11 U.S.C. § 362

An avoidable lien that leaves a creditor with an unsecured claim does not provide cause for relief from the automatic stay under § 362(d)(1).

General Electric Capital Corp. v. Spring Grove Transport, Inc. (In Re Spring Grove Transport, Inc.) · filed 1996-07-16(d)(1)

Therefore cause does not exist under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) to afford GE Capital rehef from the automatic stay and GE Capital’s motion must be denied.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay when a debtor cannot transfer a terminated cooperative lease and the stay prevents the cooperative from reissuing the related shares.

Bell v. Alden Owners, Inc. · filed 1996-08-01(d)(1)

Bell’s inability to transfer the Lease constituted cause for relief from the automatic stay. In the absence of such relief, Alden would be unable to reissue the Share certificates to a new tenant/shareholder and would thus be deprived of a substantial property interest.

Section 362(d)(1) permits modification of the automatic stay for good cause based on risk of delay and judicial economy.

Piperi v. Gutierrez · filed 1996-09-13(d)(1)

Risk of delay and judicial economy are both sufficient to constitute good cause.

Section 362 permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when debtors have lost all interest in foreclosed property, allowing delivery of the sheriff’s deed.

In Re Ziyambe · filed 1996-09-13(d)(1)

The debtors failed to do so and accordingly they have lost all title, right and interest in that property. The property is not property of the estate, and the .debtors, therefore, may not propose to cure arrearages in their Chapter 13 plan. Accordingly, “cause” exists under § 362 to grant relief from the automatic stay to allow the Essex County Sheriff to deliver the deed to the successful bidder in this case.

Section 362 permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when the debtor’s redemption period has expired and the foreclosed property is no longer part of the estate.

In Re Little · filed 1996-09-13(d)(1)

The debtors failed to do so and accordingly they have lost all title, right and interest in that property. The property is not property of the estate, and the debtors, therefore, may not propose to cure arrearages m their Chapter 13 plan. Accordingly, “cause” exists under § 362 to grant relief from the automatic stay to allow the Morris County Sheriff to deliver the deed to the successful bidder in this case.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when a Chapter 11 debtor cannot cure a balloon mortgage default through a plan and does not timely convert to Chapter 13.

In Re Clay · filed 1996-09-16(d)(1)

For the reasons expressed above, the Court finds that if the debtor does not take the appropriate action, within 10 days of the date of this order, to convert this case to one under Chapter 13, cause exists for granting the Motion for Relief from Stay and such motion will be granted without further notice and order of this Court.

Section 362(d)(1) permits lifting the automatic stay for cause when judicial economy and the advanced stage of another lawsuit favor allowing that suit to proceed.

Crown Heights Jewish Community Council, Inc. v. Fischer (In Re Fischer) · filed 1996-10-10(d)(1)

Upon careful consideration of these factors, the Court concludes that the automatic stay should be lifted to allow the Civil RICO Action to proceed unimpeded by further delay upon the remand of the underlying bankruptcy case. In this regard, the Civil RICO Action has been pending in the Eastern District of New York for more than four years, discovery is nearing its completion, and the Court has devoted substantial resources at both the magistrate-judge and district-judge levels to this case in holding hearings, conducting conferences, and deciding numerous motions. The totality of the circumstances therefore weighs heavily in favor of allowing the Civil RICO Action to proceed unencumbered by a reimposition of the automatic stay.

Section 362(d)(1) permits denial of relief from the automatic stay when the creditor has not filed a bankruptcy claim and its pending suit seeks a constructive trust on estate assets.

Matter of United Imports, Inc. · filed 1996-10-30(d)(1)

Because Time Warner has not yet filed a claim in bankruptcy and, through its lawsuit, is seeking to impose a constructive trust on assets that are currently property of the bankruptcy estate, Time Warner’s motion for relief from the stay to continue the New York litigation must be denied.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause so a claimant may pursue security posted before bankruptcy to cover prepetition obligations.

In Re Hallmark Builders, Inc. · filed 1996-12-19(d)(1)

FDOA has proved a prima facie case that cause exists for the Court to grant relief from the stay. The automatic stay will be lifted in order to permit action against the security posted by the Debtor prepetition to assure the payment of prepetition obligations for which the security was posted.

Section 362(d)(1) does not require relief from the automatic stay merely because a debtor has simultaneous bankruptcy cases when the second case is justified and does not materially hinder estate administration.

Transamerica Credit Corp. v. Bullock (In Re Bullock) · filed 1997-01-13(d)(1)

Thus, if the equities of a case so dictate and if a second filing will not materially hinder the efficient administration of the debtor’s estate, the court may recognize the viability of the second case. ... Having found no breach of either the Supreme Court’s decision in Atkins or the single estate rule, the court holds that no cause exists for granting relief from the stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1).

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause even if the debtor has equity in the property or the property is necessary for reorganization.

United Enterprises, Ltd. v. ACI Sunbow, LLC (In Re ACI Sunbow, LLC) · filed 1997-02-20(d)(1)

Equity and necessity for reorganization are some of the objective elements which have crept into the Little Creek analysis, but application of the elements of § 362(d)(2) cannot spill over completely into a § 362(d)(1) analysis such that if there is equity and/or the property is necessary for reorganization relief from stay for cause under (d)(1) must be denied.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when a debtor files a bankruptcy petition in bad faith.

In Re Wald · filed 1997-03-12(d)(1)

These facts, coupled with their prepetition conduct, their admitted purpose for filing this petition which allows them to evade this Court’s previous order and the fact that this is their third case and they have been given many opportunities to put together a plan to reorganize, lead the court to but one conclusion, that the instant Chapter 12 petition was filed in bad faith which constitutes cause under § 362(d)(1).

Section 362 permits relief from the automatic stay for cause so personal injury tort claims can proceed in state court, while collection of any judgment requires further court leave.

In Re Thomas · filed 1997-04-10(d)(1)

ORDERED, that cause exists to grant the Motions for Relief from the Automatic Stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362 as filed by Grandee R. Hardy, Charles J. Prezioso and Dolores Franci and Cheryl Rymal in order to continue to prosecute their State Court actions against the Debtor. These Movants however may not seek collection or satisfaction of any judgments they may receive without further leave of this Court.

Section 362(d)(1) permits a party in interest to obtain relief from the automatic stay for cause, including to resolve an insurance coverage dispute in a declaratory judgment action.

Peerless Insurance v. Rivera · filed 1997-05-08(d)(1)

Section 362(d)(1) permits a “party in interest” to obtain relief from the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay provision “for cause.” ... Therefore, the order of the Bankruptcy Court is vacated and Peerless’ motion for relief from the stay is granted.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause to allow a state court to confirm an arbitration award and hear related appeals when that course resolves the claim efficiently and with less prejudice.

Montague Pipeline Technologies Corp. v. Grace/Lansing & Grace Industries, Inc. (In Re Montague Pipeline Technologies Cor · filed 1997-05-27(d)(1)

The most efficient, expeditious and least prejudicial means of resolving Grace’s claim is to allow the state court action to continue. Therefore, Grace’s motion for relief from the automatic stay is granted in order to allow the state court action to continue with respect to the confirmation of the arbitration award, including any appeals which may follow therefrom.

Section 362(d)(1) does not provide cause to lift the automatic stay to permit setoff of a tax refund when the debtor is current on payments under a confirmed plan that forecloses another means of payment.

In Re Kirkpatrick · filed 1997-06-05(d)(1)

The debtor appears to be current in her plan payments to the trustee, however, and confirmation has foreclosed any right of the creditor to insist upon another means of payment such as application of the refund (surrender of the collateral). There has been no cause established under the statute, and IRS cannot, therefore, prevail in its motion for relief.

Section 362(d)(1) allows relief from the automatic stay for cause when a pending state appeal is the creditor’s only opportunity to challenge an adverse judgment, based on the circumstances of the case.

In Re: Robert Wilson · filed 1997-06-16(d)(1)

The Bankruptcy Code provides that the bankruptcy court shall grant relief from the automatic stay "for cause." 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). Section 362(d)(1) does not define "cause," leaving courts to consider what constitutes cause based on the totality of the circumstances in each particular case. ... If Baldino is not afforded an opportunity to pursue her appeal in state court, she will have no forum to litigate her cause. Accordingly, we believe it is necessary to lift the stay to permit prosecution of her appeal to the state appellate courts.

Section 362 permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when a postpetition real property transfer meets the requirements of § 549(c).

In Re McDonald · filed 1997-06-17(d)(1)

In conclusion, this Court finds that each element of 11 U.S.C. § 549(c) is present in the instant ease and cause exists to lift the automatic stay in favor of Citibank.

Section 362(d)(1) requires a creditor seeking relief from the automatic stay to show that continuing the stay would affirmatively harm its interest in the collateral.

In Re Brian K. Boodrow, Debtor. Capital Communications Federal Credit Union v. Boodrow · filed 1997-09-12(d)(1)

We agree with both courts below that Capital had the burden of showing that "continuation of the stay [would] cause some affirmative harm" to its interest in the vehicle.

Section 362(d)(1) does not provide cause to lift the automatic stay merely because a debtor who is current on payments retains collateral without redeeming it or reaffirming the debt.

