11 U.S.C. § 362

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause, including a failure to provide adequate protection.

Shaneka Necole Paschal · filed 2020-08-11(d)(1)

First, under 11 U.S.C. §362(d), a party may move for relief from the §362 automatic stay and, upon notice and a hearing, a court may grant the motion for cause, including for the failure to provide adequate protection. ... For the reasons stated, the Court finds that Nissan is entitled to relief from the stay and as such, Nissan’s motion for relief from stay is granted.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when the debtor offers no evidence that the creditor’s interest in property is adequately protected.

Trenda F Moore · filed 2020-08-27(d)(1)

Here, the Court found that GUCU established cause for relief under § 362(d). The Debtor introduced no evidence on the issue of adequate protection, and there is nothing in the record to indicate how GUCU’s interest in the real property would be protected other than by foreclosure.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when a debtor files in bad faith to relitigate issues already contested in state court.

West Pace, LLC · filed 2020-10-19(d)(1)

Based on the totality of the circumstances, the Court concludes that the Debtor’s petition was not filed in good faith, and the subsequent litigation in the instant case is nothing more than an attempt to use the Bankruptcy Code to relitigate the same issues raised during the preceding five years of state court litigation. Therefore, U.S. Bank is entitled to relief from the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1).

Section 362(d)(1) permits a court to lift the automatic stay to let a nearly completed state court trial proceed to judgment when doing so serves judicial economy.

Samuel C. LeBlanc, Jr. · filed 2020-11-10(d)(1)

Thus, the Court finds that lifting the stay to allow the Lawsuit to proceed to judgment in the State Court supports judicial economy.

Section 362(d)(1) allows relief from the automatic stay for cause when the property is worth less than the total claim against it.

HRN Group, LLC v. Wilmington Savings Fund · filed 2020-11-13(d)(1)

Further, because the value of the Property was less than the total amount of Wilmington’s claim, Wilmington was entitled to relief from the stay “for cause” under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1).

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause based on the circumstances as a whole, even when creditors have not proved that the debtor lacks equity in the property.

Cheryl Lynne Thorp · filed 2020-12-02(d)(1)

Even though SF Housing Trust and Zocalo have not met their burden of establishing Debtor’s lack of equity in the Property, the surrounding facts and circumstances, taken as a whole, establish “cause” for relief from the automatic stay under § 362(d)(1).

Failure to make mortgage payments can establish cause to lift the automatic stay under § 362(d)(1).

Simon v. Bank of America, N.A. · filed 2021-01-15(d)(1)

First, BANA established that there was cause for relief from the automatic stay as it is undisputed that the Borrowers have not made a mortgage payment since September 1, 2014.

Section 362(d)(1) requires cause before a court may lift the automatic stay to let an arbitrator consider a creditor’s setoff claim.

DAVID K. CROWE and COLLEEN M CROWE · filed 2021-02-04(d)(1)

Based upon the foregoing, the Court does not find cause to grant stay relief pursuant to § 362(d)(1) to allow the arbitrator to consider any setoff claim asserted by TES, and such relief must be denied.

A creditor’s failure to file a timely proof of claim or object to a Chapter 13 plan does not itself provide cause for relief from the automatic stay under § 362(d)(1).

Joseph Connell · filed 2021-03-02(d)(1)

That Hayes did not timely file a proof of claim and that she did not timely object to the Debtor’s plan does not provide cause to grant her motion.

Section 362(d)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to lift the automatic stay for cause in its discretion based on the circumstances of the case.

Michael Hornback · filed 2021-03-19(d)(1)

This Court may grant relief from the automatic stay for “cause.” 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). The Bankruptcy Code does not specify what constitutes “cause” to grant relief from the stay. It is clear, however, that the granting of relief from the automatic stay is left to the sound discretion of the Bankruptcy Court and decided on a case by case basis. ... For all of the above reasons, the Court will GRANT the Amended Motion of Polylok for Relief from Stay to Proceed with Federal Litigation seeking Injunctive Relief against Debtor Michael Hornback pending in the District Court Action.

