11 U.S.C. § 362

Section 362(d)(2)(B) requires a debtor to show a reasonable prospect of successful reorganization within a reasonable time to avoid relief from the stay when the debtor has no equity in the property.

In re KEJ Corp. · filed 1994-10-07(d)(2)(B)

This Court holds that KEJ has not met its burden of showing a reasonable prospect for successful reorganization within a reasonable time.

Section 362(d)(2) permits relief from the automatic stay when the debtor cannot show a probable reorganization within the foreseeable future.

Life Insurance Co. of Virginia v. Barakat (In Re Barakat) · filed 1994-09-26(d)(2)

Because the debtor cannot propose a con-firmable plan, the Court finds that the debtor has not met the requirements set forth in ... that there be a probable reorganization within the foreseeable future.

Section 362(d)(2) permits relief from the automatic stay when the debtor has no equity in the property and no effective reorganization is reasonably possible within a reasonable time.

In Re Sparks · filed 1994-09-14(d)(2)

The Debtor’s “effective reorganization” of Twelve Oaks/Arlington is not “in prospect” because his proposed plan cannot be confirmed and there is no readily apparent alternative that can be proposed and confirmed within a reasonable time. Therefore, both subparagraphs of § 362(d)(2) are satisfied, and MetLife is entitled to a modification of the automatic stay with respect to Twelve Oaks/Arlington so that it may pursue its remedies in state court.

Section 362(d)(2) requires relief from the automatic stay when the debtor has no equity in the property and cannot confirm a plan within a reasonable time.

In Re Dollar Associates · filed 1994-10-04(d)(2)

This court must grant relief from the automatic stay to allow Gold Coast to foreclose on the Office Building if Debtor has no equity in the building and the property is not necessary for an effective reorganization. ... Property is necessary for an effective reorganization only if the debtor is able to confirm a plan within a reasonable period of time.

Section 362(d)(2)(B) requires a debtor without equity in the property to show a reasonable possibility of successful reorganization within a reasonable time to keep the stay.

Sun Valley Newspapers, Inc. v. Sun World Corp. (In Re Sun Valley Newspapers, Inc.) · filed 1994-08-08(d)(2)(B)

Since the debtor does not have an equity in the property, the dispositive question is whether the property is necessary to an effective reorganization. As the Supreme Court explained, this means that the debtor must show that there is “ ‘a reasonable possibility of a successful reorganization within a reasonable time.’ ”

Section 362(d) permits relief from the automatic stay when the trustee stipulates that the debtor has no equity in the property.

In Re Giordano · filed 1994-06-27(d)

Also, since the Trustee has stipulated that there is no equity in the subject property, we find that rehef from .the automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d) is appropriate.

Section 362(d)(2)(B) requires a debtor without equity in the property to show that an effective reorganization is in prospect to prevent relief from the automatic stay.

In Re Daly · filed 1994-06-10(d)(2)(B)

The Court concludes that the Debtor has failed to satisfy his burden of proving that the property at issue is necessary to an effective reorganization that is in prospect. The Debtor has not demonstrated that a successful reorganization is in prospect.

At an early stage of a Chapter 11 case, § 362(d)(2)(B) permits denial of stay relief if the debtor is moving meaningfully toward a reorganization with a reasonable prospect of success, even before it files a plan.

In Re Creekstone Apartments Associates, L.P. v. Resolution Trust Corp. (In Re Creekstone Apartments Associates, L.P.) · filed 1994-06-01(d)(2)(B)

Thus, assuming the case is in its initial stages prior to the first confirmation hearing, as long as the debtor files a proposed plan that is not patently unconfirmable and begins moving meaningfully to reorganization, § 362(d)(2) is not a remedy for the creditor. In fact, in the early stages, the relief stay motion can be denied without the debtor ever filing a proposed plan. The debtor merely must demonstrate a reasonable probability that it can propose a successful plan at some reasonable time in the future.

Section 362(d)(2)(A) counts all liens against property when determining whether the debtor has equity, including liens junior to the creditor seeking stay relief.

In Re Egea · filed 1994-05-27(d)(2)(A)

But, the Court agrees with the majority of courts who abide by the plain language of § 362(d)(2)(A) and consider the amount of all of the liens.

Under § 362(d)(2), postpetition rents are no longer necessary to an effective reorganization once foreclosure of the debtor’s principal asset makes reorganization impossible.

In re Brook View Apartments · filed 1994-05-02(d)(2)

As for the postpetition rents, a court shall grant relief from the automatic stay if the debtor has no equity in the property and the "property is not necessary to an effective reorganization." 11 U.S.C. Sec. 362(d)(2). The sale of the apartment complex made an effective reorganization impossible. Brook View can no longer assert that the postpetition rents are "necessary to an effective reorganization."

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

In Re North Washington Center Ltd. Partnership · filed 1994-04-05(d)(2)

Because the Debtor has no equity in the property and cannot use the property for an effective reorganization, the stay under Section 362(a) as to New York Life Insurance Company is vacated to permit the company to go forward and exercise its state law rights under state law and under its loan documents. 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2).

Section 362(d)(2) permits relief from the automatic stay when the debtor has no equity in the property and the property is not necessary to an effective reorganization; a plan that merely lets the debtor exit on favorable terms does not establish an effective reorganization.

NationsBank of Virginia, N.A. v. Lake Ridge Associates (In re Lake Ridge Associates) · filed 1994-01-28(d)(2)

Under § 362(d)(2), the debtor must have no equity in the property and the property not be necessary to an effective reorganization. No one argues that there is equity. ... Actually, all the debtor proposes in its plan is to bow out as advantageously as possible. This is not permitted. Modification of the stay to permit Nations-Bank to pursue its remedies under its secured agreement(s) is proper.

Section 362(d)(2)(B) requires the debtor to show by a preponderance of the evidence that property is necessary to an effective reorganization, meaning a confirmed plan is likely within a reasonable time.

Steele v. Cho (In Re Cho) · filed 1994-02-04(d)(2)(B)

It is clear to the Court that 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2)(B) imposes on the debtor the duty to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the property subject to the relief motion is necessary to an effective reorganization. Courts have construed this to mean that there must exist the likelihood of a confirmed plan within a reasonable time.

For stay relief under § 362(d)(2), a debtor lacks equity in real property when the debt encumbering it equals or exceeds its value.

Estate Construction Co. v. Miller & Smith Holding Co. · filed 1994-01-13(d)(2)

To determine if there is equity in the property, the bankruptcy court must determine the following: (1) the value of the real estate, and (2) the amount of debt encumbering the property. If the debt is greater than or equal to the value of the realty, the stay may be properly lifted.

When a debtor has no equity in property, section 362(d)(2) places the burden on the debtor to show that the property is necessary to an effective reorganization to maintain the automatic stay.

Resolution Trust Corp. v. Swedeland Development Group, Inc. (In re Swedeland Development Group, Inc.) · filed 1994-02-25(d)(2)

Inasmuch as there is no equity in the property, Swedeland had the burden to prove that the property was necessary to an effective reorganization to maintain the automatic stay.

Under § 362(d)(2), property is necessary to an effective reorganization when the debtor has a reasonable probability of a successful reorganization within a reasonable time.

Matter of T-H New Orleans Ltd. Partnership · filed 1993-12-17(d)(2)

The term "necessary to an effective reorganiza- tion" has been interpreted to mean that the debtor has a reasonable probability of a successful reorganization within a reasonable period of time.

Section 362(d)(2) permits relief from the automatic stay when the debtor lacks equity in the property and cannot achieve a successful reorganization after a full opportunity to do so.

In Re Wynnefield Manor Associates, L.P. · filed 1993-12-14(d)(2)

The requirements of 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2) are met, because the Debtor lacks equity in the Property and has not been able to achieve a successful reorganization, although given a full opportunity to do so.

Section 362(d)(2) permits relief from the automatic stay when the debtor lacks equity in the property and its proposed plan has no reasonable prospect of confirmation.

Fairfield Executive Associates v. Hyperion Credit Capital Partners, L.P. (In Re Fairfield Executive Associates) · filed 1993-11-01(d)(2)

Similarly, a creditor is entitled to stay relief where the proposed plan violates the requirements for confirmation. ... Accordingly, the plan is not confirmable and Hyperion is entitled to stay relief.

When a debtor can cure a plan defect by amendment, relief from the automatic stay under § 362(d)(2) calls for reassessing whether the amended plan offers a reasonable prospect of successful reorganization within a reasonable time.