In re Schafer · filed 1997-10-28(d)(1)

Failure to comply with Code § 521 does not, by itself, give rise to any rights against the debtor who is otherwise not in default. ... It is conceded that the Debtors have equity in the vehicle. No cause exists under Code § 362(d)(1) to modify the stay.

Section 362(d)(1) does not make single asset real estate status alone sufficient cause to lift the automatic stay.

In Re Jacksonville Riverfront Development, Ltd. · filed 1997-11-10(d)(1)

Accordingly, when determining whether cause exists to lift the stay or dismiss the case, the mere fact that a case is a single asset real estate case will not be the determining factor in this Court’s analysis.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when the totality of circumstances shows bad faith in the bankruptcy filing.

In Re 234-6 West 22nd St. Corp. · filed 1997-11-14(d)(1)

Looking at the totality of circumstances here, I conclude that Eileen Zuckerman has demonstrated bad faith sufficient to warrant lifting the automatic stay.

Section 362(d)(1) does not allow an unsecured creditor to obtain relief from the automatic stay solely because a prepetition default remains unpaid.

In Re El Paso Refinery, L.P. · filed 1998-04-15(d)(1)

Unsecured creditors cannot obtain relief from stay to pursue their claims against either the estate or the debtor based solely upon the existence of an outstanding pre-petition default which remains unsatisfied.

Section 362(d)(1) does not supply cause to lift the automatic stay on the ground that a Chapter 13 debtor can no longer cure a home mortgage default when the foreclosure sale remains unconfirmed under Illinois law.

In Re Jones · filed 1998-04-24(d)(1)

In the case of the former, the Joneses would no longer possess the ability to cure their default, and, pursuant to Section 362(d)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code, “cause” -would exist for lifting the stay. ... Until then, this Court is compelled to hold that the Joneses may still cure their default, and that cause does therefore not exist to modify the automatic stay on this ground.

Section 362(d)(1) permits modification of the automatic stay for cause so a creditor can liquidate its claim and seek attorneys’ fees and costs in another forum.

Shearer v. Dunkley (In Re Dunkley) · filed 1998-05-21(d)(1)

Cause exists under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) to modify the stay to allow Plaintiff to liquidate her claim against the Defendant and seek her attorneys’ fees and costs from him in the appropriate forum.

Section 362(d)(1) permits modification of the automatic stay to let a state court decide a tenant’s defenses to eviction and whether the lease remains assumable.

In the Matter of Margaret WILLIAMS, Debtor-Appellee, Appeal of CHICAGO HOUSING AUTHORITY · filed 1998-07-16(d)(1)

Thus we finally get back to the “real” issue in this appeal: whether the bankruptcy court abused its discretion by modifying the automatic stay to permit the forcible entry action to proceed so that the state court could determine the merits of Williams’ defenses, and, more to the point, whether the lease had any value that could be assumed under her plan. There is no abuse of discretion here.

Section 362(d) permits a court to lift the automatic stay for cause when the debtor admits filing the bankruptcy petition in bad faith.

Reitnauer v. TX Exotic Feline Fdn · filed 1998-08-18(d)

For purposes of the bankruptcy court’s review, therefore, Reitnauer admitted to having filed her Chapter 7 petition in bad faith. Accordingly, it was not an abuse of discretion for the bankruptcy court to have found cause to lift the automatic stay.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when a debtor files in bad faith to frustrate repossession after a prior stay relief order.

In Re Hyde · filed 1998-08-31(d)(1)

When the bank pursued repossession, Hyde filed his bankruptcy case, thereby improperly using the relief afforded by the Bankruptcy Code to circumvent an Order of the bankruptcy court. Such delaying tactics constitute bad faith and are grounds for relief from stay.

Section 362(d)(1) allows relief from the automatic stay for cause when a debtor files a bankruptcy petition in bad faith to avoid existing litigation.

In Re MacInnis · filed 1998-11-24(d)(1)

However, given Maclnnis’ apparent lack of good faith in filing his petition and the advanced status of the state court litigation, the failure to lift the stay constituted an abuse of discretion.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when a bankruptcy petition is filed in bad faith.

Matter of Lippolis · filed 1998-12-28(d)(1)

I hold that a “good faith” requirement is inherent in any court proceeding, bankruptcy or otherwise, and therefore, relief from the automatic stay is appropriate when a bankruptcy petition is filed in “bad faith.”

Section 362(d)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to lift the automatic stay for cause so a pending state-court action can proceed to judgment while enforcement against the debtor remains stayed.

In Re Bison Resources, Inc. · filed 1999-02-24(d)(1)

Cause exists for the lifting of the automatic stay in order to allow the State Court Action to proceed to trial against all parties, including Bison. The Court grants relief from the automatic stay to allow the State Court Action to proceed to judgment. Movants may not, however, take any steps to enforce said judgment against Bison.

Section 362(d)(1) allows relief from the automatic stay for cause to let a former spouse seek a QDRO in state court.

Lowenschuss v. Selnick · filed 1999-03-17(d)(1)

The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion because Selnick showed more than adequate cause for relief from the automatic stay in her motion to petition the Pennsylvania courts for a QDRO.

Section 362(d)(1) gives the court discretion to lift the automatic stay for cause; the hardship of defending a new out-of-state action can outweigh a creditor’s preference to sue all potentially liable parties together.

United States v. Cook (In Re Cook) · filed 1999-03-25(d)(1)

Section 362(d)(1) authorizes the court to grant relief from stay of a judicial proceeding for “cause” with the decision of whether to modify the stay committed to the discretion of the court. ... The court concludes, after balancing the relevant considerations, that the hardship inflicted on the debtor to defend in another state, in an action not yet commenced, the issue of his liability or nonliability to the movant outweighs the movant’s understandable desire to litigate in one forum with all potentially liable parties.

Section 362(d)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to deny relief from the automatic stay for civil contempt proceedings concerning a debtor’s ability to pay prior judgments.

In Re Leonard · filed 1999-04-06(d)(1)

Insofar as the premise of any contempt proceedings ongoing as of the bankruptcy filing clearly involved the debtor’s ability to pay the prior judgments ... entered against her, we believe the bankruptcy court properly exercised its discretion in refusing to lift the automatic stay in this case.

Section 362(d)(1) allows relief from the automatic stay for cause when a debtor cannot cure a mortgage default through a Chapter 13 plan.

In Re Crawford · filed 1999-04-12(d)(1)

Section 362(d)(1) provides for relief from stay “for cause.” 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). The Debtor opposes relief based solely on her ability to cure the Bank mortgage arrearage in her Chapter 13 plan. Because the Debtor does not have the right to cure her default under her plan, cause exists to lift the stay.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause so judgment creditors can pursue state court remedies when debtors refuse to turn over assets owed under an escrow agreement.

In Re Shar · filed 1999-04-12(d)(1)

In the alternative, relief from the automatic stay in favor of the Judgment Creditors for “cause” pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d) is certainly appropriate here. The Escrow Agreement is not an executory contract that the Debtors may reject. The Debtors are obligated to perform and turnover the assets in the Escrow Agreement to the Judgment Creditors and the Debtors have refused to do so. The Judgment Creditors should be allowed to pursue state court remedies against the Debtors.

Section 362(d)(1) permits denial of stay relief to litigate in another forum when delay would prejudice creditors and the stay imposes no harm on the movant.

In Re Schick · filed 1999-04-26(d)(1)

The dispute is connected to the bankruptcy case, and any delay will interfere with the case, (Factor # 2), and prejudice the interests of the other creditors (Factor # 7). ... In short, the impact of the stay on the Claimants is nil, and the balance of harms weighs decidedly in the trustee’s favor.

Section 362(d)(1) permits denial of relief from the automatic stay when a debtor’s nonpayment stems from a good faith dispute and can readily be cured.

In Re Consolidated Industries Corp. · filed 1999-04-29(d)(1)

In this case, relief from the automatic stay is not warranted at the present time. Since the case was filed, the debtor has dutifully made all of the monthly rental payments due its landlords. Its failure to pay the real estate taxes in question was based upon a good faith argument that it was not required to do so. More importantly, the cause of the landlords’ complaint is a situation that can easily be rectified. Under these circumstances, granting them relief from the automatic stay, so that they may proceed to evict the debtor from its corporate offices and manufacturing facilities, would be a too harsh a consequence for the debtor’s decision to litigate a legitimate dispute over its obligations under § 365(d)(3).

Section 362(d)(1) provides no cause to lift the automatic stay merely because a creditor’s claim was reduced under the Bankruptcy Code and the debtor is current on the modified payment obligation.

In Re NextWave Personal Communications, Inc. · filed 1999-06-16(d)(1)

The modification of the FCC’s rights as a creditor in accordance with the Bankruptcy Code does not constitute a default by NPCI, and NPCI is not in default in respect of its modified payment obligations. Accordingly, there is no “cause” to lift the automatic stay under Section 362(d)(1), and the FCC’s motion must be denied.

Section 362(d)(1) does not provide cause to lift the stay for a federal agency seeking creditor remedies when the debtor is current on its reduced obligation.