Section 362(d)(1) allows relief from the automatic stay for cause when a debtor fails to provide adequate protection.

Redfish Commons, L.L.C. · filed 2021-04-05(d)(1)

Section 362(d)(1) provides that lack of adequate protection is cause for relief from the automatic stay.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when prepetition possession judgments leave the bankruptcy estate without a right to occupy or store property on a landlord’s premises.

Lightning Technologies, Inc. · filed 2021-05-07(d)(1)

The bankruptcy estate has no right to such possession of the premises owned by DEMS or Ashley Orion, and the estate has no right to continue to store any property on the premises owned by DEMS and Ashley Orion. ... This alone establishes cause to grant stay relief in favor of DEMS and Ashley Orion.

A court may find cause to modify the automatic stay for a pending prepetition arbitration of nonbankruptcy claims when fairness to the parties and the presumption favoring arbitration support relief.

John McDonnell McPherson · filed 2021-06-02(d)(1)

Nonetheless, under the facts presented to the Court, notions of fairness to the parties, and particularly the strong presumption in favor of arbitration, the Court will modify the automatic stay of section 362(a) of the Code to allow the prepetition arbitration proceeding to continue.

A pending specific performance action on an executory contract rejected under a confirmed Chapter 13 plan does not establish cause to lift the automatic stay.

HARLAN PAGE CONFER and CHARLOTTE CLUFF CONFER · filed 2021-06-08(d)(1)

The Confers have effectively rejected their executory contract with the Watsons and have elected to treat them as unsecured creditors. As a consequence, the existence of inchoate specific performance litigation in state court does not constitute cause for stay relief.

Section 362(d)(1) does not allow relief from the automatic stay for lack of monthly payments when a confirmed plan treats the creditor as unsecured and provides for pro rata payments.

Barbara Collins · filed 2021-07-10(d)(1)

L&N begins by arguing it did not receive monthly payments on the debt identified in POC #2. This is appropriate because the confirmed plan treats L&N as an unsecured creditor that will receive pro rata payments from the Chapter 13 Trustee in the ordinary course over the 60-month life of the plan. [ECF No. 38.] Therefore, the lack of payments is not cause for relief from the automatic stay.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause, including limited relief to collect from jointly held property when doing so will not disrupt the debtor’s confirmed plan.

McCarty v. Perrine · filed 2021-07-30(d)(1)

Because only joint creditors can pursue payment from joint assets, allowing Plaintiffs to pursue the Prairie Rose home will not disrupt Debtor’s confirmed plan.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when a debtor fails to make required Chapter 13 plan payments.

Martinez v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. · filed 2021-08-06(d)(1)

The bankruptcy court may grant stay relief for cause. ... Here, Martinez failed to demonstrate that he was current on the payments required by his Chapter 13 plan: (1) regular monthly maintenance payments on his home equity loan and (2) additional monthly payments designated by the plan to cure the pre-petition arrearage on his home equity loan. ... Accordingly, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in granting stay relief through an adequate protection agreement.

Section 362(d)(1) does not treat a party’s preference for a state forum as hardship establishing cause to lift the automatic stay.

Windhaven Top Insurance Holdings LLC · filed 2021-10-15(d)(1)

A preference is not a hardship, and other than RRC’s reverse-preemption argument, which fails, RRC has made no showing of hardship in having this matter litigated in this Court.

Section 362(d)(1) allows relief from the automatic stay for cause based on case-specific factors, including hardship to the parties and pending state court proceedings.

Khan v. Panjwani · filed 2021-10-19(d)(1)

Accordingly, the Bankruptcy Court did not merely weigh the issue of dischargability but rather applied the proper legal standard to the inquiry and considered a number of relevant factors, including the hardships on the parties and pending state court proceedings.

