havanec v. Havanec, No. Fa 98-0718344-S (Aug. 30, 2000) · filed 2000-08-30

Said hearing shall await the granting of a relief from said or discharge order of the. Federal District Bankruptcy Court 11 U.S.C. § 362 .

Section 362 automatically stays specified actions against a debtor upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition.

Reading City Development Authority v. Lucabaugh · filed 2003-07-28

As noted by the trial court, the federal bankruptcy court vacated the automatic stay that had been entered by virtue of Condemnee’s bankruptcy filing. As a general rule, when a court vacates a previously entered order, the legal status of a case is the same as if the order never existed. United States v. Jerry, 487 F.2d 600 (3d Cir.1973). Thus, Condemnee can claim no rights accruing from the order. In this case, because the order was a nullity from the outset, the trial court had the authority to proceed to jury selection, and we glean no merit to Condemnee’s arguments arising from actions the trial court took following the entry of the vacated stay order.

Section 362(a)(1) stays claims against a defendant in bankruptcy, so the court defers consideration of that defendant’s arguments.

Corker v. Costco Wholesale Corporation · filed 2023-02-13(a)(1)

Plaintiffs’ claims against the Mulvadi Corporation have been stayed pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1). The Court has not, therefore, considered its opposition arguments, leaving for another day an evaluation of Mulvadi’s arguments and a decision regarding whether it is appropriate to certify a class ... to pursue a Lanham Act claim against that entity.

Section 362(a)'s automatic stay supports dismissal of an action against a defendant in bankruptcy when the plaintiff fails to show cause why the action should proceed.

Young v. Denver Ready Mix, Inc. · filed 1996-10-22(a)

Construing pro se plaintiff's pleadings and filings in the district court and in this court liberally, we agree with the district court that the plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and has failed to show cause why the actions should not be dismissed because of a violation of the automatic stay provisions set forth in 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Act.

Section 362 renders a foreclosure judgment entered without relief from the automatic stay void from the outset.

In re Fisher · filed 2018-04-27

Because BONY had not sought or received relief from the automatic stay in 11 U.S.C. § 362, the Foreclosure Judgment was void ab initio .

Section 362(a)’s automatic stay does not become effective retroactively when a dismissed bankruptcy case remains open for a limited purpose.

Morrison v. Office of the U.S. Trustee (In Re Morrison) · filed 2007-09-26(a)

The automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) shall not be effective or enforceable in any manner retroactive to April 5, 2007.

Section 362 permits dismissal of an appeal without prejudice during a bankruptcy stay, with an opportunity to seek reinstatement after the stay lifts or the bankruptcy proceeding ends.

Emery v. Vegas · filed 2014-10-24(a)(1)

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed without prejudice to Emery's right to move for reinstatement within 90 days of either the lifting of the bankruptcy stay or final resolution of the bankruptcy proceeding.

Section 362(a)'s automatic stay prevents affirmative creditor acts but does not indefinitely stop a strict foreclosure law day from running.

Seminole Realty, LLC v. Sekretaev · filed 2019-09-10(a)

As in Provident Bank, the question here is what effect a sixty day bankruptcy stay or lifting of the in rem relief for sixty days has on the running of a law day. ... the automatic stay provision of § 362 (a) prevents only certain affirmative acts taken by a creditor, and the running of time is not one of those acts.’’ ... The consequence of the sixty day suspension was to extend the law day until October 15, 2018.

Section 362(a)(1) requires litigation against a debtor to be stayed, so motions against the debtor must wait until the stay is lifted.

BMO Harris Bank N.A. v. Kuskie · filed 2023-01-19(a)(1)

The Court also agrees that this litigation must be stayed as to Capitol Sales: the stay in this case is mandatory. 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1); Midlantic Nat’l Bank v. New Jersey Dep’t of Env’t Prot., 474 U.S. 494, 503 (1986) (describing the automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy Code as “one of the fundamental debtor protections”). Although Mr. Hayes states an intent to conduct discovery and file additional motions, including a motion for advancement of legal fees, doing so as to Capitol Sales must wait until the stay is lifted.