NextWave Personal Communications, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission (In Re NextWave Personal Communications, Inc · filed 1999-07-27(d)(1)

The FCC fails to present cause for a lift of the automatic stay. As this Court has stated previously, he FCC regulations on automatic revocation and pursuit of debt collection are not part of the auction process; they are the FCC’s rules governing its status as a creditor of licensees. Congress did not exempt the FCC from the Bankruptcy Code or grant the FCC the power to determine debtor-creditor relations. As such, the FCC is to be treated in this context as any other creditor. At present, NextWave’s obligation has been reduced and it is not in default on the reduced obligation.

Section 362(d)(1) permits annulment of the automatic stay for cause when a debtor files in bad faith to block foreclosure.

In Re Syed · filed 1999-08-16(d)(1)

The stay was also annulled because it was found that Debtor transferred title to her property literally on the eve of her bankruptcy filing and had filed her bankruptcy in bad faith, Conclusions ¶ 13, thus providing “cause” under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1).

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause to pursue state-court enforcement of a nondischargeable covenant not to compete when the debtor offers no rebuttal.

In Re Reppond · filed 1999-08-19(d)(1)

Based upon the nondischargeability of this covenant the movants request relief from stay in order to pursue their state court remedies to enforce it. Inasmuch as cause has been shown, 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1), and there being no evidence in rebuttal to this showing, the relief from stay is merited.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause, with the court balancing prejudice to the debtor, estate, and creditors against hardship to a party seeking to continue state court litigation.

Blan v. Nachogdoches County Hospital (In Re Blan) · filed 1999-08-30(d)(1)

In making the determination of whether to grant relief from the stay, the court must balance the potential prejudice to the Debtor to the bankruptcy estate, and to the other creditors against the hardship to the moving party if it is not allowed to proceed in state court.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause to allow a creditor to administer and distribute a reserve held in trust for claimants.

In Re Doctors Health, Inc. · filed 1999-08-31(d)(1)

The court thus concludes that cause exists under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) to allow United to process the external provider claims and to pay them from the reserve.

Section 362(d)(1) requires a party seeking relief from the automatic stay to make a prima facie showing of cause, and litigation may remain stayed when resolving the claim elsewhere would interfere with the bankruptcy case and prejudice interested parties.

In Re Paxson Electric Co. · filed 1999-09-03(d)(1)

The Court finds that the totality of the circumstances do not support lifting the stay to allow Lee to liquidate his claim in state court. The underlying dispute is directly tied to the bankruptcy case and lifting the stay will interfere with the pending bankruptcy case. Lee fails to set forth prima facie evidence of “cause”. However, even if “cause” existed, allowing state court resolution of the underlying dispute would substantially prejudice the debtor and other interested parties.

Section 362(d)(1) permits denial of relief from the automatic stay when continued divorce litigation would impose needless costs that impair a debtor’s ability to complete a Chapter 13 plan.

In Re Allen · filed 1999-12-03(d)(1)

Judicial economy and needless litigation expense simply dictates that Debtor must be free to bring his life into financial focus and satisfy his creditors through his Chapter 13 Plan. That overriding consideration demands the motion for relief of the automatic stay to rehash all the marital estate issues on appeal after they have been extensively tried and decided in the family trial court must be denied.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when the debtor does not intend to reorganize and continued protection of the stay risks harm to a secured creditor’s collateral.

Tirey Distributing Co. v. Sloan (In Re Tirey Distributing Co.) · filed 1999-12-29(d)(1)

In this case, the Debtor does not intend to reorganize. If the rescission was successful, the Debtor testified he intended to file a liquidating plan to pay claims with monies which resulted from the rescission of the contract. As of the date of the hearing, the Debtor was not operating the business. It was unclear whether the Debtor intended to care for the plants during this interim period. However, the inventory needs attention especially during the winter season. Sloan would clearly be harmed if the plants died since he is the largest creditor. No other creditor objected to Sloan’s Motion for Relief from Stay. As result, the Court finds “cause” exists to grant Sloan’s relief from the automatic stay.

Section 362 permits relief from the automatic stay for good cause based on contractual obligations, the debtor’s lack of equity in the funds, and judicial economy, without definitively resolving a disputed state-law obligation.

Doctors' Health, Inc. v. United Healthcare of Mid-Atlantic (In Re Doctors' Health, Inc.) · filed 1999-12-29(d)(1)

The bottom line is that the Bankruptcy Court, in order not to have abused its discretion, need not have definitively resolved the disputed issue, as there was plenty of good cause, including the contractual obligation and the fact that the debtor had virtually no equity claim to the reserve funds and the interests of judicial economy, supporting the lifting of the stay.

Section 362(d)(1) permits stay relief for cause to let a landlord pursue eviction after a lease is rejected when the eviction will not affect the bankruptcy case.

In Re Henderson · filed 2000-02-17(d)(1)

Section 362(d)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code permits a court to modify the stay for “cause,” a phrase the Code does not define. ... The present motion presents a paradigm for stay relief; the lease has already been rejected, and the trustee has determined that there are no assets to administer for the benefit of the creditors. As a result, the landlord’s desire to commence or continue eviction proceedings will not have any impact on the bankruptcy case.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when a prepetition foreclosure sale leaves the debtor with no legal or equitable interest in the property.

In Re Watts · filed 2000-10-27(d)(1)

Furthermore, because the property in question does not constitute property of the bankruptcy estate pursuant to § 541, the Court finds that relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d) is warranted in this case. In fact, Debtor’s lack of equitable and legal interest in the subject property and the fact that a foreclosure sale has already taken place in this case constitute sufficient cause to grant Creditor’s Motion.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when a bankruptcy filing is made in bad faith or to circumvent an earlier bankruptcy court order.

In Re Eclair Bakery Ltd. · filed 2000-11-09(d)(1)

The Court believes, and holds, that (a) bad faith filing; and (b) a calculated effort to circumvent the earlier order of a federal bankruptcy judge (which had previously attempted to respond to efforts to invoke the stay) each separately provide “cause” for relief from the stay.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when a debtor repeatedly files bankruptcy petitions in bad faith and fails to comply with the Bankruptcy Code and Rules.

Sterling Bank & Trust v. Merchant (In Re Merchant) · filed 2000-12-28(d)(1)

A bad faith filing may constitute cause for relief from the automatic stay. ... Merchant and Schifino have failed to abide by the Code and the Rules in their numerous strategically filed cases since 1996. They continue to flout the Code and the Rules in the present cases. Accordingly, Sterling, Continental and Kozlowski have been granted relief from the automatic stay by separate Orders.

Section 362(d)(1) requires cause to lift the automatic stay, and a creditor shows insufficient cause when continuing a discharged lawsuit would prejudice an indigent debtor without causing the creditor hardship.

In Re Aloisi · filed 2001-02-12(d)(1)

The Debtor simply has no money to defend the District Court Action, and it would be unjust and unfair to a debtor seeking a fresh start to return to litigating a claim that is already discharged. The Movant has failed to demonstrate sufficient cause to modify the automatic stay. The Motion for Relief from Stay is denied.

Section 362(d)(1) permits lifting the stay to liquidate a personal injury claim in state court when the bankruptcy court cannot try it and the claimant otherwise has no forum; collection on the claim remains in bankruptcy court.

In Re Fowler · filed 2001-03-05(d)(1)

This matter cannot go forward in bankruptcy court and if the creditor is not granted relief from the stay, he is left with no remedy in any court. That simply does not comport with due process. Creditor’s evidence as to all the traditional tests as to whether or not relief from the stay should be granted was seriously lacking. However, the evidence is clear that the Creditor does have a claim against Debtor and fairness requires that the stay be lifted to allow the claim to be liquidated in state court. Any collection on that claim after liquidation will have to be pursued in this Court as a claim in Debtor’s bankruptcy.

Section 362(d)(1) requires a court deciding whether cause exists to lift the automatic stay to balance the creditor’s hardship against prejudice to the debtor, estate, and estate creditors.

In Re Chari · filed 2001-03-29(d)(1)

The analysis involves a balancing of the harms to determine whether the potential hardship to the creditor if required to remain in bankruptcy court outweighs the potential prejudice to the debtor, the estate or estate creditors should the claims be litigated in another forum.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when a debtor makes or offers no adequate protection payments.

In Re Kaplan Breslaw Ash, LLC · filed 2001-06-20(d)(1)

In the absence of adequate protection payments, the Court concludes that cause for relief from the stay has been shown.

Section 362(d)(1) does not provide cause to lift the automatic stay for a contempt proceeding aimed at collecting a prepetition payment obligation.

In Re Lincoln · filed 2001-07-02(d)(1)

Similarly, in this case, Movant has not shown “cause” for granting relief from the automatic stay to pursue a contempt proceeding for the debtor’s failure to pay $9,543.00.

Under § 362(d)(1), the ordinary reduction of other creditors’ recoveries from payment of an allowed claim is not legal prejudice that defeats cause to lift the stay for litigation in another forum.

In Re New York Medical Group, P.C. · filed 2001-08-09(d)(1)

The “dilution” argument fails for a more basic reason: it rests on the flawed premise that the payment of large allowed claims constitutes legal prejudice.

In a Chapter 7 no-asset case, a trustee’s failure to object to a creditor’s stay motion constitutes cause for relief from the automatic stay.