Section 362(d)(1) does not require relief from the automatic stay for cause when a creditor is adequately protected by full payment of its secured claim under a confirmed Chapter 13 plan, despite adverse effects of the plan on that creditor.

Bretell v. Morrone · filed 2021-11-02(d)(1)

The Bankruptcy Court did not abuse its discretion in concluding the Creditor is adequately protected and cause does not exist to grant relief from the automatic stay, despite adverse effects the confirmed Plan may have on the Creditor.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when a debtor repeatedly files bankruptcy cases and fails to make payments to a secured creditor.

James Jordan · filed 2021-11-15(d)(1)

His failure to make payments to the creditor and the serial bankruptcy filings are sufficient cause to grant relief from the stay here.

Section 362(d)(1) allows relief from the automatic stay for cause when a debtor unjustifiably fails to make mortgage payments.

Ashmeen Modikhan · filed 2021-11-15(d)(1)

Debtor’s failure to make mortgage payments is not justified and is cause for relief from stay.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause; when deciding whether prebankruptcy litigation may resume, the court considers judicial economy, trial readiness, preliminary bankruptcy issues, the creditor’s chance of success, and the burden on the estate and other creditors.

In re Michael Hornback · filed 2021-11-16(d)(1)

In determining whether to lift the automatic stay to allow pre-bankruptcy litigation to resume, a bankruptcy court must review the following factors: “1) judicial economy; 2) trial readiness; 3) the resolution of preliminary bankruptcy issues; 4) the creditor’s chance of success on the merits; and 5) the cost of defense or other potential burden to the bankruptcy estate and the impact of the litigation on other creditors.”

Section 362(d)(1) permits annulment of the automatic stay for cause to allow a foreclosure purchaser to complete ejectment when a prebankruptcy sheriff’s sale extinguished the debtor’s equitable interest in the property.

Margaret M Jager · filed 2021-12-14(d)(1)

Accordingly, because the pre-bankruptcy sheriff’s sale in this case was not subject to the automatic stay in the first instance, and because that sheriff’s sale 00031054 -8- divested Mr. & Mrs. Jager of their equitable interest in the Property, “cause” exists as a matter of fact and law pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) to grant InFirst Bank an annulment of the automatic stay to complete ejectment.

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

Jon G Sternitzky and Heather M Sternitzky · filed 2021-12-23(d)(1)

A lack of good faith in filing a petition constitutes cause for relief from the stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1).

Section 362(d)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to lift the automatic stay for cause so a creditor can seek modification of a divorce decree in state court.

Paul Rose · filed 2022-01-10(d)(1)

Exercising discretion and evaluating the Curtis factors, the Court concludes that cause exists to lift the stay to allow Creditor to seek relief in the state divorce court relating to the divorce decree.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when prior foreclosure litigation has resolved key issues and dangerous property disrepair threatens a creditor’s interests.

Ellen Heine v. · filed 2022-03-24(d)(1)

Further, as the Bankruptcy Court explained, JPMorgan Chase presented unrebutted evidence that the property was in a dangerous state of disrepair, which further justified the Court’s order allowing JPMorgan Chase to take steps to protect its interests.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when the debtor had no right to redeem foreclosed property on the petition date.

Chaomei Hu · filed 2022-03-24(d)(1)

And because the Debtor did not retain the right to redeem the Unit as of the petition date, the Court will grant relief from the automatic stay for cause pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1).

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when abusive bankruptcy filings and inability to confirm a Chapter 13 plan are shown.

Christine Diane Benio · filed 2022-04-08(d)(1)

Based on the above findings, the Court further concludes that the abusive filings and inability to confirm a Chapter 13 plan constitute “cause” under §362(d)(1).

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when a debtor had no rights in the property at the time of the bankruptcy filing.