Section 362(a)(2) stays enforcement of a prebankruptcy judgment but does not suspend the debtor's obligations under it; after the stay ends, a creditor may pursue violations that occurred during the stay.

The PATRIOT GROUP, LLC v. STEVEN C. FUSTOLO & Others. · filed 2024-05-28(a)(2)

Contrary to Fustolo's argument, the stay does not have the effect of relieving a debtor of his obligations under an outstanding judgment. ... Accordingly, we discern no error in the judge's conclusion that once the bankruptcy stays were lifted, Patriot was free to pursue a claim that Fustolo violated the injunction by failing to satisfy the documentation requirement and spending limit, even during the stays.

Section 362(a) makes a settlement reached with a debtor during the automatic stay void, even when enforcement is sought only against codefendants.

H. · filed 2025-12-01(a)

In sum, even assuming a settlement agreement was reached at the January 17, 2025 hearing, this Court cannot hold that an enforceable agreement exists between the Parties as such an agreement was entered in violation of the automatic stay of section 362(a) and is void.

Section 362(a)(6) may leave a postpetition tort injury outside the automatic stay when the claim could have arisen upon injury rather than an earlier product sale.

Arney v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc. · filed 2022-02-17(a)(6)

There is a reasonable possibility that a court could hold that the Janegas’ claim arose when the fire occurred, so the automatic stay doesn’t apply to them.

Section 362(a)(6) may leave a tort claim outside the automatic stay when a product was sold before bankruptcy but the injury occurred afterward, because the claim may arise when the injury occurs.

Janega v. Electrolux Home Products Inc. · filed 2022-02-17(a)(6)

There is a reasonable possibility that a court could hold that the Janegas’ claim arose when the fire occurred, so the automatic stay doesn’t apply to them.

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay lawsuits arising from postpetition activity, including through an extension of the stay to a nondebtor.

Lentz v. Cahaba Disaster Relief, LLC (In re CDP Corp.) · filed 2011-07-22(a)(1)

Under the plain terms of this provision, the Section 362(a)(1) stay does not apply to lawsuits arising out of post-petition activity. Accordingly, the suit brought by Interstate against Taylor, arising out of post-petition activity, i.e., the CDP Auction, is not stayed by Section 362(a)(1), or any judicial extension of that particular statutory provision.

Section 362(a)(3) stays an act to obtain estate property even when the claim arose after the bankruptcy petition was filed.

NationsBank v. Shaheen & Co. · filed 1994-10-11(a)(3)

Thus, the automatic stay applies to an act on a post-petition claim if that act seeks to obtain estate property.

Section 362(a)(5) bars enforcement of liens against a debtor’s property only when they secure debts that arose before the bankruptcy case began.

Shell Oil Co. v. Capital Financial Services · filed 1994-08-15(a)(5)

The stay prohibits the enforcement of hens against the property of the debtor only when those hens secure a debt that arose before the commencement of the bankruptcy.

Section 362(a)(3) stays efforts to obtain estate property even when the creditor seeks to enforce a postpetition claim.

Fazio v. Growth Development Corp. (In Re Growth Development Corp.) · filed 1994-07-12(a)(3)

The language of this provision is devoid of any distinction between prepetition and postpetition claims. So long as a creditor attempts to obtain property of the estate, the automatic stay remains in foil force and effect.

Section 362(a)(1) does not automatically stay an action on a claim that arose after the bankruptcy case began and could not have been brought before it.

Jahan Co. v. Dakota Industries, Inc. · filed 1983-02-03(a)(1)

It must be noted that section 362 only provides for a stay when the action against the debtor “was or could have been commenced before the commencement of the case under this title.”

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay a suit on a cause of action that arose after the bankruptcy petition was filed.

Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Sanyo Electric, Inc. · filed 1983-09-30(a)(1)

According to the plain language of the statute, Turner’s claim falls outside the provisions of section 362(a)(1), since his cause of action neither was commenced nor could have been commenced at the time Rubin’s petition in bankruptcy was filed.