In Re Davenport · filed 2001-09-04(d)(1)

In summary, in a Chapter 7 no-asset case, when the Trustee does not object to the stay motion, “cause” exists under § 362(d)(1) for granting relief from the stay.

Section 362(d)(1) permits modification of the automatic stay for cause to let a claimant pursue relief before a state licensing agency and, if necessary, in state court.

White v. Weatherford (In Re Abrass) · filed 2001-09-28(d)(1)

White has amply demonstrated sufficient cause to justify modification of the automatic stay to allow White to pursue a claim against the Debtor before the FREC and, to the extent necessary, in the Florida state courts.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause on grounds beyond those specifically listed in the statute.

In Re AMC Realty Corp. · filed 2001-10-23(d)(1)

While each of Code sections 1112(b) and 362(d)(1) states that the authority it provides — dismissal or relief from stay, respectively — may be granted for “cause,” and lists one or more examples of cause, each precedes the list with the word “includes,” and none of those lists is exhaustive.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause, with the relevant factors depending on the circumstances; the stay remains in place when the movant fails to show cause.

Ochs v. Simon (In Re First Central Financial Corp.) · filed 2001-11-06(d)(1)

Because the Superintendent has not shown cause for relief from the automatic stay, the motion to lift the automatic stay is denied.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause to let pending state court litigation proceed when doing so promotes judicial economy and the bankruptcy estate remains protected by requiring enforcement of any judgment in bankruptcy court.

Ewald v. National City Mortgage Co. (In Re Ewald) · filed 2002-01-02(d)(1)

Modifying the stay promotes judicial economy and will not interfere with debtor’s bankruptcy case as the state court is familiar with the facts and circumstances of the claims asserted as they have been pending there for almost three years. The conclusion of the state court litigation will assist with the administration of debt- or’s bankruptcy case as the amount of any claim by debtor against NCMC, the validity and priority of NCMC’s deed of trust, and the amount of NCMC’s claims asserted in its cross-bill against debtor will be certain. The bankruptcy estate will be protected as NCMC must seek enforcement of any judgment through this court. NCMC has established the necessary elements to obtain relief from stay based on the test laid out in In re Robbins. Therefore, this court finds cause to grant relief from the automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1).

Section 362(d)(1) makes cause to modify the automatic stay to permit a lawsuit depend on the facts of the particular case.

In Re Comdisco, Inc. · filed 2002-01-03(d)(1)

It is also obvious from Congress’s use of the undefined word “cause” that whether the stay should be modified to permit a lawsuit to proceed depends on the facts of the specific case.

Abstention in favor of a state court trial may provide cause to lift the automatic stay under § 362(d)(1).

In Re Pacific Gas & Electric Co. · filed 2002-01-08(d)(1)

Under Tucson Estates cause exists for lifting the stay.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when an enforceable state court divorce order supports allowing the creditor to pursue the divorce action.

Hough v. Hough · filed 2002-01-08(d)(1)

The bankruptcy court had a basis upon which to find sufficient “cause” for lifting the automatic stay. We therefore conclude, after reviewing the record summarized above, that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in this case.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when the debtor cannot assume the contracts and raises no separate objection to lifting the stay.

In Re Whiteprize, LLC · filed 2002-01-09(d)(1)

Since these Contracts may not assumed, and the Debtor has filed no separate objection to vacatur of the stay if the Contracts are nonassumable, the Court will also grant the Creditors’ separate Motion to Vacate the Stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) for cause.

Section 362(d)(1) permits modification of the automatic stay for cause when redemption rights have expired and the bankruptcy estate has no interest in the property.

In Re Murray · filed 2002-03-25(d)(1)

When the extended redemption period expired, the redemption rights of the Debtor were extinguished, the estate had no interest in the Property, and cause exists for the automatic stay to be modified under § 362(d)(1).

Section 362(d)(1) permits lifting the automatic stay for cause to allow a pending state-court suit to proceed when the state court has issued an injunction and the debtors admit they have no interest in the property at issue.

Mooney v. Gill · filed 2002-03-26(d)(1)

The bankruptcy judge apparently decided that “cause” existed due to the fact that a lawsuit was already underway regarding these issues, the court hearing that lawsuit had already determined that the Mooneys’ actions warranted an injunction being issued against them, and the Mooneys admitted that they did not have an interest in the property at issue. ... Based on the entire record, the Court concludes that the bankruptcy judge’s decision to lift the automatic stay was not an abuse of discretion.

Section 362(d)(1) does not require relief from the stay for lack of adequate protection when the debtor is current on payments, the collateral is insured, and the creditor shows no real harm or risk of financial loss.

Tidewater Finance Co. v. Cooper (In Re Cooper) · filed 2002-04-16(d)(1)

Tidewater has failed to demonstrate any real harm or risk of financial loss resulting from continuation of the stay. Debtors are current in their monthly payments and have adequate insurance on the vehicle. Thus, allowing debtors to remain in possession of the vehicle in exchange for payment of the monthly installments places the parties in the same positions as they were in prior to debtors’ filing.

Section 362(d)(1) permits a court to lift the automatic stay for cause beyond lack of adequate protection, determined case by case, including to allow litigation in another forum.

Carbaugh v. Carbaugh (In Re Carbaugh) · filed 2002-05-01(d)(1)

The Debtor misreads § 362(d)(1). His reading eliminates “cause” as a separate discretionary basis on which the bankruptcy court may lift the stay. While cause under § 362(d)(1) includes “the lack of adequate protection” of an interested party in property, it is not so limited. 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). Because “cause” is not further defined in the Bankruptcy Code, relief from stay for cause is a discretionary determination made on a case by case basis.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause, but uncertainty about whether litigation elsewhere would help resolve the bankruptcy dispute can make lifting the stay an abuse of discretion.

Schneiderman v. Bogdanovich · filed 2002-05-15(d)(1)

Too much uncertainty exists over the evidence at trial to determine whether lifting the stay would result in a partial or complete resolution of the issues in the adversary proceeding. ... For the foregoing reasons, we conclude the bankruptcy court abused its discretion in lifting the automatic stay.

When deciding whether cause warrants lifting the automatic stay for litigation elsewhere, courts consider whether that litigation will resolve bankruptcy issues and serve judicial economy; substantial uncertainty about its usefulness can defeat relief.

Schneiderman v. Bogdanovich (In re Bogdanovich) · filed 2002-05-15(d)(1)

Without any clear articulation as to how a decision by the California courts would assist the federal courts in deciding whether to apply collateral estoppel, the key factors set out in Sonnax cannot be weighed properly. Too much uncertainty exists over the evidence at trial to determine whether lifting the stay would result in a partial or complete resolution of the issues in the adversary proceeding. A strong probability exists therefore that an appeal in the California courts would be of little or no help in the adversary proceeding, and would result only in a waste of California's judicial resources, if the issues will need to be litigated before the bankruptcy court.

Section 362(d)(1) allows a court to lift the automatic stay for cause on limited terms so litigation can proceed in another court.

In Re Deep · filed 2002-06-18(d)(1)

This court concludes the Movants have shown cause for a lifting of the automatic stay to allow them to pursue their request for a preliminary injunction from the MDL Court, provided the MDL Court can decide the request without any evidentiary hearings.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when denying directors access to insurance proceeds for defense costs may cause substantial and irreparable harm.

In Re CyberMedica, Inc. · filed 2002-07-02(d)(1)

This Court further finds that there is cause to lift the automatic stay because Dr. Hotchkiss and Mr. Vilar may suffer substantial and irreparable harm if prevented from exercising their rights to defense payments.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause to allow pretrial proceedings and trial of a personal injury tort claim in another court when the bankruptcy court cannot try the claim and the relevant litigation factors favor relief.

Stranz v. Ice Cream Liquidation, Inc. (In Re Ice Cream Liquidation, Inc.) · filed 2002-07-31(d)(1)

For the reasons that follow, the court concludes that relief from stay is ... appropriate to permit both pre-trial proceedings and trial in respect of the Sexual Harassment Successor Liability Claim to go forward in the New York District Court (subject to the Debtor’s right to seek transfer pursuant to a motion (a “Section 157(b)(5) Motion”) under Section 157(b)(5)).

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when a bankruptcy petition was filed in bad faith.

In Re Foster · filed 2002-09-04(d)(1)

A lack of good faith in the filing of a bankruptcy petition constitutes “cause” for relief from the automatic stay within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1).

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause to allow a malpractice claim to proceed in state court when the relevant factors support that relief.

In Re Godt · filed 2002-09-10(d)(1)

As discussed in more detail below, the Court finds that the Bankruptcy Court did not abuse its discretion when it lifted the automatic stay allowing the appellees to proceed with their claim for malpractice against the appellants in state court.

Section 362(d)(1) allows relief from the automatic stay for cause after balancing prejudice to the debtor, estate, and other creditors against hardship to the movant.

Bergman v. Wintroub (In Re Wintroub) · filed 2002-10-04(d)(1)

The court must balance the potential prejudice to the debtor, the bankruptcy estate, and the other creditors associated with a proceeding in another forum against the hardship to the movant if it is not allowed to proceed in the other forum.

A bankruptcy petition signed for an artificial entity by a nonlawyer does not establish cause for relief from the automatic stay when counsel appears and cures the defect.