Yvette Alejandro · filed 2022-08-03(d)(1)

Because she retained no rights under the Occupancy Agreement or as a shareholder, ... cause exists under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) to grant relief from the automatic stay so that Cedar Glen may enforce its Writ of Possession.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when the debtor has no legal or equitable interest in the property beyond possession.

MCDEAVITT v. WINNECOUR · filed 2022-08-04(d)(1)

Without any legal or equitable interest in the property by Ms. McDeavitt, the bankruptcy court was correct to find cause existed for relief from the automatic stay.

An unsecured creditor seeking relief from the automatic stay for cause bears a heavy burden to show that the balance of hardships favors lifting the stay.

Celsius Network LLC · filed 2022-09-01(d)(1)

Unsecured creditors like Mr. Frishberg bear a heavy burden in proving that the balance of hardships favors lifting the stay, and he simply has not met the burden here.

A creditor’s state court jury demand is a consideration when deciding whether to lift the automatic stay for cause, but other factors may outweigh it.

Matthew M. Motil · filed 2022-09-01(d)(1)

The unavailability in this Court of the jury trial requested in state court bears consideration, but the Court must weigh it against the five factors analyzed above. ... Here, all of the other factors outweigh the creditors’ state court jury demand and support a decision to deny the creditors’ motions for relief from stay.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when the relevant Sonnax factors favor allowing a trustee to pursue recovery of estate property.

Lawrence V. Otway · filed 2022-09-30(d)(1)

On balance, and in light of the Opposition’s failure to substantively engage with the Sonnax factors, the relevant Sonnax factors weigh in favor of lifting the stay.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when a debtor repeatedly misses Chapter 13 plan payments, disobeys a payment order, and fails to appear for trial.

Robyn E. Pennington · filed 2022-10-05(d)(1)

Based on the Defendant’s failure to adhere to the Court’s July 29th Order and her failure to appear at the trial on the above matters, it is evident she is not committed to completing her Chapter 13 plan. The Court finds that under the foregoing circumstances, relief from stay is appropriate per 11 U.S.C. Section 362(d).

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when a Chapter 13 debtor repeatedly fails to make required plan payments and comply with court orders.

Keech v. Pennington · filed 2022-10-05(d)(1)

Based on the Defendant’s failure to adhere to the Court’s July 29th Order and her failure to appear at the trial on the above matters, it is evident she is not committed to completing her Chapter 13 plan. The Court finds that under the foregoing circumstances, relief from stay is appropriate per 11 U.S.C. Section 362(d).

Section 362(d)(1) permits limited stay relief for cause so a state court can determine a receiver’s fees, costs, and their source under state law, while leaving any order for payment subject to further stay relief.

Lynn Beth Baum · filed 2022-11-22(d)(1)

3. Third, the Court finds cause, under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1), to grant limited stay relief, in the form of the relief ordered below. ... The state court, and not this Court, should determine those issues, and stay relief will be granted to permit this. ... So to the extent the automatic stay applies, it will not be modified at this time to permit the state court to actually order the payment of any fees and costs to John Polderman from any particular source.

Section 362(d)(1) permits a court to condition continuation of the automatic stay on proof of property insurance to adequately protect a creditor’s interest.

Nelson Branden Gonzales · filed 2022-12-07(d)(1)

Thus, to ensure that the Herrings’ interest in the Property is adequately protected, the Court will condition the continuation of the automatic stay on Debtor providing the Herrings with proof of insurance for the Property.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when the debtor has no interest in property and the creditor seeks possession through state court.

Yolanda Ford · filed 2022-12-15(d)(1)

Here, once Movant recorded the trustee’s deed, it took title to the Property. The Court finds cause exists to grant relief from the automatic stay under § 362(d)(1) to allow Movant to pursue its state court remedies to obtain possession of the Property as Debtor has no interest in the Property.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause to let pending state court litigation proceed to judgment while keeping collection efforts stayed.