Section 362(a)(1) stays only proceedings that could have been commenced before the bankruptcy petition or claims that arose before it; the debtor’s pre-petition conduct alone does not trigger the stay.

Avellino & Bienes v. M. Frenville Co. · filed 1984-09-17(a)(1)

Section 362(a)(1), however, refers to “proceedings” and “claims” against, not acts done by, the debtor. Pre-petition acts by a debtor, by themselves, are not sufficient to cause the automatic stay to apply.

Section 362(a) does not bar collection of a postpetition debt after confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan that vests all estate property in the debtor, when collection does not affect property of the estate.

Mason v. Williams (In Re Mason) · filed 1984-11-09(a)

Since the creditor’s efforts to collect on the post-petition debt all occurred after February 9, 1982, and had no effect upon property of the estate, the automatic stay did not prohibit these efforts.

Section 362 prevents a city from withholding an already granted liquor license to compel payment of prebankruptcy debts.

In Re Addis · filed 1984-11-25

The automatic stay, 11 U.S.C. sec. 362, operates to prevent the City of La Crosse from refusing to issue a granted liquor license in reliance upon statutes and ordinances which require the payment of pre-bankruptcy debts.

Section 362(a)(1) stays only proceedings that could have commenced or claims that arose before the bankruptcy petition; prepetition conduct alone does not stay a later arising indemnity or contribution claim.

In The Matter Of M. Frenville Co., Inc. · filed 1985-01-04(a)(1)

Only proceedings that could have been commenced or claims that arose before the filing of the bankruptcy petitions are automatically stayed.

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay a wrongful death action based on prepetition conduct when the deaths giving rise to the claim occurred after the bankruptcy petition.

Matter of Tonty · filed 1985-06-24(a)(1)

Section 362(a)(1) of the Code enjoins “the commencement or continuation of any action that was or could have been commenced before the commencement of the (bankruptcy) case” and the statutory action for wrongful death did not come into being until after the post-petition deaths of the decedents.

Section 362(a) generally does not stay an action against the debtor on a claim arising after the bankruptcy petition was filed.

In Re Vacuum Cleaner Corp. of America · filed 1986-02-27(a)

Since we conclude that the automatic stay does not bar the commencement of an action against the debtor on a postpetition claim, we will deny the requested relief as unnecessary.

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay an action arising from contracts the debtor entered into after filing a bankruptcy petition.

Raff v. Gordon · filed 1986-03-03(a)(1)

The automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C. § 362 was not triggered here because the debtor Gordon had filed a petition in bankruptcy prior to entering into the contracts which gave rise to the instant action.

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay proceedings on causes of action that arise after the bankruptcy petition.

Continental Air Lines, Inc. v. Hillblom (In Re Continental Air Lines, Inc.) · filed 1986-05-29(a)(1)

This Court concludes that the proceedings instituted by Appellants fall outside the explicit limits of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1), and do not inflict the type of harassment that the automatic stay was designed to prevent.

Section 362(a) permits collection of a postpetition debt from the debtor or the debtor’s property, but stays efforts to satisfy it from estate property.

Ahrens v. Bradford (In Re Ahrens) · filed 1986-08-21(a)

The automatic stay does not bar efforts against the debtor to collect on a post petition debt, although an action to satisfy such a debt with property of the estate is stayed.

Section 362 does not protect a debtor from a claim for copyright infringement arising after the bankruptcy petition.

In Re Television Studio School of New York · filed 1987-07-21

The post-petition infringement claim, by definition, is not protected by 11 U.S.C. § 362.

Section 362(a)(6) stays collection of prepetition claims but does not restrain collection of claims that arose after the bankruptcy case began.

GATX Terminals Corp. v. A. Tarricone, Inc. (In Re A. Tarricone, Inc.) · filed 1987-09-04(a)(6)

The automatic stay imposed under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(6) does not restrain actions to collect claims against the debtor that arose after the commencement of the bankruptcy case; the stay relates only to prepetition claims.

The automatic stay does not cover a right to payment that arises only after the petition, but tolling a limitations period does not turn a prepetition claim into a postpetition claim.