Orsini v. Interiors of Yesterday, LLC (In Re Interiors of Yesterday, LLC) · filed 2002-10-11(d)(1)

Accordingly, for all of the foregoing reasons and based upon the existing record in this case, the court is not persuaded that the pro se filing of the Petition constitutes “cause” to dismiss this case under Section 707(a) and is persuaded that “cause” does not exist to grant the Lift Stay Motion.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause to allow litigation to proceed in state court under appropriate circumstances.

Loudon v. Amogio Foods, Inc. (In Re Loudon) · filed 2002-10-16(d)(1)

Although the Bankruptcy Code does not define cause, it is clear that cause includes such relief to allow the litigation involving Loudon to proceed in state court under appropriate circumstances.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause to allow litigation involving the debtor to proceed in state court under appropriate circumstances.

Louden v. Amogio Foods, Inc. · filed 2002-10-16(d)(1)

Although the Bankruptcy Code does not define cause, it is clear that cause includes such relief to allow the litigation involving Loudon to proceed in state court under appropriate circumstances.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when a debtor fails to make post-petition payments on a secured claim.

In Re Watson · filed 2002-10-30(d)(1)

The debtor’s failure to make post-petition payments is sufficient cause to justify granting relief from the automatic stay.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when a debtor cannot assume or otherwise treat an executory contract in its Chapter 11 plan.

In Re Hernandez · filed 2002-12-23(d)(1)

In their Motion for Relief form the Automatic Stay, the Objectors contend that cause exists as a matter of law to lift the automatic stay in regards to the Agreement under § 362(d)(1). The court agrees. In this case, the court has already determined that the Debtors cannot assume the Agreement, or otherwise treat it in their Plan. Therefore, cause exists to lift the automatic stay and allow the Objectors to enforce whatever rights they may have under applicable non-bankruptcy law.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause so a state court can decide ownership of disputed property under state law.

In Re Medical Care Management Co. · filed 2003-01-02(d)(1)

Thus, in certain circumstances, “cause” for lifting the automatic stay exists under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d) to allow state courts to adjudicate property rights under state law.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when adequate protection payments have not been made to a secured creditor.

Bank of New York v. Epic Resorts—Palm Springs Marquis Villas, LLC (In Re Epic Capital Corp.) · filed 2003-02-27(d)(1)

We conclude that the lack of adequate protection payments may constitute “cause” for relief from the automatic stay.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause to enforce a prior judgment when doing so will not appreciably hamper reorganization or harm other creditors.

In Re Indian River Estates, Inc. · filed 2003-03-17(d)(1)

Based therefore upon these findings, it is the conclusion of this Court that relieving the stay of § 362(a) will neither appreciably hamper any proposed plan of reorganization put forth by the DIP, nor will lifting the stay be detrimental to other creditors in this case. Accordingly, the Court concludes that “cause” exists in this case to relieve the automatic stay so as to allow the specific performance order issued by Judge Katz to continue.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when the circumstances, including missed post-petition payments and lack of evidence of a feasible Chapter 13 plan, warrant it.

In Re Brown · filed 2003-03-21(d)(1)

No evidence was presented to the Court to explain her unsatisfactory post-petition payment history, and no evidence was presented regarding her present ability to feasibly perform under a chapter 13 plan. Accordingly, the Court will lift the automatic stay for cause.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause, including lack of adequate protection; relief is unwarranted when no cause is shown and the creditor’s interest is adequately protected.

In Re Walden Ridge Development, LLC · filed 2003-04-28(d)(1)

Section 362(d)(1) provides for relief from the stay for cause, including lack of adequate protection of an interest in property. Here, the Court has determined that cause, or more appropriately Debtor’s lack of good faith in filing the petition, has not been demonstrated or evidenced by the facts in the instant matter. In addition, the appraisal of the Property showing a fair market value in excess of $8,000,000, which is not contested by Rizzo, evidences substantial adequate protection of Rizzo’s interest in the Property. Accordingly, relief is not appropriate under § 362(d)(1) and is denied.

Section 362(d)(1) permits modification of the automatic stay for cause, determined from the particular facts when a party seeks to litigate in another forum.

In Re Grogg · filed 2003-06-04(d)(1)

HARTFORD’S motion is brought pursuant to Section 362(d)(1), which permits the court to modify the stay “for cause.” The Bankruptcy Code does not define the term “for cause” and the determination whether to lift the stay to permit a party to commence or continue litigation in another forum depends upon the particular facts underlying the case. ... Under all of the circumstances, the Court finds that HARTFORD has failed to demonstrate cause for modification of the automatic stay.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause, which is not limited to lack of adequate protection.

Busch v. Busch (In Re Busch) · filed 2003-06-06(d)(1)

Under § 362(d)(1) stay relief may be granted for cause. While cause under § 362(d)(1) includes “the lack of adequate protection of an interest in property,” it is not so limited.

Section 362(d)(1) requires a landlord to show cause for relief from the automatic stay; a pending motion to assume and assign an existing lease for substantial value to the estate weighs against relief.

In Re T.A.C. Group, Inc. · filed 2003-06-12(d)(1)

The Landlord has not demonstrated cause for relief from stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1), especially where the Debtor has filed a motion to assume and assign the Lease to a third party purchaser for substantial consideration to be paid to the estate.

A debtor’s bad-faith filing in violation of a prior dismissal order constitutes cause to lift the automatic stay.

In Re Cody · filed 2003-08-26(d)(1)

The Court finds that the filing of the case was a clear violation of the Order of Dismissal and was in bad faith. The Court will grant SouthTrust relief from the automatic stay for cause.

Section 362(d)(1) requires a creditor seeking relief from the automatic stay for cause to show that the balance of hardships warrants relief; a substantial equity cushion can protect the creditor’s interest while lifting the stay would greatly harm the debtor.

In Re Rouse · filed 2003-09-24(d)(1)

The Court finds that the Bank is not harmed by the continuation of the automatic stay. ... That equity cushion means that the Bank’s interest in Debtors’ property is well protected. ... Conversely, the Debtors would be greatly harmed by the lifting of the stay. ... After balancing the equities in this case, the Court must find that the Bank has not met its burden to demonstrate that cause exists to justify lifting the stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1).

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when a debtor uses reorganization to protect insiders rather than repay creditors.

In Re Communication Options, Inc. · filed 2003-09-26(d)(1)

The Court finds that Duckworth has demonstrated a right to relief from stay for cause pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). Specifically, evidence presented to the Court over the course of a protracted hearing, showed that this debt- or is using the bankruptcy reorganization remedy, not to try to repay its creditors, but to protect the prerogatives of its insiders.

Relief from the automatic stay for cause under § 362(d)(1) based on an alleged bad-faith bankruptcy filing requires sufficient evidence of bad faith.

Silver Sage Partners, Ltd. v. City of Desert Hot Springs · filed 2003-11-12(d)(1)

Silver Sage’s best argument is that the “for cause” exception to the stay set forth in 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) applies because the City of Desert Hot Springs (“City”) filed for bankruptcy in bad faith and/or failed to meet the prerequisites for filing. Silver Sage loses the argument, however, because it has introduced insufficient evidence of bad faith. That City officials may have misunderstood Chapter 9 bankruptcy proceedings or have been overly optimistic about their result does not show that they consciously desired to evade the law.

Section 362(d)(1) permits a court to lift the automatic stay for cause so litigation against the debtor can continue in state court.

Maintainco, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Caterpillar Forklift America, Inc. (In Re Mid-Atlantic Handling Systems, LLC) · filed 2003-11-21(d)(1)

Therefore, pursuant to § 362(d)(1), this Court will lift the automatic stay for cause with respect to Mid-Atlantic and permit Maintainco to continue prosecuting its civil case against MCFA and Mid-Atlantic in the Superior Court of New Jersey.

Section 362(d)(1) permits modification of the automatic stay for cause when a secured creditor makes a prima facie showing and the debtor does not rebut it, including where the debtor makes no adequate protection payments and has no reorganization plan pending.

In Re Milstein · filed 2004-01-15(d)(1)

No adequate protection payments have been made during the course of the case, and the Debtor’s exclusivity right has expired by agreement. ... Regrettably, but clearly, this unrebutted record establishes cause for modification of the automatic stay.

Failure to make postpetition mortgage payments establishes cause for stay relief, and a debtor opposing relief must do more than invoke a pending challenge to the secured claim.

Wile v. Household Bank (In Re Wile) · filed 2004-05-04(d)(1)

Fairbanks met its burden of establishing “cause” for relief by proving that it had not been paid since the bankruptcy case • was filed. 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). The burden then shifted to the Debtor to prove something more than that she had challenged Fairbank’s secured claim. While a stay relief hearing is a summary matter and will not determine the claim issue finally, it is nonetheless within the court’s discretion to require the party opposing relief to prove that it has a “colorable claim” pending.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when, after a confirmed foreclosure sale, the debtor retains only a bare possessory interest in the property.

In Re Carter · filed 2004-05-04(d)(1)

Because the debtor no longer has an interest in the property located at 856 North Trumbull other than a bare possessory interest, Cronus’s motion for relief from the automatic stay is GRANTED for “cause.”

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief for cause to liquidate a claim solely for recovery from a contractors’ guaranty fund when the creditor’s prejudice and hardship outweigh the debtor’s and the creditor is likely to prevail.