Jandava Denise Cattron · filed 2022-12-22(d)(1)

The Court concludes that “cause” exists under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) to grant relief from the automatic stay, to the extent of the following relief. The Court will modify the automatic stay to permit the Arizona Probate Case to continue to final judgment. But the Court will not, at this time, modify the automatic stay to permit any efforts to collect from the Debtor any monetary judgment, monetary sanction, or monetary award that may be entered against the Debtor in the Arizona Probate Case.

After confirmation of a chapter 13 plan, cause for relief from the automatic stay must be based on post-confirmation events.

Asociacion de Empleados del Estado Libre Asociado v. Angel Ruben Mojica Nieves · filed 2023-02-02(d)(1)

As the Plan has been confirmed, cause for relief from stay must be based upon post-confirmation events.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when a debtor’s infeasible plan cannot satisfy a secured creditor’s claim.

Bishawjit Saha · filed 2023-02-21(d)(1)

Consequently, the Debtor’s plan is neither feasible, nor confirmable. The Court finds “cause” to lift the stay under § 362(d)(1).

Section 362(d)(1) does not warrant relief from the automatic stay based on a prepetition eviction judgment and unexecuted writ of possession when the lease was not terminated.

Sunset Opportunities B2 LLC v. A&E Adventures LLC · filed 2023-03-30(d)(1)

Here, the Judgment of Eviction and Writ of Possession did not terminate the lease. ... Accordingly, the Court finds that the Bankruptcy Court did not abuse its discretion in finding that (1) the Lease was not terminated and (2) relief from the stay was not warranted.

A lack of insurance on collateral may constitute cause for relief from the automatic stay under § 362(d)(1).

Brian R. Vancamp · filed 2023-04-06(d)(1)

Accordingly, the Court is satisfied that a lack of insurance may form the basis for cause under § 362(d)(1).

A debtor’s failure to make timely postpetition homeowners’ association payments can constitute cause for relief from the automatic stay.

Ace Holding LLC · filed 2023-07-07(d)(1)

Therefore, Ace’s failure to make timely post-petition payments is cause for relief from the automatic stay.

Section 362(d)(1) allows relief from the automatic stay for cause to let D&O insurers pay policy proceeds to individual insureds for defense costs.

Celsius Network LLC · filed 2023-07-10(d)(1)

The Court holds that with respect to the D&O Policy, cause exists to lift the stay to allow the D&O Insurers to pay Policy proceeds to the Individual Insureds.

Section 362(d)(1) favors relief from the automatic stay when a debtor intends to continue the same litigation in a different forum rather than take a break from it.

AP Orangevale, LLC · filed 2023-08-08(d)(1)

Accordingly, while every motion for relief from stay will turn on the particular facts and circumstances of the case, the case for granting stay relief is a relatively strong one when the debtor is not, in fact, seeking to obtain a breather from that litigation, but instead intends to pursue the very same litigation, only in a different forum.

Section 362(d)(1) does not warrant relief from the stay for an unsecured creditor to pursue state-court claims when the creditor lacks standing to bring those claims.

Mariann F. Adams · filed 2023-09-08(d)(1)

11 U.S.C. §362(d) provides in material part: “On request of a party in interest and after notice and hearing, the court shall grant relief from the stay … (1) for cause….” ... The Court therefore, concludes that Ms. Deitrick has no standing to pursue the proposed PUVTA claims in the State Court Action. 11. Consequently, Ms. Deitrick’s Motion for Relief will be denied without prejudice.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause, and the expected resolution of issues, judicial economy, and trial readiness weigh in deciding whether litigation may continue in another forum.

Culligan Ltd. and Michael Morrison · filed 2023-09-12(d)(1)

Factor 1 (whether relief would result in resolution of the issues), factor 10 (judicial economy and expeditious resolution of litigation), and factor 11 (whether the proceeding is trial ready) weigh heavily against granting relief from stay.