In Re Clinton Centrifuge, Inc. · filed 1988-01-22(a)

A right to payment which only comes into being postpetition is not subject to the automatic stay. ... The fact that a limitations period is tolled prepetition does not negate the existence of the claim prepetition. To hold otherwise would permit an event which tolls a statute of limitations to convert a prepetition claim into a postpetition claim.

Section 362(a) does not stay claims that arise after the bankruptcy petition is filed.

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. LTV Corp. (In Re Chateaugay Corp.) · filed 1988-04-28(a)

The automatic stay, however, does not apply to claims that arise post-petition.

Section 362(a) does not bar collection of condominium assessments that arise after the bankruptcy petition while the debtor remains in possession of the unit.

In Re Harvey · filed 1988-07-14(a)

The stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) only bars efforts to collect or attempt to collect pre-petition claims or acts against property of the estate. All assessments and charges that the Association here seeks to collect from Debtor are those allegedly incurred by her post-petition while she remained in possession of the condominium unit in question and accrued those on-going obligations. Such claims arose after the petition was filed in bankruptcy; the events giving rise to these claims could not have occurred before the petition was filed. Therefore the automatic stay did not bar efforts to collect the same from her, and efforts to do so could not violate 11 U.S.C. § 362.

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay a suit on a tort claim that arises after the debtor files for bankruptcy.

Pettibone Corp. v. Ramirez (In Re Pettibone Corp.) · filed 1988-08-26(a)(1)

As a post-petition claim, Ramirez’s claim is not subject to the automatic stay under § 362(a)(1).

Section 362(a)(6) does not stay maintenance and cure payments that continue to arise after the bankruptcy petition.

Matter of Sea Ray Marine Services, Inc. · filed 1989-08-29(a)(6)

Therefore, the Court concludes that the maintenance and cure due from the Debtor to St. Pierre and Blanchard is a continuing obligation, not a pre-petition debt, and must continue to be paid during the pendency of this bankruptcy proceeding.

Section 362(a)(1) makes a complaint filed against a debtor after the bankruptcy petition on a prepetition claim void.

Fields v. Demint · filed 1989-09-27(a)(1)

Nonetheless, because the filing of their claim is void and without effect, I cannot alleviate plaintiffs’ potential inconvenience and hardship by retaining jurisdiction over this case.

Section 362 does not stay an action to collect a debt arising after the defendant filed its bankruptcy petition, including liability for preferential payments.

Fonda Group, Inc. v. Contemporary Packaging Corp. (In Re Fonda Group, Inc.) · filed 1989-09-29

The fact that Contemporary was itself a Chapter 11 debtor at the time is of no consequence; liability for payments, if any, arose post-petition and an action to enforce rights to collect on this debt is not stayed by 11 U.S.C. § 362.

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay proceedings on postpetition claims that could not have been commenced before the bankruptcy petition was filed.

Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Game Operators Corp. · filed 1989-10-19(a)(1)

Since the defendants have failed to respond to plaintiffs assertion that all the infringements in question occurred after the filing of the bankruptcy petition by the defendants, the court at this time has to assume that the present proceeding is for post-petition claims that could not have been commenced before the petition was filed. Thus, according to the above authority, the automatic stay in 11 U.S.C. § 362 does not bar the present proceeding.

Section 362(a)(3) stays a postpetition tort action against the debtor when recovery on the claim would involve property of the bankruptcy estate.

Matter of Federal Press Co. · filed 1990-01-12(a)(3)

In this case Juarez seeks to recover a post-petition claim from Federal Press which ultimately may be entitled to administrative priority. Such a claim, if successful, necessarily will involve property of Federal Press’ estate. Juarez’ attempt to assert the claim thus falls within the confines of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3) and is subject to the automatic stay.

Section 362(a) generally does not stay creditor actions against a debtor on claims arising after the bankruptcy petition is filed.

In Re White · filed 1990-02-22(a)

Moreover, creditor action against a debtor on claims arising postpetition is generally not prevented by the automatic stay before discharge or the permanent injunction after discharge. See 11 U.S.C. sections 362(a) and 524(a).