In Re Haines · filed 2004-05-18(d)(1)

The Court finds that weighing the prejudice to Claes and the Debtor, Claes has established that there would be far greater prejudice to her than to the Debtor. Because there is little likelihood of any dividend to creditors of this estate, Claes’s only hope of recovery, one not available to the Debtor’s other creditors, is to attempt to obtain monies up to $10,000 from the Guaranty Fund. ... In this regard, the Court also finds that Claes also has established a greater hardship to herself than to the Debtor. While the Debtor can elect to default in any state court action as Claes’s claim has been discharged and she can not attempt to collect any judgment against him, Claes’s can only recover from the Guaranty Fund. The hardship to her if she is precluded from that option outweighs any hardship to the Debtor. ... Finally, the Court must find that Claes has a probability of prevailing on the merits. The Court so finds.

Section 362(d)(1) permits denial of stay relief to pursue a new contempt action where the litigation would prejudice other creditors and jeopardize the debtor’s reorganization.

Truebro, Inc. v. Plumberex Specialty Products, Inc. (In Re Plumberex Specialty Products, Inc.) · filed 2004-06-07(d)(1)

Not only do the interests of judicial economy support a denial of relief from the stay, but the cost of protracted litigation of a separate proceeding in a non-bankruptcy forum would prejudice the interests of other creditors of the estate. ... Protracted litigation with Truebro in the federal district court in Massachusetts, coupled with the pending appeal between the parties, would interfere with Plumberex’s efforts to reorganize and necessarily harm Plumberex’s chances to confirm a plan in this case. ... For the foregoing reasons, the court concludes that Truebro has failed to sustain its burden to establish “cause” for relief from the stay under § 362(d)(1).

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief for cause to pursue a quiet-title action perfecting a lost, unrecorded mortgage when interested parties receive adequate notice, do not object, and apparently accept that the mortgage should have been recorded.

In Re Brown · filed 2004-06-30(d)(1)

Moreover, in considering the policies reflected in the bankruptcy code, the interests of the debt- or, other creditors and any other interested parties such as the debtor’s ex-husband and co-tenant here, we find that as all of them apparently accept that the mortgage should have been recorded, sufficient cause exists to justify granting the movant relief from the automatic stay.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when Chapter 7 debtors seeking to retain collateral fail to specify redemption or reaffirmation in their statements of intention under § 521(2)(A).

In Re Chubb · filed 2004-09-09(d)(1)

Based on all of the foregoing, this court concludes that the Chubbs and Davises have not properly complied with § 521(2)(A) since their statements of intention did not indicate if they would be redeeming or reaffirming the properties which are collateral for the debts to Eastman Credit Union. Accordingly, Eastman Credit Union is entitled to relief from the automatic stay.

Bad faith is a factor in deciding whether cause warrants relief from the automatic stay, but does not necessarily outweigh the balance of hardships favoring continuation of the stay.

Fairville Co. v. Ramkaran (In Re Ramkaran) · filed 2004-10-07(d)(1)

Ultimately, bad faith is one component of, but not necessarily dispositive of, the balancing test.

A Chapter 11 filing made in bad faith to manipulate the bankruptcy process and delay and harass creditors supplies cause under Section 362(d)(1) to annul and terminate the automatic stay.

In Re Kile · filed 2004-11-08(d)(1)

Raised by one of more of the defending parties in their Answers, it is apparent that the instant Chapter 11 case is a bad faith filing, designed only to manipulate the bankruptcy process and delay and harass creditors. Accordingly, the court' finds that cause exists to annul, terminate, and dissolve any and all stays in this case that arguably relate or may relate to any interest that the Debtor holds, or asserts that he holds, in the Solana Beach property. 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) (cause to grant stay relief).

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when a prepetition foreclosure sale and recorded deed have extinguished the debtor’s legal and equitable interests in the property.

JP Morgan Chase Bank v. Rocco (In Re Rocco) · filed 2005-01-06(d)(1)

Having determined that the Debtors have neither legal nor equitable interest in the premises, the Court need go no further. Cause under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) exists to grant JP Morgan’s motion.

Relief from the automatic stay for cause may be denied when tax liability can be fully resolved in bankruptcy court and state proceedings would unnecessarily compromise estate assets.

Pursue Energy Corp. v. Mississippi State Tax Commission · filed 2005-03-31(d)(1)

The Bankruptcy Court found that the tax issues could be decided fully in either federal or state court, concluding that the first factor weighed against lifting the stay. Under factor 12, the bankruptcy Court concluded that allowing the state courts to determine the tax issues would compromise unnecessarily the assets of the bankruptcy estate. Finding that it already had addressed factors 2, 4, 7, 10 and 11 in its consideration of abstention, and finding that factors such as 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9 did not apply to this case, the Bankruptcy Court concluded that the automatic stay should not be lifted to permit the Mississippi States Tax Commission to proceed. This court agrees.

A creditor’s failure to file a timely formal or informal proof of claim, without excusable neglect, leaves no cause to lift the automatic stay under section 362(d)(1).

In Re: Amer Classic · filed 2005-04-27(d)(1)

Accordingly, the Bankruptcy Court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that Hefta’s failure to file his claim by the Bar Date does not qualify as “excusable neglect.” See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9006(b)(1). Therefore, there is no cause to lift the automatic stay imposed under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1).

Failure to file a timely formal or informal proof of claim, without excusable neglect, leaves no cause to lift the automatic stay under Section 362(d)(1).

In re American Classic Voyages Co. · filed 2005-04-27(d)(1)

Therefore, there is no cause to lift the automatic stay imposed under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1).

Failure to file a timely formal or informal proof of claim without excusable neglect leaves no cause for relief from the automatic stay under Section 362(d)(1).

Hefta v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (In re American Classic Voyages Co.) · filed 2005-04-27(d)(1)

Accordingly, the Bankruptcy Court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that Hefta’s failure to file his claim by the Bar Date does not qualify as “excusable neglect.” ... Therefore, there is no cause to lift the automatic stay imposed under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1).

A right of setoff alone does not establish cause for relief from the automatic stay, and relief after confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan requires postconfirmation circumstances supporting cause.

In Re Shultz · filed 2005-05-09(d)(1)

Therefore, with the Debtors at the present time fully performing their duties under the terms of their plan, and with the IRS not offering any postconfirmation facts in support of its entitlement to relief from stay, the weight of the evidence in this case simply does not support a finding that “cause” exists to lift the stay so that the IRS can proceed to exercise its right of setoff. And as its right of setoff does not, alone, provide a valid basis for relieving the stay, a finding in the IRS’s favor is not appropriate at this time.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the stay for cause when a residential lease expired before bankruptcy and the debtor cannot cure rental arrears or pay ongoing rent.

Crawford Square Community v. Turner (In Re Turner) · filed 2005-06-14(d)(1)

However, a mere possessory interest (for instance, a “squatter” or tenant at sufferance) in an expired lease at the time of filing is not enough to sustain the protections of the automatic stay. ... Even if the lease was capable of being assumed, because of arrears in excess of $21,000 at the time of filing the bankruptcy, by her own admission, Turner cannot provide a cure or adequate assurance of a prompt cure as required by 11 U.S.C. § 365(b)(1). ... Nor does Turner possess the ability to pay the monthly rental amount going forward absent some form of subsidization. ... For the above reasons, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1), “cause” exists to grant relief from stay to Crawford.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when debtors cannot propose a feasible Chapter 11 plan despite ample opportunity.

In Re Smith · filed 2005-11-09(d)(1)

“Cause” exists in these cases to lift the automatic stay because of the Debtors’ inability to propose a feasible plan of reorganization despite being given ample opportunity.

Lack of disposable income and a plan dependent on selling property the debtor no longer owns establish cause for relief from the automatic stay when reorganization is not in prospect.

In Re Mellino · filed 2005-11-09(d)(1)

The Debtor’s Schedules reflect the absence of disposable income, and his Plan is obliquely predicated upon the sale of the Property for which he no longer holds title. Under these circumstances, the Debtor’s reorganization is not in prospect and the Court finds “cause” for relief from the automatic stay.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay to fund insured officers’ defense costs when denying payment may cause substantial and irreparable harm and harm to the estate is speculative.

In Re Arter & Hadden, L.L.P. · filed 2005-11-29(d)(1)

The Court finds that there is cause to lift the automatic stay because the Executive and Management Committee members may suffer substantial and irreparable harm if prevented from exercising their rights to defense payments to fund their defense of the Trustee’s Complaint. ... Additionally, the harm to the Debtor if relief from stay is granted is speculative since there have been no identified claims for indemnification nor entity coverage.

Under § 362(d)(1), a bankruptcy filing intended to circumvent pending litigation and reject an unprofitable contract, despite substantial equity in the debtor's assets, constitutes bad faith and cause to lift the automatic stay.

In Re Star Broadcasting, Inc. · filed 2006-01-20(d)(1)

The Court concludes that based on the timing of the filing of the petition, the Debtor’s own schedules showing an equity position of over $5 million in assets over liabilities, the attempt to circumvent pending litigation and the attempt to reject what the Debtor perceived as an unprofitable contract constitutes bad faith in this case and that “cause” exists under § 362(d)(1) to lift the automatic stay.