Section 362(d)(1) allows relief from the automatic stay for cause when the harm from continuing the stay outweighs the harm to the debtor and its creditors from lifting it.

Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · filed 2023-10-06(d)(1)

Because any harm Mr. Owoc will suffer if stay relief is not granted is far outweighed by the harm to Vital’s unsecured and administrative creditors if stay relief is granted, Mr. Owoc has failed to demonstrate “cause” for lifting the stay under § 362(d)(1).

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when a debtor has no legal or equitable rights in property beyond possession and the creditor seeks to pursue eviction.

GRAYSON v. WINNECOUR · filed 2023-10-24(d)(1)

With that said, Courts have held that cause exists to grant creditors relief from the automatic stay to pursue eviction proceedings when the debtor no longer has legal or equitable rights to the property beyond mere possession at the time of the bankruptcy filing. ... In this Court’s estimation, the totality of the circumstances fully supports the Bankruptcy Court’s decision to lift the automatic stay and permit the Trust to enforce its judgment for possession in state court.

Section 362(d)(1) allows relief from the automatic stay for cause when a creditor’s right to foreclose should be litigated in state court.

Gordon Alexander Clark · filed 2024-01-11(d)(1)

But, despite the Debtor’s protestations, the proper place to litigate Santander’s right to payment and its right to foreclose is state court, especially given the procedural posture of the foreclosure action before the Connecticut Supreme Court. Cause thus exists to warrant stay relief under § 362(d)(1).

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay while state-court proceedings resolve disputed rights in property.

Charles Archie Holmes v. · filed 2024-01-26(d)(1)

We see no abuse of discretion here. There are questions regarding the parties’ respective rights as to 1031 Christian, and those questions have been presented to, and are pending before, the CCP. We agree with the Bankruptcy Court and the District Court that the best course is to allow those state-court proceedings to move forward.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when a debtor fails to make mortgage payments.

Chester B. Davis, Sr. · filed 2024-02-06(d)(1)

According to NewRez, the Debtor has not made a payment since April 1, 2009. (Motion ¶ 20). The Debtor has not offered any evidence to dispute this assertion. Such lack of payment thus constitutes cause under Section 362(d)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 362(d)(1) allows relief from the automatic stay for cause, determined case by case.

Mathieu Reginald Reyna · filed 2024-02-14(d)(1)

Section 362(d) of the United States Bankruptcy Code provides that, “[o]n request of a party in interest and after notice and a hearing, the court shall grant relief from the stay . . . for cause[.]” 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). “Cause” is not statutorily defined; thus, whether to grant relief in a particular matter is determined on a case-by-case basis.

Section 362(d)(1) permits limited relief from the automatic stay for cause so a pending state court lawsuit can be litigated through any appeals.

Hoffmann v. Ondrajka · filed 2024-03-01(d)(1)

In addition, the Court finds that there is “cause,” under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1), to grant limited relief from the automatic stay, to permit the parties to litigate the State Court Lawsuit to conclusion, including any appeals.

Section 362(d)(1) requires relief from the automatic stay for cause when either a lack of adequate protection or a bad faith filing is established.

MBLA, LLC and MBMB, LLC · filed 2024-03-21(d)(1)

Because a lack of adequate protection and a bad faith filing are each an independent basis to conclude there is “cause” to grant relief from stay, the Motion will be granted pursuant to § 362(d)(1).

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when a debtor’s failure to make post-petition mortgage payments leaves the creditor’s interest in the property inadequately protected.

Russo v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. · filed 2024-03-29(d)(1)

Thus, the Court agrees with the Bankruptcy Court that Russo’s failure to make post-petition mortgage payments constitutes ‘cause’ to modify the automatic stay.

Section 362(d)(1) requires a case-specific determination of cause to grant relief from the automatic stay.

Hawkeye Entertainment, LLC · filed 2024-04-08(d)(1)

The meaning of "cause" for purposes of this statute is decided on a case-by-case basis.