Financial Security Assurance, Inc. v. T-H New Orleans Limited Partnership (In re T-H New Orleans Limited… · filed 1993-11-03(d)(2)

While we concur with this finding of the bankruptcy court regarding improper classification, this finding relates to a defect which T-H NOLP could have cured by amendment. However, the bankruptcy court denied the request of T-H NOLP to file an amended plan. Consequently, we remand the issues of confirmability of the plan and relief from the stay to the district court with instructions to remand these issues to the bankruptcy court so that (1) the bankruptcy court can afford T-H NOLP an opportunity to amend the plan so as to eliminate the improper classification and (2) the bankruptcy court can conduct such further hearings as may be necessary to redetermine whether the amended plan shows "a reasonable prospect for a successful reorganization within a reasonable time." See Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates Ltd., supra.

A debtor opposing relief from the automatic stay under § 362(d)(2) must show that the property is needed for a feasible reorganization; showing that it is essential to the proposed reorganization alone is insufficient.

Marder v. Turner (In Re Turner) · filed 1993-11-05(d)(2)

Courts have held that the burden is not satisfied by simply a showing that the property is essential or indispensable to the reorganization. ... Rather, the debtor or trustee must also prove a second point, that the planned reorganization is feasible.

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

California Federal Bank, F.S.B. v. Moorpark Adventure (In Re Moorpark Adventure) · filed 1993-10-06(d)(2)

Cal Fed’s motion requesting relief from the automatic stay is granted as (1) the Subject Property has no equity and (2) the Subject Property is not necessary to an effective reorganization, as Debtor’s Plan of Reorganization is not confirmable.

Under § 362(d)(2), property is necessary to an effective reorganization when the debtor has a reasonable probability of reorganizing successfully within a reasonable time; a curable plan defect calls for reassessment of stay relief after amendment.

T-H New Orleans Ltd. Partnership v. Financial Security Assurance, Inc. (In re T-H New Orleans Ltd. Partnership) · filed 1993-10-07(d)(2)

Consequently, we remand the issues of confirmability of the plan and relief from the stay to the district court with instructions to remand these issues to the bankruptcy court so that (1) the bankruptcy court can afford T-H NOLP an opportunity to amend the plan so as to eliminate the improper classification and (2) the bankruptcy court can conduct such further hearings as may be necessary to redetermine whether the amended plan shows “a reasonable prospect for a successful reorganization within a reasonable time.”

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay when a secured creditor’s interest in collateral is not adequately protected.

In Re Kane · filed 1993-10-12(d)(1)

PSB’s interest in the debtors’ equipment is not adequately protected and therefore PSB is entitled to relief from the automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1).

Under § 362(d)(2), property is necessary to an effective reorganization only if the debtor shows a reasonable possibility of successful reorganization within a reasonable time.

Watford v. South Central Farm Credit (In Re Watford) · filed 1993-10-01(d)(2)

To grant a motion for relief from stay under § 362(d)(2), however, the court must also find that the property is not necessary to an effective reorganization. In order to establish that the property is necessary to an effective reorganization, a debtor must show “ ‘a reasonable possibility of a successful reorganization within a reasonable time.’ ”

Under § 362(d)(2), property is necessary to an effective reorganization only if the debtor has a reasonable prospect of successful reorganization within a reasonable time.

Canal Place Ltd. Partnership v. Aetna Life Insurance (In re Canal Place Ltd. Partnership) · filed 1991-01-08(d)(2)

In so doing, the bankruptcy court fully and effectively discharged its responsibility under this court’s en banc opinion in ... to evaluate the reorganization profile of the debtor in order to determine whether there was a reasonable prospect for a successful reorganization within a reasonable time before allowing the stay to remain in effect.

Section 362(d)(2) permits a debtor to retain the stay when it shows, under a lenient feasibility standard, that an effective reorganization is in prospect.

In Re Wasserman · filed 1991-01-17(d)(2)

However, the Court rules that, using an admittedly lenient standard, the Debtors’ have met their burden of proving that a reorganization is in prospect.

Section 362(d)(2) permits relief from the automatic stay when the debtor lacks equity in the property and has no reasonable prospect of a successful reorganization within a reasonable time.

Canal Place Limited Partnership v. Aetna Life Insurance Co. · filed 1991-01-08(d)(2)

In so doing, the bankruptcy court fully and effectively discharged its responsibility under this court's en banc opinion in In the Matter of Timbers of Inwood Forest Assocs., Ltd., 808 F.2d 363, 370 (5th Cir.1987), aff'd, 484 U.S. 365, 108 S.Ct. 626, 98 L.Ed.2d 740 (1988), to evaluate the reorganization profile of the debtor in order to determine whether there was a reasonable prospect for a successful reorganization within a reasonable time before allowing the stay to remain in effect. We cannot improve on the bankruptcy court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (a copy of which is attached hereto) and affirm the district court's judgment on the basis of those findings and conclusions.

To defeat a motion for relief from the stay under § 362(d)(2), the debtor must show a reasonable prospect of successful reorganization within a reasonable time.

In Re Reddington/Sunarrow Ltd. Partnership · filed 1990-10-11(d)(2)(B)

For the debtor to prevail on a stay motion, the debtor must show that there is a reasonable prospect of a successful organization within a reasonable period of time.

Section 362(d)(2)(B) requires a debtor seeking to keep the stay over property with no equity to show a reasonable possibility of a successful reorganization within a reasonable time.

Matter of Jones · filed 1990-09-26(d)(2)(B)

Thus, to continue to enjoy the protection of the stay, a debtor must also prove that there is a “reasonable possibility of a successful reorganization within a reasonable time.”

Under § 362(d)(2)(B), a debtor must show a reasonable possibility of effective reorganization within a reasonable time, with a more precise showing required as the case progresses.

In Re Ashgrove Apartments of DeKalb County, Ltd. · filed 1990-09-28(d)(2)(B)

Therefore, in the early stages of a Chapter 11 proceeding the debtor should be allowed greater latitude in making the required showing. However, in the later stages, the showing will necessarily need to be more precise. This sliding scale represents the requirement that a reasonable possibility of effective reorganization come within a reasonable time.

Under § 362(d)(2)(B), a single asset debtor opposing relief from the stay must show meaningful progress toward a reorganization plan with a realistic chance of confirmation and execution within a reasonable time.

In Re Blueberry Hill Apartments, Ltd. · filed 1990-10-19(d)(2)(B)

In a single asset case, where the primary secured lender challenges the Debtor’s ability to effectively reorganize within a reasonable time, a debtor must show that it is moving meaningfully to propose a plan of reorganization and that any proposed or contemplated plan has a realistic chance of being confirmed and executed.

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

NCNB Texas National Bank v. Brighton Co. (In re Brighton Co.) · filed 1990-08-24(d)(2)

After review of the pleadings, legal memoranda, arguments of counsel, and legal precedent relevant to the dispute, this Court finds that there is no equity in the property; and such property is not necessary to an effective reorganization since the Proposed Plan of Reorganization contemplates and calls for the foreclosure of the property by NCNB.

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

In Re Honett · filed 1990-06-28(d)(2)

In order for the automatic stay to be lifted pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d) it must be demonstrated that the Debtor does not have equity in the property in addition to a demonstration that the property is not necessary to an effective reorganization.

Section 362(d)(2)(B) requires a reasonable possibility of successful reorganization within a reasonable time for property to qualify as necessary to an effective reorganization.

Bloomington HH Investors, Ltd. Partnership v. Gibraltar Savings Ass'n (In Re Bloomington HH Investors, Ltd. Partnership) · filed 1990-04-26(d)(2)(B)

After studying these authorities, this court concludes that Judge Kishel properly interpreted § 362(d)(2)(B) in applying the feasibility test.

When a secured creditor shows that the debtor has no equity in property, § 362(d)(2)(B) requires the debtor to prove that the property is necessary for an effective reorganization.

In Re New Era Co. · filed 1990-05-30(d)(2)(B)

Hence, the debtor partnership has no equity in the property. In these circumstances, the debtor must prove that the property is necessary for an effective reorganization, in accordance with 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2)(B).

Section 362(d)(2) requires relief from the stay when there is no realistic prospect of an effective reorganization, even during the debtor’s initial 120-day period to file a plan.

In Re Ziebarth · filed 1990-03-29(d)(2)

However, even with the less demand of a detailed showing during these first four months in which the debtor is given exclusive right to put together a plan, section 362(d)(2) relief is required when there is a lack of any realistic prospect of effective reorganization.

Under § 362(d)(2), the debtor bears the burden of showing that collateral is necessary to an effective reorganization.

Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. Erie Hilton Joint Venture (In re Erie Hilton Joint Venture) · filed 1990-04-04(d)(2)

It is the debtor’s burden to establish that the collateral at issue is “necessary to an effective reorganization.”

Under § 362(d)(2), lack of equity does not warrant lifting the automatic stay when the property is necessary to an effective reorganization.

In re Harris · filed 1990-03-21(d)(2)

It is undisputed by the parties that the Debtor does not have equity in the common stock of SDH Enterprises, Inc. The crucial issue for the determination of the Court is whether such property is necessary to an effective reorganization. ... Therefore, it is the conclusion of the Court that possession of the stock of SDH Enterprises, Inc., is necessary to the effective reorganization of Debtor and therefore the Motion to Lift Stay is DENIED.

Section 362(d)(2) does not authorize termination of the automatic stay in Chapter 13 cases based on lack of equity and lack of necessity to an effective reorganization.

Citizens & Southern National Bank v. Feimster (In Re Feimster) · filed 1979-11-25(d)(2)

The absence of the use of the term “reorganization” anywhere except in Chapter 11 leads this court to the conclusion that its use in § 362(d)(2)(B) makes § 362(d)(2) applicable only to Chapter 11 Reorganization cases; and not applicable to Chapter 13 cases. The Chapter 13 automatic stay may not be terminated under § 362(d)(2)(B).

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

Schweiger v. 18th Avenue Development Corp. (In Re 18th Avenue Development Corp.) · filed 1980-01-30(d)(2)

Section 362(d)(2) of the Code requires that in order for the Court to grant the relief from the stay requested by the Plaintiffs, it must establish not only that the Debtor does not have equity in the property but also that the property is not necessary to an effective reorganization.

A secured creditor that invokes the automatic stay by filing an involuntary Chapter 11 petition may be equitably estopped from seeking to terminate the stay to foreclose on property essential to reorganization.

Matter of Beaucrest Rlty. Associates · filed 1980-05-05(d)

This Court must assume that the Petitioning Creditors desired the protection afforded by the automatic stay under § 362 and invoked the jurisdiction and power of this Court for that purpose and are therefore now equitably estopped from seeking its termination.

Section 362(d)(2) allows the stay to be lifted when the debtor has no equity in the property and the property has not been shown necessary to an effective reorganization.

Kardon Industries, Inc. v. East Redley Corp. (In Re East Redley Corp.) · filed 1980-05-16(d)(2)

We will lift the stay in this case because we find that the Debtor has no equity in the property and the property has not been shown to be necessary to an effective reorganization.

Section 362(d)(2) permits relief from the stay against property only if the debtor lacks equity in it and it is unnecessary to an effective reorganization.

Heritage Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Rogers Development Corp. (In Re Rogers Development Corp.) · filed 1980-02-14(d)(2)

Therefore, although the Debtors have no equity in the Property, the Property is necessary for the Debtors to effectively reorganize and a relief from stay pursuant to § 362(d)(2) should not be granted.

Section 362(d)(2)(B) requires a reasonable probability of an effective reorganization; property needed to operate the business does not alone justify continuing the stay.

Second & E Streets, N.E., Associates v. Aries Enterprises, Ltd. ( in Re Aries Enterprises Ltd.) · filed 1980-04-02(d)(2)(B)

While there can be no argument that the subject collateral, is in fact, necessary to the operation and maintenance of this restaurant business, were the court to permit its continuance, the court must consider whether there can be, with some reasonable degree of probability, an “effective” reorganization.

A debtor seeking to continue the automatic stay against a secured creditor must show a reasonable prospect of a going-concern reorganization.

In Re Antilles Yachting, Inc. · filed 1980-05-21(d)(2)

Here there must be a reasonable prospect for a going concern reorganization to justify continuing the stay provided by the Bankruptcy Code. The stay is not an end in itself. The end is reorganization and, if reorganization is not going to be achieved, Citibank should have relief either by having the stay lifted or by having the secured property sold with its lien transferred to the proceeds.

Section 362 permits relief from the automatic stay to enforce a valid lien when the debtor has no equity in the collateral and no reorganization is pending.

General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Hart (In Re Hart) · filed 1980-06-05(d)(2)(B)

In such a situation, where there is no reorganization pending or equity to protect for the unsecured creditors, relief from the stay to enforce a valid, perfected lien is demanded.

Section 362(d)(2)(B) requires a reasonable possibility of successful reorganization within a reasonable time for property to be necessary to an effective reorganization.

Terra Mar Development Corp. v. Terra Mar Associates (In Re Terra Mar Associates) · filed 1980-03-31(d)(2)(B)

I conclude that the requirement in § 362(d)(2)(B) that the property “be necessary to an effective reorganization” depends upon a finding by the court that there is a reasonable possibility of a successful reorganization within a reasonable time. This finding the Court cannot make.

Section 362(d) allows the stay to continue when the debtor has equity in the property, the creditor can be adequately protected, and a successful reorganization is reasonably possible within a reasonable time.

Loper v. Mulcahy (In Re Mulcahy) · filed 1980-07-31(d)

Having found that the evidence supports the Debtors’ claim that there is equity in the property, that adequate protection to the Plaintiffs can be furnished, and that there is a reasonable possibility that the Debtors can achieve a successful reorganization within a reasonable time, the court holds that they should be given the opportunity to do so. ... Under all of these circumstances, the court holds that the Debtors must be afforded the continued protection of the § 362 stay in order to formulate a plan of reorganization.

Section 362(d)(2) permits termination of the automatic stay when the debtor has no equity in the property and an effective reorganization is not realistically possible.

Westinghouse Credit Corp. v. Hanson Dredging, Inc. (In Re Hanson Dredging, Inc.) · filed 1980-09-23(d)(2)

The court finds, however, on the basis of the entire evidence, that the debtor has no equity in the property. ... The debtor has not to date proposed a plan and it is not realistic to assume an effective reorganization is possible. Therefore, the stay will be terminated pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2).

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

Jay Vending, Inc. v. McGowan (In Re McGowan) · filed 1980-09-25(d)(2)

Under subsection (d)(2) the evidence must establish that the debtors have no equity in the property and that the property is not necessary for an effective reorganization in order to justify relief from the stay.

Section 362(d)(2) permits relief from the automatic stay when the debtor lacks equity in the property and the property is not shown to be necessary to an effective reorganization.

Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Graham (In Re Jones) · filed 1980-11-21(d)(2)

1. Chrysler Credit Corporation is entitled to relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)(2) having shown that the Debtor lacks equity in the subject property and in the absence of a showing that such property is necessary to an effective reorganization.

Section 362(d)(2) requires both a lack of debtor equity in the property and a lack of necessity to an effective reorganization before the automatic stay may be modified.

Provident National Bank v. Hockstein (In Re Hockstein) · filed 1980-12-03(d)(2)

However, in order to warrant a modification of the stay pursuant to section 362(d)(2), both a lack of equity and lack of necessity in an effective reorganization must be shown.

Section 362(d)(2) permits relief from the stay when the debtor lacks equity in the property and the property is unnecessary to an effective reorganization; a slight equitable interest does not itself count as equity.

Colonial Village Meat Market Leasing, Inc. v. Andorra Meat Market, Inc. (In Re Andorra Meat Market, Inc.) · filed 1980-12-17(d)(2)

Although Andorra may indeed possess a “scintilla of equitable interest” in the property, such an interest is not to be equated with the concept of “equity” found in § 362(d)(2)(A). In addition, the present condition of the premises forces us to conclude that such property is not necessary to an effective reorganization.

Section 362(d)(2) requires a finding that property is unnecessary to an effective reorganization before the stay may be lifted for lack of equity.

American Properties, Inc. v. Topeka Bank & Trust (In Re American Properties, Inc.) · filed 1980-12-08(d)(2)

As to subsection (d)(2)(A) and (B) of § 362, the debtor has been shown not to have an equity in the property but the Court cannot find from the evidence that the property is unnecessary to an effective reorganization.

Section 362(d)(2)(B) does not make a Chapter 13 debtor’s home necessary to an effective reorganization solely because losing it would cause hardship.

Colonial Mortgage Service Co. v. Dallasta (In Re Dallasta) · filed 1980-12-31(d)(2)(B)

While this Court can sympathize with the hardship of being faced with the prospect of losing one’s home, this is not the “necessity” envisioned by the Bankruptcy Code which would serve to deny relief from the stay.

Section 362(d)(2)(B) applies in Chapter 13, and a debtor seeking to retain collateral under the stay must show that it is necessary to carry out the plan.