Missed postconfirmation payments alone do not usually constitute cause to lift the automatic stay, especially when caused by illness or job loss, and courts should weigh the circumstances surrounding the default.

Americredit Financial Services, Inc. v. Nichols · filed 2006-03-16(d)(1)

The failure to make payments, standing alone, however, does not usually constitute “cause” to modify or lift the stay, especially where failure to pay resulted from circumstances beyond the debtor’s control, such as illness or job loss. ... Generally, before modifying or lifting a stay, a court should first weigh the equities by conducting a fact-specific analysis of the circumstances surrounding the default. ... Under the circumstances, we find no abuse of discretion in the bankruptcy court’s decision to deny the motion to lift the stay and allow debtors to file a proposed modification of the plan.

Section 362(d)(1) provides relief from the automatic stay as the appropriate remedy for improperly using bankruptcy to evade another court's jurisdiction, rather than dismissal under § 707(a).

Sherman v. Securities & Exchange Commission (In Re Sherman) · filed 2006-03-22(d)(1)

The remedy in the “cause” provision of § 362(d)(1) is a considerably more direct way to deal with a debtor who is improperly using bankruptcy as a refuge from the jurisdiction of another court than the remedy in the “cause” provision of § 707(a).

Relief from the automatic stay for cause requires a creditor to identify a reason for protection beyond its desire to foreclose, and a security interest plus missed payments alone is insufficient.

In Re Szymanski · filed 2006-05-26(d)(1)

Instead, if it is proceeding for cause under § 362(d)(1), the creditor is expected to articulate some type of reason that the automatic stay should be terminated, something that it should be protected against, and this requires something more than saying that it would like to proceed with foreclosure. ... All Fifth Third did here was state that it had a security interest in property and that the debtors had not been making payments. That is not enough to warrant relief from the automatic stay.

A bad-faith bankruptcy filing constitutes cause for relief from the automatic stay under Section 362(d)(1).

Maryland Port Administration v. Premier Automotive Services, Inc. (In re Premier Automotive Services, Inc.) · filed 2006-06-08(d)(1)

A finding of bad faith in the filing of a bankruptcy petition is sufficient cause to grant relief from stay against an offending debtor.

Section 362(d)(1) permits stay relief for cause based on the totality of the circumstances, including bad faith, judicial economy, and the balance of hardships.

In Re MacK · filed 2006-07-10(d)(1)

Whether cause exists to grant stay relief must be determined on a case by case basis based upon the totality of the circumstances in each particular case. ... Other equitable considerations, such as balancing prejudice to the debtor against hardship to the moving party, and judicial economy considerations (location of witnesses, documents, necessary parties) are relevant in determining whether to lift the stay. ... The Debtor, due to his lack of good faith and unclean hands, is not entitled to the benefits of the automatic stay as to the Kentucky Litigation.

Relief from the automatic stay to litigate in another forum may be denied when a pending dischargeability action can resolve all disputes more quickly and economically and outside litigation would interfere with bankruptcy administration.

In Re Henderson · filed 2006-09-25(d)(1)

The Court is also of the opinion that proceeding with the District Court Suit as against Henderson and not the Dischargeability Suit may indeed interfere with the bankruptcy case. ... The Court is merely concluding that relief from the automatic stay at this time is not warranted. As presently postured, proceeding with adjudication of the Dis-chargeability Suit is the cheapest, fairest, and quickest way to resolve all disputes between the parties.

Failure to make post-petition mortgage payments can constitute cause to lift the automatic stay, and once the creditor demonstrates cause, the debtor bears the burden of supporting continuation of the stay.

In Re Uvaydov · filed 2006-10-17(d)(1), (g)(2)

The Debtor’s failure to pay in excess of $50,000 of post-petition mortgaged payments over an eleven month period constitutes more than ample cause to lift the automatic stay in a Chapter 13 case. ... On the other hand, the Debtor has failed to satisfy his ultimate burden of proof under § 362(g)(2) to rebut Secured Creditor’s demonstration of cause under § 362(d)(1) and to support a continuation of the automatic stay.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay to recover possession of real property when a valid trustee’s sale extinguished the debtors’ interest before bankruptcy.

In Re Wiebe · filed 2006-10-31(d)(1)

As a result, Debtors’ interest in the property was terminated upon sale, which occurred prior to the filing of their bankruptcy petition. As Debtors had no interest in the property when they filed their chapter 12 petition, the property would not be part of Debtors’ bankruptcy estate. ... Creditor’s motion is granted, and the automatic stay is terminated to allow Creditor to take legal action against Debt- or to obtain possession of the real property ... at issue.

Section 362(d)(1) permits denial of relief from the automatic stay for lack of cause when a debtor seeks permission to pursue a patently frivolous motion for a new trial.

Randhava v. Peterson · filed 2006-12-07(d)(1)

In effect, Randhava’s motion sought another lift of the automatic stay, which the bankruptcy court was authorized to deny for lack of cause under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). ... The bankruptcy court properly denied the motion, as it was patently frivolous.

Section 362(d)(1) permits lifting the automatic stay for cause when a tenant fails to pay post-petition rent.

In Re Watkins · filed 2007-02-16(d)(1)

In addition, the bankruptcy court correctly noted that the failure of a tenant to make post-petition mortgage payments and to comply with rental obligations constitutes cause to lift the automatic stay under § 362(d)(1).

When a party in interest seeks relief from the automatic stay for cause, the debtor bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that cause does not exist.

O'Quinn Family Partnership v. 440 Kings Way, LLC (In Re 440 Kings Way, LLC) · filed 2007-02-26(d)(1)

When a party in interest alleges “for cause” grounds for relief from stay, the debtor bears the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence that “cause” does not exist. ... The DIP has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the DIP does have a valid leasehold interest in the Property and that its lessor, Sapelo, has elected to waive its right to have the lease rejected by operation of law.

Relief from the automatic stay for cause to enforce a prepetition specific-performance judgment may be denied when balancing the estate’s interests against the movant’s hardship shows substantial prejudice to unsecured creditors.

In Re Pina · filed 2007-03-06(d)(1)

Weighing the interests of the estate against the hardships that will be incurred by KAC, this Court finds that granting KAC relief from stay to enforce its state court judgment is unwarranted and highly prejudicial to the unsecured creditors of the Debtor’s bankruptcy estate.

Section 362(d)(1) permits denial of relief from the automatic stay based on alleged bad faith when the movant fails to make a prima facie showing that the debtor filed its Chapter 11 petition in bad faith.

Fields Station LLC v. Capitol Food Corp. (In Re Capitol Food Corp.) · filed 2007-06-06(d)(1)

As Fields Station has made no prima facie showing that Capitol Food submitted its chapter 11 petition in bad faith, we conclude that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Fields Station motion to dismiss the chapter 11 petition or relief from the automatic stay.

Section 362(d)(1) permits retroactive annulment of the stay to allow state-court enforcement and interpretation of a marital settlement agreement where continuation causes no great prejudice to the debtor or estate and delay harms both parties and the estate.

Bennett v. Sveinsvoll (In Re Bennett) · filed 2007-07-03(d)(1)

“Cause” exists if the bankruptcy filing automatically stays a non-bankruptcy court proceeding against the debtor that does not prejudice the bankruptcy estate. ... An order will be entered partly annulling the automatic stay as of December 8, 2006. Sveinsvoll’s efforts in state court to compel Bennett’s cooperation with the MSA were neither void nor voidable, and may continue.

Section 362(d)(1) provides relief from the automatic stay for improper use of bankruptcy to evade another court’s jurisdiction, while seeking the stay through a legitimate bankruptcy petition is permissible.

Sherman v. SEC · filed 2007-07-03(d)(1)

There is nothing problematic about an individual filing a legitimate bankruptcy petition with the intention of taking advantage of the automatic stay provisions. ... The remedy in the “cause” provision of § 362(d)(1) is a considerably more direct way to deal with a debtor who is ... improperly using bankruptcy as a refuge from the jurisdiction of another court than the remedy in the “cause” provision of § 707(a).

Section 362(d)(1) permits terminating the stay for both debtor and creditor when the totality of the circumstances and fairness favor full appellate review of the debtor’s claims and the creditor’s related counterclaim.

In Re Porter · filed 2007-07-18(d)(1)

When one also considers the possible difficulties, as well as the fairness, of an appellate court considering only the validity of the debtor’s claims but not the validity of the related counterclaim, the better exercise of discretion is to conclude that cause exists to terminate the bankruptcy stay under section 362(d)(1) in favor of both the debtor and NCCDC, so that the appeal may be prosecuted fully by both parties and all issues considered by the appellate court.

An ineligible debtor’s petition triggers the automatic stay, but failure to obtain required credit counseling within 180 days before filing constitutes cause for relief from the stay.

Gerrald Auto Sales v. Willis (In Re Willis) · filed 2007-08-28(a), (d)(1)

2. The Motion for Relief should be granted for Cause because the Debtors failed to obtain credit counseling within 180 days prior to filing petition. ... Thus, I conclude that if a debtor who is ineligible files a petition, the automatic stay is triggered. ... Nevertheless, due to that ineligibility, I find cause exists to grant the Motion for Relief under Section 362(d)(1).