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay a lawsuit against a debtor over a claim arising after the bankruptcy petition was filed.

In Re Shuman · filed 1990-11-20(a)(1)

The issue before the court is simply whether § 362 of the Bankruptcy Code prevents the movant from proceeding in state court with respect to events occurring after debtor Sherry L. Shuman filed her bankruptcy petition. The language of the statute and the relevant case law makes clear that the automatic stay is inapplicable in the present case.

Section 362(a)(1) stays proceedings against a debtor only for claims that arose before the bankruptcy petition; post-petition claims fall outside the stay.

Fidelity State Bank, Garden City, Kan. v. Oles · filed 1991-07-29(a)(1)

Section 362(a)(1) by its terms encompasses only proceedings which were or could have been instituted before the filing of the bankruptcy petition. Claims arising post-petition are not subject to the automatic stay.

Section 362 stays pre-petition claims against a debtor but does not bar claims that arise after the bankruptcy petition.

Aracich v. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation · filed 1992-05-05

However, § 362 provides for an automatic stay of pre-petition claims. The automatic stay does not bar post-petition claims.

Section 362(a)(1) and (6) cover prepetition claims, so the automatic stay does not reach a license restoration fee arising after the bankruptcy petition.

Geiger v. Pennsylvania (In Re Geiger) · filed 1992-07-17(a)(1), (a)(6)

They pertain, however, only to claims arising “before the commencement of the case under this title." Instantly, even assuming that the restoration fee amounts to a debt or obligation, it only arose post-petition, upon the point of satisfaction of the judgment and the financial responsibility requirement. Hence, it would not be covered by the automatic stay provision of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a).

Section 362 does not bar collection of post-petition debt from a Chapter 13 debtor’s property after confirmation when the creditor does not seek funds held by the Chapter 13 trustee as estate property.

In Re Thompson · filed 1992-07-14

Because the IRS is not seeking to attach or levy against property in the hands of the Chapter 13 Trustee, i.e. property of the estates, § 362 does not bar its actions to collect post-petition debt from any of the debtors herein.

The automatic stay covers a postpetition tax claim when the taxing authority did not seek administrative expense status for it during the bankruptcy case.

In re Pagnac · filed 1998-07-31

The Department of Revenue made no such motion. Therefore, the claim should be treated as any other post-petition claim making it subject to the automatic stay during the pendency of the Chapter 12 proceeding.

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay a claim based on a breach of contract that arose after the debtor filed the bankruptcy petition.

Hutson v. American Preferred · filed 1999-02-19(a)(1)

A claim based on a post-petition breach of contract is not stayed by § 362(a).

Section 362(a)(1) does not automatically stay an action for injuries sustained after the debtor commenced bankruptcy proceedings.

Parker v. MacY's East, Inc., No. Cv97-0328442 S (Mar. 3, 2000) · filed 2000-03-03(a)(1)

Therefore, because the plaintiff alleges that his injuries were sustained after the defendant commenced bankruptcy proceedings under title 11, the automatic stay does not prevent his action against the defendant.

Section 362(a)(1) stays the commencement of an action against a debtor after the debtor files a bankruptcy petition.

Kleinsleep Products, Inc. v. McCrory Corp. · filed 2000-04-03(a)(1)

This action was commenced after the appellant filed a petition in bankruptcy. Commencement of the action violated the automatic stay provisions of the United States Bankruptcy Code (see, 11 USC § 362 [a] [1]).

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay a tort claim arising from injury inflicted after the bankruptcy petition when earlier alleged negligence had not yet affected the plaintiff.

Warner v. Village Manor Health Care, No. Cv00-555034 (Aug. 9, 2001) · filed 2001-08-09(a)(1)

There was no claim here until the defendant's alleged negligence permitted the actual contact with the plaintiff which caused injury. Negligence floating in the air is not a "claim" under the bankruptcy code and thus subject to a § 362(a) stay.

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay proceedings or claims that arise after the bankruptcy petition is filed.

Rodriguez v. Biltoria Realty LLC · filed 2002-05-07(a)(1)

Proceedings or claims that arise post-petition are not subject to the automatic stay of § 362(a)(1).