First National Bank of Northglenn v. Pittman (In Re Pittman) · filed 1981-01-23(d)(2)(B)

... a Chapter 13 debtor has the burden of persuading the court that retention of the vehicle is necessary to achieve the rehabilitative purposes of his plan if he is to avoid vacation of the stay of lien enforcement. That is the plain language of 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2).

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

Farmers & Mechanics National Bank v. Gilece (In Re Gilece) · filed 1980-12-10(d)(2)

First, § 362(d)(2) requires the Court to grant relief from the stay if 1) the debtor has no equity in the property (§ 362(d)(2)(A)) and 2) such property is not necessary to an effective reorganization (§ 362(d)(2)(B)).

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when a debtor violates an agreed order, without requiring the creditor to prove that the debtor lacks equity in the property.

Citizens Fidelity Bank & Trust Co. v. Family Investments, Inc. (In Re Family Investments, Inc.) · filed 1981-01-29(d)(1)

As evidenced by the disjunctive phraseology of (d)(1) and (d)(2), a creditor is not bound to pursue relief to recover property under § 362(d)(2), but is instead presented that remedy as an alternative — a means by which a creditor may quickly and easily gain relief to realize its property interest. ... Upon these facts, we conclude that cause does exist for granting relief from the stay. ... The failure to comply with an agreed order is itself actionable.

Relief from the automatic stay is denied when the mortgagee fails to prove the debtor lacks equity and a VA mortgage guarantee adequately protects the mortgagee’s interest.

Federal National Mortgage Ass'n v. DiBona (In Re DiBona) · filed 1981-02-20(d)

We conclude that the mortgagee is not entitled to a modification of the stay because (1) it has failed to prove that the debtor lacks equity in the property and (2) its interest in that property is adequately protected by the mortgage guarantee given by the Veterans’ Administration.

Section 362(d)(2)(B) requires a reasonable possibility of effective reorganization within a reasonable time to keep the stay in place on the ground that the property is necessary to reorganize.

Guaranty-First Trust Co. v. Accent Associates, Inc. (In Re Accent Associates, Inc.) · filed 1981-02-10(d)(2)(B)

There being a lack of adequate protection and no substantial equity in the property (if any at all), the only remaining issue is whether the stay can be continued because, arguably, the property is necessary for an effective reorganization. ... The case law interpreting Section 362(d) appears to consistently hold that there must be a reasonable possibility of an effective reorganization within a reasonable time, (emphasis added).

Section 362(g) places the burden of proving the debtor lacks equity in property on the party seeking relief from the automatic stay.

Worcester County National Bank v. Resnick (In Re Resnick) · filed 1981-03-25(g)

In support of that conclusion I point out that the burden of proof, and therefore the burden of persuasion, in showing the debtors’ lack of equity is upon the Bank. I find no fault with the Bank’s effort, in this regard, but feel that they have not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that there is no equity for the debtors in this property.

In a Chapter 13 case, Section 362(d)(2) permits relief from the automatic stay when the debtor has no equity in the property, without requiring a showing that the property is unnecessary to an effective reorganization.

Roosevelt Savings Bank v. Branch (In Re Branch) · filed 1981-04-03(d)(2)

Under this test, the bank is clearly entitled to relief from the existing stay. ... Since this is a Chapter 13 case, subsection “(B)” of the test is inapplicable.

Section 362(d)(2) permits relief from the automatic stay in a Chapter 13 case when the debtor has no equity in the property and fails to prove that the property is necessary to an effective reorganization.

Beneficial Mutual Savings Bank v. Roselli (In Re Roselli) · filed 1981-04-15(d)(2)

The problem confronting us in this case is whether the automatic stay provisions of § 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code (“the Code”) should be modified to permit the first mortgagee to proceed with foreclosure proceedings against the residence owned by the debtor in which he and his wife reside. We conclude that the stay should be modified both because the first mortgagee has established that the debtor has no equity in the property and because the debtor has failed to prove that the debtor’s residence is necessary for the success of his chapter 13 plan.

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

First & Merchants National Bank v. Bailey (In Re Bailey) · filed 1981-04-17(d)(2)

Under § 362(d)(2) the Court, on request of a party in interest, shall grant relief from the automatic stay if with respect to a stay of an act against property, it is shown that the debtor does not have equity in the property and the property is not necessary to an effective reorganization. As to the first aspect, the Plaintiff has met its burden of showing no equity in the property. There has been no showing that the property is necessary to an effective reorganization, which burden is upon the Defendant pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(g)(2).

Section 362(d)(2) requires both lack of equity and that the property is unnecessary to an effective reorganization before the stay may be modified; lack of equity alone also does not establish cause under subsection (d)(1).

United Savings Ass'n v. Suter (In Re Suter) · filed 1981-04-20(d)(2)

The mere showing of a lack of equity without proof that the property is not necessary to the Chapter 13 proceeding is not sufficient under § 362(d)(2) nor is it sufficient standing alone to modify the stay for cause under § 362(d)(1).

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

Haines v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. (In Re Haines) · filed 1981-05-07(d)(2)

At the trial held herein, GMAC established that the debtor lacked equity in the automobile because the debt owed GMAC is $7,944.90 while the fair market value is at the most $7,650. ... Furthermore, the debtor failed to establish that the automobile was necessary for the success of the debtor’s chapter 13 plan. ... We conclude, therefore, that GMAC is entitled to relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)(2).

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

Guasco v. First Century Trust Co. (In Re First Century Trust Co.) · filed 1981-05-08(d)(2)

If a party seeks relief only with respect to an act against property, relief may be given if the debtor has no equity in the property and the property is not necessary to an effective reorganization.

Section 362(d)(2) permits relief from the stay when the debtor has no equity in the property and cannot show a confirmable reorganization that can be implemented within a reasonable time.

Buffalo Savings Bank v. Marston Enterprises, Inc. (In Re Marston Enterprises, Inc.) · filed 1981-05-11(d)(2)

The phrase “necessary to an effective reorganization” means more than that the subject property is the vehicle without which there can be no reorganization. ... Does the proposed plan comply with the provisions of Chapter 11 relative to acceptance and confirmation of the plan? Are there resources at hand or within reach to implement the plan within a reasonable time? ... If the answer to both questions is “yes”, there can be an effective reorganization even though there is no equity in the real property for the debtor.

Section 362(d)(2)(B) does not apply in Chapter 7 cases because Chapter 7 concerns liquidation rather than reorganization.

Turismo v. Barr (In re Lockwood) · filed 1981-05-15(d)(2)(B)

Since Chapter 7 is concerned with liquidation, rather than “reorganization,” subdivision “(B)” of section 362(d)(2) does not apply in cases filed under that Chapter.

Section 362(d)(2)(B) requires a reasonable possibility of successful reorganization within a reasonable time for property to be necessary to an effective reorganization.

Commercial Trading Co. v. Penn York Manufacturing, Inc. (In Re Penn York Manufacturing, Inc.) · filed 1981-06-15(d)(2)(B)

In determining whether property is necessary to an effective reorganization, the Court must make a finding that there is a reasonable possibility of a successful reorganization within a reasonable time.

Section 362(d)(2) does not allow relief from the stay based solely on a Wisconsin foreclosure sale that remains unconfirmed, because the debtor may still have equity in the property.

In Re LYNCH · filed 1981-07-14(d)(2)

A foreclosure sale does not preclude the debtors having an equity interest in the property, so long as that sale has not been confirmed. First Wisconsin and Thorp cannot rely on the occurrence of the sale to carry their burden to demonstrate that the Lynches lack equity in the property.

Section 362(d)(2) does not warrant relief from the automatic stay when the debtor has substantial equity in the property and the property is necessary to an effective reorganization.

Bentley v. Marro (In Re Bentley) · filed 1981-07-14(d)(2)

It also follows that the counterclaim to obtain relief from the stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) so that it might procure a final judgment of foreclosure must fall. The record here leaves no room to undercut this court’s finding that the debtor has a substantial equity in the apartment and that an individual debtor’s residence is necessary ... to achieve his reorganization where his Chapter 11 case will deal primarily with a creditor secured by that residence. 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2).

Under § 362(d)(2), all encumbrances count in determining the debtor’s equity in property, even when some lienholders have not sought relief from the stay.

Commonwealth State Employees' Retirement Fund v. Gardner (In Re Gardner) · filed 1981-10-05(d)(2)

All encumbrances are totalled to determine equity whether or not all the lienholders have requested relief from the stay.