Persistent filing of a plan that disregards a judicial collateral valuation, coupled with inconsistent valuations and other bad-faith conduct, constitutes cause for relief from the automatic stay under Section 362(d)(1).

JE Livestock, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (In Re JE Livestock, Inc.) · filed 2007-09-24(d)(1)

JE's filing an unconfirmable plan, standing alone, may not constitute cause under § 362(d)(1), but its headstrong persistence in filing a plan that utterly disregards a judicial finding of value under § 506(a), particularly after taking inconsistent positions as to the value of the collateral and after receiving the court's valuation ruling, does.

Under § 362(d)(1), a former spouse’s failure to establish a claim against the debtor’s estate supports denying relief from the stay for cause to enforce a divorce decree assigning a joint debt to the debtor.

Shaver v. Forgette (In Re Forgette) · filed 2007-11-30(d)(1)

However, in this case “cause” is lacking primarily because the Movant has failed to establish that she has a claim under the Bankruptcy Code against the debtor’s estate.

Cause to lift the automatic stay exists to permit state-court resolution of a disputed tax redemption when the property cannot be sold, the Chapter 7 trustee pursues no interest, and the tax purchaser is the only creditor.

Dumas v. Sabre Group (In Re Dumas) · filed 2008-03-07(d)(1)

Because the property cannot be sold and the Chapter 7 Trustee does not pursue any interest, and also because there are no creditors other than Sabre, cause is shown for the automatic stay to be lifted and the tax proceedings remanded so that adequacy of the attempted redemption can be decided in state court.

Section 362(d)(1) does not permit stay relief merely for isolated missed payments when a substantial equity cushion adequately protects the creditor and the default reflects a past record-keeping error or miscommunication rather than an ongoing failure or inability to pay.

In Re Schuessler · filed 2008-04-10(d)(1)

Where, as in this case, the contractual default resulted from a record-keeping glitch or miscommunieation rooted in the past and does not reflect a current or ongoing failure or inability to make payments, cause does not exist for granting relief from stay. ... The Debtors in this case were never more than one payment in default, and there is a substantial equity cushion. At all times, Chase Home Finance was adequately protected, and the Court finds no grounds in this case that would constitute “cause” to lift the stay.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay to allow a pending tax proceeding to continue when an imminent trial favors judicial economy and the tax court has specialized expertise.

In Re Beane · filed 2008-07-15(d)(1)

Moreover, upon review of the record, the Court finds that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in granting the Motion for Relief from Stay and denying the Motion for Determination of Tax Liability. At the time Beane filed for bankruptcy, the tax court proceeding had been pending for over one year and was set to go to trial in seven days. See Transcript at 9; Motion for Relief from Stay at 2; Motion for Determination of Tax Liability at 1. Thus, judicial economy weighs in favor of the tax court proceeding with the action. ... Moreover, the tax court is a specialized tribunal established to resolve issues of tax liability.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the stay for a pending tax-court proceeding when trial readiness, judicial economy, the tax court’s expertise, and the complexity of the tax issues support relief.

Beane v. United States · filed 2008-07-15(d)(1)

Moreover, upon review of the record, the Court finds that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in granting the Motion for Relief from Stay and denying the Motion for Determination of Tax Liability. At the time Beane filed for bankruptcy, the tax court proceeding had been pending for over one year and was set to go to trial in seven days. ... Thus, judicial economy weighs in favor of the tax court proceeding with the action. ... Moreover, the tax court is a specialized tribunal established to resolve issues of tax liability. ... In addition, upon review of the Motion for Determination of Tax Liability, as well as the petition filed by Beane in tax court, the Court agrees with the bankruptcy court’s characterization of the issues involved in the tax matter as complex.

An insurer's cost of defending the debtor, standing alone, does not establish cause for relief from the automatic stay under § 362(d)(1).

Builders Insurance Group, Inc. v. R.J. Groover Construction, LLC (In Re R.J. Groover Construction, LLC) · filed 2008-10-10(d)(1)

As a result, the only actual harm Builders asserts is that it will incur costs for funding Debtors’ defense in the underlying litigation. However, cost of defending an action is but one factor for the court to consider and standing alone does not constitute grounds for denying or granting Builder’s motion for relief from the automatic stay.

The stay does not bar a contribution claim arising after bankruptcy, and cause exists to permit joinder for apportionment of liability when it may reduce the debtor’s exposure to that claim.

Estes Express Lines v. Paone (In Re Paone) · filed 2009-02-12(a)(1), (d)

In short, I conclude that Estes’ claim for contribution, if it is pursued, is not stayed by 11 U.S.C. § 362. ... Section 362(d) allows the stay to be lifted for cause. ... This fact alone provides ample cause for granting the motion and allowing the stay to be lifted for the limited purposes outlined in this opinion.

A debtor seeking relief from the automatic stay for cause bears the initial burden of showing cause, after which the opposing party bears the ultimate burden of showing that cause does not exist.

In Re Morales · filed 2009-04-01(d)(1), (g)

The debtor, as a party-in-interest in her case, may seek relief from the stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d). Relief must be for cause. 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). Morales bears the initial burden of showing cause for relief, but once carried, the party opposing relief has the ultimate burden of showing that cause does not exist. 11 U.S.C. § 362(g); see In re George, 315 B.R. 624, 628 (Bankr.S.D.Ga.2004).

Relief from the automatic stay for a putative class action is unwarranted when litigation would drain estate resources and hinder reorganization while the claimants show no great hardship from delay.

In Re Bally Total Fitness of Greater New York, Inc. · filed 2009-04-07(d)(1)

During the pendency of these chapter 11 cases, the Debtors’ estates’ limited resources are better spent stabilizing their operations and cash flows, rather than litigating a class action suit. Forcing the Debtors to litigate at this point would distract and hinder the Debtors from their reorganization efforts and would take away the “breathing space” necessary to allow them to restructure and preserve the value of their assets for the benefit of their creditors. ... In addition, the Carr-era Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they will suffer any great hardship if the Lift Stay Motion is denied. ... This Sonnax factor therefore weighs heavily in favor of denying the lift stay.

Under section 362(d)(1), impending discharge and possible termination of the stay alone do not establish cause for relief when the debtor's interest in resolving dischargeability outweighs the creditor's interest in resuming state-court litigation.

In Re Edler · filed 2009-04-09(d)(1)

The bottom line here is that the impending entry of the discharge order and the possible termination of the automatic stay in the near future, by themselves, are not compelling reasons for terminating the automatic stay at this time. The Debtor’s interest in obtaining a resolution of the dischargeability of the subject debt outweighs the interest of Mr. Yogel in resuming litigation against the Debtor in the state court.

Section 362(d)(1) requires relief from the automatic stay for cause when a secured creditor lacks adequate protection against a decline in the value of its lien.

In Re Armenakis · filed 2009-05-22(d)(1)

Accordingly, Smithbuilt has cause for relief from the stay, and the Court must grant Smithbuilt such relief under § 362(d)(1).

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when the stay obstructs state court enforcement of domestic support and property obligations amid repeated contempt of the state court’s orders.

Trout v. Trout (In Re Trout) · filed 2009-05-28(d)(1)

Based on this binding precedent of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and precedents established by my previous orders, I agree with the Movant’s position that “cause” exists for granting stay relief.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause, but relief may be denied when it would prejudice the estate and similarly situated creditors while maintaining the stay causes the movant little hardship.

In Re DBSI, Inc. · filed 2009-07-07(d)(1)

Granting Ridgmar Trust relief from the stay would cause significant prejudice to DBSI Housing’s estate as it continues to resolve numerous outstanding disputes. Indeed, it is unclear if and to what extent DBSI Housing is administratively solvent; if the automatic stay is lifted, Ridgmar Trust may recover a greater percentage of its claims than similarly-situated creditors. Moreover, by lifting the stay, I may encourage a race to the courthouse by parties seeking similar orders, which will cause undue hardship and expense to the estate. In contrast, Ridg-mar Trust will suffer little prejudice if I do not lift the stay: they simply will have to wait a few extra months to recover an amount most likely well under $100,000. This hardship obviously does not outweigh the hardship likely to be suffered by DBSI Housing’s estate if the stay is lifted. Accordingly, Ridgmar Trust’s request for relief from the stay is denied.

Section 362(d)(1) requires a party seeking relief from the automatic stay to make an initial showing of cause before the debtor must show that cause is absent.

In Re All Phase Electrical Contracting, Inc. · filed 2009-07-31(d)(1)

Accordingly, Colonial has not made an initial showing that there is cause for relief from the automatic stay under § 362(d)(1). Nonetheless, even if Colonial had satisfied that showing so that the debtor would have to demonstrate that there was not cause for relief from the stay, that burden has been satisfied for the same reasons that Colonial has not made an initial showing.

In deciding whether to lift the stay for cause under § 362(d)(1), a court may weigh whether state court resolution of marital property interests would resolve bankruptcy issues and aid Chapter 11 plan confirmation.

In re Taub · filed 2009-08-14(d)(1)

This would resolve significant open issues in the Debtor’s bankruptcy case, and would assist the Debtor in pursuing the confirmation of a Chapter 11 plan. ... Accordingly, the Court finds that this factor weighs in favor of relief from the automatic stay.