The automatic stay permits an action to obtain a judgment on a post-petition agreement, but § 362(a)(3) stays attempts to enforce a judgment regardless of when it was obtained.

Conner v. Howe · filed 2004-11-08(a)(1), (a)(3)

Title 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3) acts to stay any attempt to enforce a judgment, regardless of when it was obtained, but does not prevent an action seeking to obtain a judgment based upon a breach of a post-petition agreement.

Section 362(a) does not stay collection of a state-court sanction arising from the debtor’s post-petition conduct.

In Re Galgano · filed 2007-01-05(a)

The above provisions, together with paragraph 7 of the May 30, 2006 stipulation of settlement, makes it patently clear that the actions complained of in the Stay-Violation Motion were post-petition and not subject to the automatic stay. ... The automatic stay in Section 362 simply does not apply because sanctions assessed by conduct occurred long after the bankruptcy case was filed and was not an attempt to collect a pre-petition debt.

Section 362(a)(1) stays an action for ongoing postpetition patent infringement when the same claims against the debtor were brought before bankruptcy.

In Re Spansion, Inc. · filed 2009-10-01(a)(1)

Even though the alleged patent infringement is ongoing, the automatic stay applies to the Samsung Action because the claims asserted therein “could have been brought” and were, in fact, brought, pre-petition, by way of counterclaim in the District Court Action.

Section 362(a)(1) stays claims against the debtor that arose before the bankruptcy petition; a claim arising afterward is outside that stay.

Washington Mutual, Inc. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation · filed 2009-10-05(a)(1)

The automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy Code only applies to those claims arising prior to the filing of a bankruptcy petition.

The automatic stay permits suit and judgment against a debtor for a postpetition claim, but bars collection from property of the estate.

Fritz Fire Protection Co. v. Wei-Fung Chang (In Re Wei-Fung Chang) · filed 2010-10-15(a)(3), (a)(4)

A post-petition creditor has the right to initiate suit against a debtor and obtain a judgment for a post-petition debt, but collection activities directed against property of the estate are barred.

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay the commencement or continuation of a claim against the debtor that arose after the bankruptcy petition was filed.

Thuesen v. Amerisure Insurance Co. · filed 2016-02-09(a)(1)

Because the claim arose post-petition, it could not have been commenced before Thuesen filed his bankruptcy petition. Therefore, the commencement or continuation of this claim against Thuesen did not violate the bankruptcy stay.

Section 362(a)(1) does not bar an action to collect homeowners association assessments that became due after the debtor filed for bankruptcy.

Skytop Meadow Community Association, Inc. v. C. Paige and M.A. Paige · filed 2017-11-07(a)(1)

In sum, the Association was not precluded from bringing the instant action under Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code and, accordingly, the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over the action.

Section 362 does not stay collection of attorney fees arising under a postpetition agreement for postpetition services.

Brett Jason Hazlett · filed 2019-10-17(a)(6)

As this Court has found that all payments made by the Debtor were paid pursuant to post-petition agreements, there can be no violation of 11 U.S.C. § 362 and consequently, no basis to justify sanctions under § 362(k).

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay a civil action based on claims arising after the debtor filed for bankruptcy.

Fuller v. Jumpstar Logistics · filed 2021-10-01(a)(1)

The automatic stay does not bar a postpetition civil action.

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay claims against a debtor based on conduct occurring after the bankruptcy filing.

Elizabeth Thomas · filed 2022-04-28(a)(1)

PRMI is seeking to hold Debtor in contempt for things that occurred after the filing of this bankruptcy case and, as such, § 362(a)(1) does not operate as a stay of causes of action.

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay a claim based on postpetition conduct that the claimant could not have brought before the bankruptcy petition.

In Re: Roman Catholic Church of the Archdiocese of New Orleans · filed 2023-07-28(a)(1)

However, it erred in concluding that Appellants’ claims are stayed by operation of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1), as the record does not support a finding that Appellants could have brought the action prepetition.