Under § 362(d)(2), a debtor’s equity is calculated in the property pledged as the creditor’s collateral; when that collateral is a land trust’s beneficial interest, the relevant property is the beneficial interest rather than the trust’s real estate.

Elgin National Bank v. Cowsert (In Re Cowsert) · filed 1981-10-06(d)(2)

Because Elgin National’s collateral was the ABI, the “property” in which the debtors’ equity is to be calculated for purposes of § 362(d)(2) is the beneficial interest in the land trust, not the real estate which is held by the trust.

Section 362(d)(2)(B) requires the debtor to show a reasonable prospect of successful reorganization; the property’s importance to the debtor’s business alone does not prevent relief from the stay.

North East Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Mikole Developers, Inc. (In Re Mikole Developers, Inc.) · filed 1981-10-09(d)(2)(B)

The mere fact that the property is indispensable to the debtor’s survival, or that the property is needed in the debtor’s business is insufficient, without more, to deny relief from the automatic stay where there is an absence of an “equity cushion”. There must be a showing by the debtor that the property is “essential” to an effective reorganization and that there is a reasonable prospect for a successful reorganization of the going concern.

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

Norway National Bank v. Goodwin's Discount Furniture, Inc. (In Re Goodwin's Discount Furniture, Inc.) · filed 1982-01-12(d)(2)

The Court, having found that the Debtor does not have an equity in the property and that the property is not necessary to an effective reorganization, must grant relief from the stay.

Section 362(d)(2) treats property as unnecessary to an effective reorganization when no effective reorganization is reasonably possible.

Paccar Financial Corp. v. Pappas (In Re Pappas) · filed 1982-02-12(d)(2)

The Court has concluded, for reasons set out in the discussion on the motion for conversion, that the effective reorganization of this debtor is not a reasonable possibility. Thus the question of whether the Manchester property is essential to reorganization is moot.

Section 362(d)(2)(A) counts all secured claims against the property when determining whether the debtor has equity, even if some lienholders have not requested relief from the stay.

La Jolla Mortgage Fund v. Rancho El Cajon Associates · filed 1982-03-11(d)(2)(A)

However, this Court finds itself in complete accord with the holdings of Judge King, that all secured claims are totalled to determine equity under Section 362(d)(2)(A), whether or not all secured claim holders have requested relief from the stay, although a different rule should govern questions of adequate protection under Section 362(d)(1).

For relief from the automatic stay under § 362(d)(2)(A), equity in a debtor’s leasehold is measured in the leasehold interest, not the fee estate.

Roslyn Savings Bank v. Comcoach Corp. (In Re Comcoach Corp.) · filed 1982-03-16(d)(2)(A)

It may further have eluded the Bank that the property to be examined for equity under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2)(A) is Comcoach’s unexpired leasehold interest and not the fee interest.

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

Coble Systems, Inc. v. Coors of the Cumberland, Inc. (In Re Coors of the Cumberland, Inc.) · filed 1982-04-02(d)(2)

Under these circumstances, the court finds that these vehicles and refrigerated trailers are necessary to the debtor-in-possession’s effective reorganization. To require the return of this property at the present time might seriously undermine the debtor-in-possession’s healthy prospects for a successful reorganization. Coble is not, therefore, entitled to relief from the stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2).

Under § 362(d)(2), a debtor must establish that an effective reorganization is feasible to show that property is necessary to it.

Haas v. Martin (In Re Martin) · filed 1982-04-15(d)(2)

A basic principle which has been established by the case law on this issue, and which we now adopt, is that the debtor must establish that an effective reorganization is feasible as part of the groundwork of proving that the property in question is necessary to an effective reorganization.

Section 362(d)(2)(B) allows the stay to continue over property in which the debtor has no equity when the property is necessary for an effective reorganization that is reasonably likely.

Besler v. Northwest Production Credit Ass'n (In Re Besler) · filed 1982-04-30(d)(2)(B)

The projected income and expenses for 1982 operations presented by Debtors at the hearing on this matter support a finding by this Court that Debtors have met the burden of proof that an “effective” reorganization is reasonably likely as required by 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2)(B) and that Debtors’ property in which PCA has a security interest is necessary for the effective reorganization of Debtors’ farming and ranching business under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2)(B).

Section 362(d)(2) requires relief from the automatic stay when the debtor has no equity in the property and reorganization is not contemplated in a Chapter 7 case.

General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Lyons (In Re Lyons) · filed 1982-04-14(d)(2)

In the instant case, the debtor is proceeding under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. Accordingly, a reorganization is not contemplated by the debtors. As stated above, the debtors have admitted that there is no equity in the subject property. Accordingly, relief from the automatic stay is mandated because the conditions set forth in § 362(d)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code have been met.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay when the debtor fails to provide adequate protection of a creditor’s interest in property.

Northeastern Bank of Pennsylvania v. Reinhardt (In re Reinhardt) · filed 1982-04-21(d)(1)

The Court has decided to modify the stay since we find that the debtor has not furnished the plaintiff with adequate protection of its interest in the property within the meaning of § 362(d)(1).

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

Fidelity Bond & Mortgage Co. v. Cobbs (In Re Cobbs) · filed 1982-06-07(d)(2)

This is so because § 362(d)(2) provides that the stay shall be modified if the debtors lack equity in the property in question and if that property is not necessary to the debtors’ effective reorganization.

Under § 362(d)(2), lack of equity alone does not warrant lifting the stay when the property is necessary to a possible reorganization.

Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Classic Printers, Inc. (In Re Classic Printers, Inc.) · filed 1982-07-01(d)(2)

It is premature to decide that the debtor will be unable to reorganize. Since the debtor’s only business is printing, at this time it must be concluded that the press is necessary to a reorganization. The requirements of § 362(d)(2) have not been satisfied, but the automatic stay may be lifted under § 362(d)(1) if there is a lack of adequate protection to Ford.

Section 362(d)(2)(B) treats property in which the debtor has no equity as necessary to an effective reorganization when it is needed in the business or a plan to further the estate’s interests through rehabilitation or liquidation.

Empire Enterprises, Inc. v. Koopmans (In Re Koopmans) · filed 1982-08-11(d)(2)(B)

Accordingly, property in which the debtor has no equity is necessary to an effective reorganization whenever it is necessary, either in the operation of the business or in a plan, to further the interests of the estate through rehabilitation or liquidation.

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

Budd Leasing Corp. v. Central Motor Lines, Inc. (In re Central Motor Lines, Inc.) · filed 1982-08-19(d)(2)

It is entirely appropriate to permit this plaintiff to do so under § 362(d)(2) where, as here, the debtor has no equity in the property and the property is not necessary to reorganization.

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

Harleysville National Bank & Trust Co. v. Kaufman (In Re Kaufman) · filed 1982-11-09(d)(2)

Section 362(d) permits modification of the automatic stay upon alternative grounds. Relief may be granted under § 362(d)(1) upon a finding that a debtor’s interest in property is not adequately protected or under § 362(d)(2) upon a finding that the debtor has no equity in the property and that that property is not necessary to an effective reorganization.

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

Alter v. Fidelity America Mortgage Co. (In re Fidelity America Mortgage Co.) · filed 1982-11-30(d)(2)

Relief may be granted under § 362(d)(1) upon a finding that a debtor’s interest in property is not adequately protected or under § 362(d)(2) upon a finding that the debtor has no equity in the property and that that property is not necessary to an effective reorganization.

Section 362(d)(2) measures the debtor’s equity in property by considering all liens on it, including liens junior to the movant’s.

Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. Holt County Grain Storage, Inc. (In Re Holt County Grain Storage, Inc.) · filed 1982-12-14(d)(2)

Under this statutory sub-section, I conclude that the aggregate of all liens is to be looked to in order to determine whether the debtor has equity in the property.

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

Dallas-Fort Worth Regional Airport Board v. Braniff Airways, Inc. · filed 1982-12-17(d)(2)

The law is clear that both elements must be met to require relief from the stay. Appellant bore the burden of proof on the issue of lack of equity interest in the leasehold, while Braniff had the burden of showing the property is necessary to effective reorganization.

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

Provident Bank v. Taylor (In Re Taylor) · filed 1983-02-14(d)(2)

Given debtors’ lack of equity in the property, as well as the illusory prospects for reorganization with or without the property, this Court has no alternative but to allow the bank to have the benefit of what it bargained for and to lift the automatic stay.

Section 362(d)(2) requires a debtor to clearly show that property is essential to an effective reorganization; asserting that it may be useful or needed later is insufficient.

Twelve Percent Secured Note-Holders v. Amarex, Inc. (In Re Amarex, Inc.) · filed 1983-06-20(d)(2)

Since all debtors who resist a request for relief from the stay may regard all their assets as indispensable, § 362(d) must require more than a mere assertion that the property is needed or could be helpful.

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

Barclays Bank of New York, N.A. v. Saypol (In Re Saypol) · filed 1983-07-05(d)(2)

We hold, therefore, that, although the banks are adequately protected, the automatic stay provided by Section 362(a) of the Code must be vacated in favor of the banks pursuant to Section 362(d)(2) of the Code since the Debtor has no equity in the stock of Lionel Corporation held by the banks as collateral and that the debtor has failed to sustain his burden of proof in claiming that such stock is necessary to an effective plan of reorganization.

Section 362(d)(2)(B) permits the stay to remain in effect for property without equity when the property is necessary to an effective reorganization; time is an element of effectiveness.

Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v. Ramco Well Service, Inc. (In Re Ramco Well Service, Inc.) · filed 1983-08-11(d)(2)(B)

We thus hold that the rigs and other equipment in which the bank holds a security interest are necessary to an effective reorganization. In so holding we emphasize that time is an element of effectiveness.

Section 362(d)(2)(A) requires courts to consider all encumbrances when determining whether a debtor has equity in property, even if some secured claimholders have not sought relief from the stay.

First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Lima v. Shriver (In Re Shriver) · filed 1983-07-15(d)(2)(A)

This Court agrees with the former authorities and holds that all encumbrances on the subject property are to be considered in determining if the debtor has equity in the property under § 362(d)(2)(A), whether or not all the secured claimholders have requested relief from the stay.

Section 362(d)(2)(A) measures a debtor’s equity as the property’s value minus all encumbrances against it, including junior liens.

Walter E. Heller Western, Inc. v. Faires (In Re Faires) · filed 1983-11-08(d)(2)(A)

While the term “equity” in § 362(d)(2)(A) is not free from ambiguity as to its application to the facts at bar, the Court is convinced that the better view is that “equity” means the difference between the value of the property and all encumbrances against it.

Section 362(d)(2) keeps the stay in effect when the party seeking relief fails to prove lack of equity and the debtor shows the property is necessary to an effective reorganization.

Bader v. Vacation Village Ltd. Partnership (In Re Vacation Village Ltd. Partnership) · filed 1983-11-08(d)(2)

In sum, this Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have not sustained the heavy burden of proof with respect to the issue of equity. In contrast, the Debtor has demonstrated with some conviction that the property is necessary to an effective reorganization. Therefore, this Court concludes that the automatic stay imposed by 11 U.S.C. § 362 should continue in effect.

Section 362(d)(2)(B) requires a debtor seeking to keep the stay to show a reasonable likelihood of successful reorganization within a reasonable time.

In Re Development, Inc. · filed 1984-01-27(d)(2)(B)

Therefore, in order to discharge their burden of establishing that the Property is necessary for an effective reorganization; Pacific and Development are required to demonstrate that there exists a reasonable likelihood of a successful reorganization within a reasonable period of time.

Section 362 permits termination of the automatic stay when the debtor has no equity in the property and the property is not necessary to an effective reorganization.

Bowie Venture v. Alexandria Investments, Inc. (In Re Alexandria Investments, Inc.) · filed 1984-01-30(d)(2)

However, the court finds that the debtor does not have any equity in the subject property. Debtor has not sustained its burden of showing that the property is required for an effective reorganization. ... The court finds that the debtor has no interest in the lease, and that the property is not necessary to an effective reorganization. The court will therefore pass an order terminating the stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) to permit Bowie Venture to proceed in the courts of Maryland.

Section 362(d)(1) requires a debtor opposing relief from the automatic stay to show that its proposed use of collateral will adequately protect the secured creditor’s interest; an insufficiently specific, speculative plan does not meet that burden.

Philadelphia Consumer Discount Co. v. Commercial Credit Business Loans, Inc. (In Re Philadelphia Consumer Discount Co.) · filed 1984-02-14(d)(1)

In summary, I find that CCBL’s collateral is inherently unstable; that debtors have the burden of presenting a plan for use of collateral that adequately protects CCBL’s interest; and that debtors have not met that burden, since their plan is insufficiently specific as to crucial details, and is based in large measure upon the continued investment of the collateral in delinquent accounts.

Section 362(d)(2)(A) measures a debtor’s equity for stay relief by comparing the property’s value with all encumbrances against it.

In re Yanks · filed 1984-02-03(d)(2)(A)

It is the judgment of the Court that the Movants (Sarnoff/Flagship) have sustained their burden of proof on the issue that the Debtors do not have any equity in the property, as required under Sec. 362(d)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code, taking into consideration the value of the property and all encumbrances against it.

Section 362(d)(1) permits modification of the automatic stay when a secured creditor’s interest in collateral lacks adequate protection.

In Re Granny Frannies, Inc. · filed 1984-04-09(d)(1)

Virginia National Bank is a secured creditor and as such is entitled to adequate protection of its interest in the collateral. §§ 361, 362(d)(1). Because the debtor has no equity in the collateral, and because the trustee, as the party opposing the relief, has offered no adequate protection, the bank’s motion to modify the automatic stay is granted so as to allow the bank to pursue its remedies under state law.

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

Vieland v. First Federal Savings Bank (In Re Vieland) · filed 1984-06-06(d)(2)

Mr. Neverman also contends that the stay should be lifted pursuant to section 362(d)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code, cited above. To gain relief under this section, Mr. Neverman must show that the debtor does not have any equity in the property and that the property is not necessary to an effective reorganization.

Section 362(d)(2)(B) requires a debtor seeking to keep the stay on property necessary to reorganization to show a reasonable expectation of presenting a confirmable plan within a reasonable time.

In Appeal of in Re California Gulf Partnership · filed 1984-06-11(d)(2)(B)

Obviously, the M/V REBEL BRIO is necessary to any reorganization plan. But for the debtor to meet its burden of proof on this issue, it must also show that there is a reasonable expectation that it will be able to present a confirmable plan within a reasonable period of time.

Section 362(d)(2) does not require literally zero equity for stay relief when slight equity would leave the secured creditor without a cushion for foreclosure costs.

In Re Skains · filed 1984-08-01(d)(2)

The law has never meant that there must be absolutely no equity in property, because the secured creditor needs some cushion in order to pay the costs of foreclosure in state court.

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

National Bank of Boyertown v. Moyer (In re Moyer) · filed 1984-09-19(d)(2)

Thus, we conclude that the debtor has no equity in the property. ... Therefore, it is clear that the property is not necessary to an effective reorganization of the debtor. ... For the foregoing reasons, we shall grant to the plaintiff relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 362(d)(2)(A) measures a debtor’s equity in property by subtracting all liens against the property from its value, including junior liens.

James P. Stewart, Trustee of the James P. Stewart and Jeanne F. Stewart Trust v. Phillip S. Gurley Dba Modoc Rock · filed 1984-09-28(d)(2)(A)

We affirm the district court’s decision because the bankruptcy and district courts properly defined “equity” as the difference between the property value and the total amount of liens against it.

Section 362(d)(2)(B) does not require proof that a rehabilitation plan can be confirmed to show property is necessary for an effective reorganization, because an effective reorganization can include liquidation.

In Re Keller · filed 1984-11-05(d)(2)(B)

The term “necessary for an effective reorganization” does not require proof that a plan of rehabilitation can be confirmed. This conclusion is borne out by the fact that an effective reorganization can include a liquidation.

Section 362(d)(2)(B) requires a reasonable prospect of effective reorganization; a property’s indispensability to the debtor alone does not justify continuing the stay.

In Re Mary Harpley Builder, Inc. · filed 1984-11-08(d)(2)(B)

In short, the fact that property may be indispensable is irrelevant, if the debtor has no prospects of an “effective reorganization”.

Section 362(d)(2) permits relief from the stay when all debts encumbering the property leave the debtor without equity and the property is unnecessary for an effective reorganization.

In Re Woodbranch Energy Plaza One, Ltd. · filed 1984-11-08(d)(2)

However, if the case is to be decided under § 362(d)(2) the debts owed to both InterFirst and Westgron may be considered in determining the Debtors’ lack of equity, but this must be coupled with the additional finding that the properties are not necessary for the Debtors’ effective reorganization.

Section 362(d)(2) allows relief from the automatic stay when the debtor has no equity in the property and the property is unnecessary for an effective reorganization, including after conversion to Chapter 7.