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay a new, independent claim arising after the bankruptcy petition merely because it relates to an earlier, stayed claim.

Perez Rodriguez, Maria v. v. Autoridad De Energia Electrica De Pr · filed 2024-09-25(a)(1)

El efecto de la paralización automática es detener los pleitos que involucren reclamaciones monetarias y que se estén llevando contra el deudor al momento de radicar la petición de quiebra o aquellas que hayan podido comenzar antes de la presentación de la petición de quiebra. 11 USC sec. 362(a). ... El mero hecho de que exista una relación entre los hechos alegados en la “Querella” del 2014 y la “Querella” del 2019 no significa que en el presente pleito no se esté levantando una causa de acción nueva e independiente a la “Querella” del 2014.

Section 362 does not bar a creditor from suing outside bankruptcy court to liquidate a postpetition claim.

Smallhold, Inc. · filed 2025-07-29(a)(1)

But nothing in § 362 prevents a creditor that asserts a post-petition claim from seeking to liquidate that claim outside of the bankruptcy court.

Section 362(a)(5)’s automatic stay requires expunging a postpetition excise tax claim that does not qualify as an administrative expense.

LTV Corp. v. Internal Revenue Service (In Re Chateaugay Corp.) · filed 1992-10-19(a)(5)

As a post-petition excise tax, the IRS § 4971 claim should be expunged under the automatic stay mandated by 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(5).

Section 362(a)(6) stays collection of prepetition debts, but not an annual assessment triggered by the debtor’s postpetition eligibility.

Indiana Family & Social Services Administration v. Indiana Family & Social Services Administration (In re Saint Catherin · filed 2014-05-30(a)(6)

We therefore conclude that the “conduct” triggering the liability was Saint Catherine’s continued operation as an eligible hospital on that date. The 2013 HAF is thus a post-petition debt not subject to the automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(6), and we REVERSE the Bankruptcy Court’s contrary conclusion.

Section 362 permits a creditor to liquidate a postpetition claim outside bankruptcy court, but the stay bars enforcement against estate property while that property remains protected.

Smallhold, Inc. v. Mountain Meadow Mushroom Farms · filed 2025-07-29

But nothing in § 362 prevents a creditor that asserts a post-petition claim from seeking to liquidate that claim outside of the bankruptcy court.

Section 362 permits a creditor to sue outside bankruptcy court to liquidate a postpetition claim, but the stay prevents enforcement against estate property while that property remains protected.

Mountain Meadow Mushroom Farms v. SMALLHOLD, INC. · filed 2025-07-29

But nothing in § 362 prevents a creditor that asserts a post-petition claim from seeking to liquidate that claim outside of the bankruptcy court.

Section 362 automatically stays the legal effect and enforcement of a court order against debtors who filed bankruptcy petitions while the action was pending.

Sanders v. Gardner · filed 1998-05-15(a)(1), (a)(2)

ORDERED, legal effect and enforcement of this Order as against Steven P. Sanders and Jordon Shamah is automatically stayed pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362.

Section 362(a)(1) automatically stays a judicial proceeding against a debtor after a bankruptcy petition is filed, and a judgment entered in violation of the stay is void.

DeStefano Studios, Inc. v. Wolf · filed 1983-02-10(a)(1)

The report sets forth that the bankruptcy petition against the defendant was filed on October 16, 1979; is clearly within the provisions of 11 U.S.C. §362 (a)( 1); and that the case at bar is a judicial process. It is also clear that the instant action did not fall within the above enumerated exceptions to an automatic stay of proceedings. ... As the entry of judgment in the lower court was void, the court did not have discretion to deny the defendant’s Dist./Mun. Cts. R. Civ. P., Rule 60(b)(4) motion.

Section 362(a)(1) bars a creditor from commencing a foreclosure action after the debtor files a bankruptcy petition, and an action filed in violation of the stay is void.

United Northwest Federal Credit Union v. Arens · filed 1983-06-10(a)(1)

The filing of appellee’s foreclosure action on September 9, 1980, was thus in violation of the automatic stay. It is settled that acts done in violation of the stay are “void and without effect.”