Richmond Fixture & Equipment Co. v. Hyman (In Re Southern Properties, Inc.) · filed 1984-12-03(d)(2)

Should Richmond Fixture have such a perfected security interest, relief from the automatic stay would be appropriate because the debtor lacks equity in the property and the property is not necessary for an effective reorganization inasmuch as the debtor has converted to Chapter 7.

Under § 362(d)(2), property is necessary to an effective reorganization only if successful rehabilitation is reasonably probable within a reasonable time and the property is critical to that effort.

In Re Hutton · filed 1984-12-11(d)(2)

The standard of proof which has become most commonly accepted is that there be a reasonable probability of a successful rehabilitation within a reasonable time and that the property sought to be foreclosed be critical to that effort.

Section 362(d)(2)(B) treats property as necessary to an effective reorganization if it is needed to operate the business or for a plan that advances rehabilitation or liquidation.

In Re W.S. Sheppley & Co. · filed 1984-12-19(d)(2)(B)

Property is necessary for an effective reorganization whenever it is necessary either in the operation of the business or in a plan, to further the interests of the estate for rehabilitation or liquidation.

Section 362(d)(2)(B) asks whether the property can make an identifiable contribution to the debtor’s reorganization through liquidation or rehabilitation.

In Re Greiman · filed 1985-01-09(d)(2)(B)

Basically the focus should be on whether the property in question can make an identifiable contribution to a debtor’s reorganization, be it a liquidation or a rehabilitation.

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

In Re Grain Services, Inc. · filed 1984-12-12(d)(2)

The second, with respect to a stay of an act against property, becomes available when there is no equity in the property and the property is not necessary for an effective reorganization.

Under § 362(d)(2)(A), determining whether a debtor has equity in property requires considering all encumbrances on it, not only the lien of the creditor seeking stay relief.

In Re Rye · filed 1985-02-01(d)(2)(A)

Because it is the amount of equity which would be available to unsecured creditors or to the debtors for use in their reorganization which the court must consider, all encumbrances on the property in question, not just the amount of the movant’s lien, must be considered.

Section 362(d)(2) allows relief from the automatic stay when the debtor lacks equity in property and the property is unnecessary to an effective reorganization; the debtor bears the burden on whether the property is necessary.

In Re Klutzaritz · filed 1985-02-13(d)(2)

Having thus satisfied § 362(d)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Bank is entitled to relief from the stay if, under § 362(d)(2)(B), as to each property, such property is not necessary to the debtors’ effective reorganization. The debtors have the burden of proof on the issue of effective reorganization. 11 U.S.C. § 362(g)(2). However, the debtors have not even alleged that either property is necessary to their effective reorganization under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code. Therefore, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2), we shall lift the automatic stay as to both parcels of the debtors’ real property so that the Bank may pursue its state law rights and remedies against the properties.

Section 362(d)(2) does not require lifting the stay when property without debtor equity is necessary for an effective reorganization through an orderly sale that pays lienholders.

In Re Digby · filed 1985-02-26(d)(2)

The debtor’s lack of an equity in the property is clearly established, but the property is necessary for an effective reorganization, because that concept includes protection of the ability of the debtor or a trustee to liquidate the property and pay upon the tax liens the excess of proceeds of sale after payment of the mortgage debt.

Under § 362(d)(2), property is necessary to an effective reorganization only if the debtor has a reasonable possibility of successfully reorganizing within a reasonable time.

In Re Pacific Tuna Corp. · filed 1985-03-04(d)(2)

In order to determine whether the subject property is necessary for an effective reorganization the Court must look to whether there is a reasonable possibility of a successful reorganization of the debtor within a reasonable time.

Section 362(d)(2)(B) requires a debtor to show a reasonable probability that it can propose a successful reorganization plan within a reasonable time to establish that property is necessary to an effective reorganization.

First Agricultural Bank v. Jug End in Berkshires, Inc. (In Re Jug End in the Berkshires, Inc.) · filed 1985-03-05(d)(2)(B)

The debtor need only demonstrate a reasonable probability that it will be able to propose a plan for a successful reorganization within a reasonable time.

Section 362 permits relief from the automatic stay when the debtor has no equity in property and the property is unnecessary to an effective reorganization, with the party opposing relief bearing the burden on necessity.

Richmond Leasing Co. v. Capital Bank, N.A. · filed 1985-06-17(d)(2), (g)

It is undisputed that RLC has no equity in GECC’s cars. Under § 362(g), the party opposing the lifting of the stay bears the burden of proof on all issues other than the issue of the debtor’s equity in the property. There is no evidence on record to suggest that GECC’s railroad cars, which make up less than ten percent of RLC’s inventory, are necessary to an effective reorganization of RLC. Therefore, the bankruptcy judge did not err in lifting the automatic stay.

Section 362(d) permits a creditor, in an appropriate case, to oppose relief from the automatic stay.

In Re Danny Lopez-Soto and Marilyn Pujals De Lopez, Debtors. Superior Paint Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Lopez-Soto · filed 1985-07-03(d)

Third, contrary to Superior’s argument, section 362(d) itself allows, in an appropriate case, a creditor, as well as the bankruptcy debtor, to oppose lifting a stay.

Section 362(d)(2)(B) requires a debtor to show that property is necessary to an effective reorganization, but does not require proof that a reorganization is feasible at the stay-relief hearing.

In Re Sunstone Ridge Associates · filed 1985-07-16(d)(2)(B)

The lack of a feasibility test in the language of § 362(d)(2) shows that Congress did not intend that a feasibility test be used.

Section 362(d)(2)(B) cannot protect property from stay relief in a Chapter 7 case because no reorganization is possible there.

In Re Miller · filed 1985-07-22(d)(2)(B)

No reorganization is possible in a Chapter 7 case. So long as this case remains in Chapter 7, therefore, the Debtor will remain unable to rely upon section 362(d)(2)(B) in defense of lienors’ lift-stay motions.

Under § 362(d)(2), the debtor must show that the property is necessary for reorganization and that successful rehabilitation is reasonably probable within a reasonable time.

In Re Engle · filed 1985-08-09(d)(2)

In order to prevail on this issue, the debtors must prove that the subject property is necessary to effect a reorganization and that there is a reasonable probability of a successful rehabilitation within a reasonable time.

A plan of complete liquidation may qualify as an effective reorganization when deciding whether to grant relief from the automatic stay under § 362(d)(2)(B).

In Re Independence Village, Inc. · filed 1985-09-04(d)(2)(B)

We are persuaded by the reasoning of In re Koopmans, supra, and therefore hold that even a plan of complete liquidation of the facility pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1123(b)(4) may be an “effective” reorganization for purposes of § 362(d)(2)(B).

Section 362(d)(2)(B) requires a debtor opposing relief from the stay to show a realistic prospect of effective reorganization; merely asserting that the property is indispensable is insufficient.

Community Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Craghead (In Re Craghead) · filed 1985-11-27(d)(2)(B)

An “effective” reorganization, however, as contemplated by § 362(d)(2)(B) requires more than an assertion that no reorganization is possible without the property, since all debtors advocating continuance of the automatic stay obviously regard all their assets as indispensible for reorganization purposes.

Section 362(d)(2) allows relief from the automatic stay when the debtor lacks equity in the property and the property is unnecessary to an effective reorganization; a dower interest in a spouse-owned residence does not preserve the stay without a connection to the debtor’s business reorganization.

Airlines Reporting Corp. v. Lambert (In Re Lambert) · filed 1986-02-14(d)(2)

The Debtor has not, to the satisfaction of this Court demonstrated that he possesses equity in the subject realty. Nor has the Debtor demonstrated where his dower interest in the personal residence, wholly owned by his non-debtor spouse, is necessary to an effective reorganization of the travel agency business which would be the focal entity of a Chapter 11 proceeding.

Under § 362(d)(2)(B), a debtor early in reorganization may satisfy its burden with a lesser showing that an effective reorganization is reasonably possible.

Matter of Weiser, Inc. · filed 1986-03-04(d)(2)(B)

The Debtor’s tentative factual showing of an ability to reorganize has, in the court’s view, satisfied the burden placed on nascent debtors by Section 362(d)(2)(B) and (g)(2).

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

STEPHENS INDUSTRIES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James R. McCLUNG, Trustee in Bankruptcy, Etc., Defendant-Appellee · filed 1986-04-28(d)(2)

Before lifting the stay under § 362(d)(2), the Bankruptcy Court would have had to find that ASC did not have an equity in the FCC licenses, which SI sought to foreclose, and that the licenses were not necessary to an effective reorganization. ... Since ASC had an equity in the FCC licenses, we conclude that the Bankruptcy Court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to lift the automatic stay order.

Section 362(d)(2) permits the stay to remain in place despite a lack of equity when the property can be productive in a possible reorganization and the debtor has had little time to propose a plan.

In Re Burnett · filed 1986-06-17(d)(2)

The case at bar is two months old. The Court is not overly optimistic about the Debtor’s chances of reorganization. However, the Debtor has shown that the property can be productive. He should be given an opportunity to propose a plan of reorganization.

Section 362(d)(2)(B) requires a debtor opposing stay relief to show that the collateral will likely play a significant role in a plausible reorganization.

In Re Island Helicopter Corp. · filed 1986-06-27(d)(2)(B)

This court concludes that a debtor will satisfy its burden of proof under Section 362(d)(2)(B) if it can establish through pri-ma facie evidence that the collateral will likely play a significant role in the successful implementation of the debtors’ proposed reorganization efforts.

Section 362(d)(2) does not authorize relief from the automatic stay when the debtor has no equity in the property but needs it for an effective reorganization.

John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance v. Pullins (In Re Pullins) · filed 1986-09-23(d)(2)

The testimony and stipulations reveal that the debtors do not have equity in either their land nor their equipment. However, as stipulated by PCA, the debtors’ assets are necessary to an effective reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. Given that the debtors are attempting to reorganize a farming operation, it is obvious at this stage of the proceedings that the retention of the land and equipment is essential to their reorga-nizational efforts. Thus, the movants are not entitled to relief from the automatic stay pursuant to (d)(2) of 11 U.S.C. § 362.

Section 362(d)(2)(B) requires a debtor opposing stay relief to show a reasonable possibility of successful rehabilitation or liquidation within a reasonable time and that the property will contribute to it.

In Re Playa Development Corp. · filed 1986-11-18(d)(2)(B)

Therefore, the Debtor, to meet its burden of proof to show that the property is necessary for an effective reorganization, must show the existence of a reasonable possibility that a successful rehabilitation or a successful liquidation can be accomplished within a reasonable period of time and that the property in question will contribute to this effect.

Under § 362(d)(2), a reasonable likelihood of reorganization can include a sale or buyout that continues the business without the debtor retaining ownership.

Parker v. Concorde Ltd. Partnership (In Re Concorde Ltd. Partnership) · filed 1986-11-25(d)(2)

A reasonable likelihood of rehabilitation or reorganization does not mean that the debtor must itself have a prospect of continuing the business under, a confirmed plan. The point is to continue the business, not necessarily the debtor’s ownership.

Under § 362(d)(2), a debtor must show a reasonable possibility of successful reorganization within a reasonable time to establish that property is necessary to an effective reorganization.

Indiana National Bank v. Cablehouse, Ltd. (In Re Cablehouse, Ltd.) · filed 1986-12-22(d)(2)

In order for debtor to carry its burden with respect to this element, the court must reach a conclusion that there is a reasonable possibility of a successful reorganization within a reasonable time.

When the debtor has no equity in property, a party opposing relief from the automatic stay must show that the property is necessary to an effective reorganization and that successful rehabilitation is reasonably probable within a reasonable time.

In Re Paolino · filed 1986-12-31(d)(2)

Sections 362(g)(2) and 362(d)(2) of the Code require that a party opposing a motion for relief from the stay has the burden of showing that the property is necessary to an effective reorganization. This burden is more difficult when, as in this case, there is no equity cushion in the debtors’ property. The opposing party must show not only that the property is necessary to an effective reorganization but there is a reasonable probability of successful rehabilitation within a reasonable time.

Section 362(d)(2)(B) requires a debtor without equity in the property to show a realistic prospect of effective reorganization; merely asserting that the property is needed is insufficient.

In Re North Carver Pine Corp. · filed 1987-01-29(d)(2)(B)

The Court finds that this assertion is insufficient to meet the burden of proof imposed by section 362(g). The Debtor has failed to address the fact that its mainstay, Sharon Box, is in serious financial difficulties of its own and may not be able to underwrite the Debtor to the tune of approximately $56,400 per month much longer. As a consequence, the Court is inclined to view the Debtor’s ability to achieve an effective reorganization as “a mere financial pipe dream.”

Section 362(d)(2)(B) requires evidence that property without equity is necessary to a reasonably possible reorganization; merely asserting that the property is essential and asking for time to propose a plan is insufficient.

In Re 6200 Ridge, Inc. · filed 1987-02-06(d)(2)(B)

In short, the debtor has not come forward with sufficient evidence to demonstrate that its one asset is necessary for reorganization, even under the liberal standard to which it is entitled at this stage of the case. Its mere assertion that the property is essential to the debtor’s reorganization and that it should be given a reasonable opportunity to present a plan is not sufficient to establish the existence of a reasonable prospect of reorganization.

Section 362(d)(2)(B) requires a debtor opposing stay relief to show that the property is necessary for an effective reorganization; a plan to liquidate property with no equity does not make that property necessary.

In Re Paolino · filed 1987-04-24(d)(2)(B)

The trustee’s theory makes sense only if there is equity in the four properties. As discussed above, I have resolved the equity issue against the trustee. Therefore, I must conclude that the properties are not necessary for an effective reorganization.

Section 362(d)(2) requires relief from the automatic stay when the debtor has no equity in the property and cannot effectively reorganize.

Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance v. S Farms One, Inc. (In Re S Farms One, Inc.) · filed 1987-04-30(d)(2)

Since it is clear that the Debtor does not have any equity in the property, and since there cannot be a reorganization under Chapter 12, relief from stay must be granted pursuant to the requirements of 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2).

Section 362(d)(2)(B) permits a Chapter 13 debtor to retain the stay on a home despite lack of equity when a confirmable reorganization plan is realistically achievable.

In Re Crompton · filed 1987-05-07(d)(2)(B)

In the instant case, we have already noted that a confirmable Plan is well within the realistic grasp of the Debtor here to accomplish. On this basis alone, we hold that the Mortgagee is unable to meet the criteria of § 362(d)(2)(B).

A Chapter 13 plan cannot obtain a premature finding that property is essential to the plan for purposes of a later motion for relief from the automatic stay.

In Re Gurst · filed 1987-06-30(d)(2)(B)

This Paragraph appears to be an attempt to have the Court make a premature finding of an element which might be pertinent to a Motion for relief from the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2)(B). The Court cannot and will not do so.

Section 362(d)(2) requires relief from the automatic stay in a Chapter 7 liquidation when the debtor has no equity in the property, because the property is not needed for an effective reorganization.

In Re Roxrun Estates, Inc. · filed 1987-07-01(d)(2)

But Roxrun is not attempting to reorganize, it is voluntarily liquidating. Thus there can be no question that the property is not necessary for an effective reorganization. The courts and commentators agree that in a chapter 7 case, where the debtor has no equity in the property, the automatic stay must be lifted.

Section 362(d)(2)(B) allows relief from the automatic stay when a debtor fails to show that the property is necessary for an effective reorganization; a speculative, infeasible plan does not establish that necessity.

In Re Cormier · filed 1987-07-17(d)(2)(B)

Likewise in this case, the visionary scheme proposed by the Debtors, which changes in direction as each new legal obstacle is presented, does not meet the required test that the property subject to the present action is necessary for an “effective” reorganization.

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

In re Sun Valley Ranches, Inc. · filed 1987-08-05(d)(2)

A creditor may seek relief from the automatic stay provisions of Sec. 362 if there is inadequate protection of its interest in collateral, or, where the collateral is real property, if the debtor has no equity in the property and the property is not necessary to an effective reorganization.

Under § 362(d)(2), property is not necessary to an effective reorganization when no proposed plan can realistically satisfy confirmation requirements.

In Re Anderson Oaks (Phase I) Ltd. Partnership · filed 1987-08-10(d)(2)

In order for there to be an effective reorganization, reorganization itself must be a possibility. Where it appears from the evidence that no proposed plan could realistically surmount the obligations imposed by Section 1129(a), it follows that no effective reorganization is possible.

Section 362(d)(2)(B) requires a debtor seeking to retain the stay on property with no equity to show a reasonable possibility of successful rehabilitation or liquidation within a reasonable time and that the property will contribute to it.

In Re Planned Systems, Inc. · filed 1987-09-14(d)(2)(B)

Accordingly, if the debtor is to meet its burden of proving that the property is necessary for an effective reorganization, it must show the existence of a reasonable possibility that a successful rehabilitation or a successful liquidation can be accomplished within a reasonable period of time and that the property in question will contribute to this effect.