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

Jean Michel LeTennier, Sr. · filed 2024-04-11(d)(1)

Courts have also held that a failure to make regular post-petition mortgage payments as they come due is cause to lift the say under § 362(d)(1). ... As such, the Court finds that cause exists to lift the stay under § 362(d)(1).

Under § 362(d)(1), a mortgage creditor may be denied relief from the stay based on missed postpetition payments when its own confusing billing and direction to stop paying materially caused the payment problem.

Kenneth J. Ashcraft and Deborah D. Ashcraft · filed 2024-05-03(d)(1)

It would be profoundly inequitable to conclude this trial by finding the Creditor’s accounting and customer service practices largely caused the problem, but then place the Debtors in immediate, material default on the mortgage by requiring prompt remittance of the withheld mortgage payments. Accordingly, the Court will find and conclude that the Debtors are current under their post-petition mortgage obligations (including but not limited to principal, interest, escrows, fees, and charges) through April 30, 2024.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when the movant is deprived of possession and its interest lacks adequate protection.

David L. Fuller · filed 2024-06-25(d)(1)

Beyond the issues of standing discussed above, “cause” exists under § 362(d)(1) because Deutsche Bank has been deprived of possession of the Property and has lacked adequate protection of its interest.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay when a debtor fails to make required mortgage payments.

In Re: Jones · filed 2024-08-06(d)(1)

Their nonpayment is sufficient grounds for granting PennyMac relief from the stay.

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

Cynthia M. Lundeen · filed 2024-08-28(d)(1)

Although a lack of adequate protection may constitute cause for stay relief under subsection (d)(1), cause is not limited to a lack of adequate protection.

Section 362(d)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to lift the automatic stay for cause so related state-court matters can be resolved in state court.

King v. King · filed 2024-09-11(d)(1)

However, a bankruptcy court enjoys discretion to grant relief from the stay “for cause,” § 362(d)(1), which “is an intentionally broad and flexible concept.” ... Measured against that body of governing law, the record is clear that Judge Littlefield acted well within the scope of his authority in finding that the automatic stay should be lifted so that the state-court matters involving Mr. King could be resolved in the appropriate state courts.

Section 362(d)(1) allows relief from the automatic stay for cause when a bankruptcy filing was made in bad faith.

In re: O'Hara · filed 2024-09-27(d)(1)

As to section 362(d)(1), “cause” exists when a bankruptcy court finds that a bankruptcy filing was made in bad faith.

Section 362(d)(1) does not require a bankruptcy court to decide whether a petition was filed in bad faith or to lift the stay upon finding bad faith.

Herlihy v. DBMP LLC · filed 2024-10-28(d)(1)

So, it is incorrect to read Carolin as holding that in ruling on a motion to lift a stay, a bankruptcy court must decide if a petition was filed in bad faith and if it so finds then it must lift the stay.

Section 362(d)(1) permits stay relief for lack of adequate protection of a movant’s interest in property outside the bankruptcy estate.

The Diocese of Buffalo, N.Y. · filed 2024-11-22(d)(1)

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1), cause for stay relief may include “the lack of adequate protection of an interest in property.” The text of the statute refers not to property of the estate, but to any property in which the moving party may have an interest.

A debtor’s possessory interest triggers the automatic stay but does not, by itself, prevent relief from the stay for cause.

Stewart v. Federal National Mortgage Association · filed 2024-12-11(d)(1)

While it is true that possessory interests “trigger the applicability of the automatic stay in the first instance, they are not determinative of the fundamentally different question as to whether the stay, once triggered, should be modified or terminated for cause.” In re Dominguez, 312 B.R. 499, 506 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2004) (emphasis omitted). The Court does not find any abuse of discretion in the Bankruptcy Court’s determination that Appellant failed to demonstrate a substantial possibility of success on appeal based on an interest retained in the property.

When deciding whether cause warrants relief from the automatic stay to liquidate a claim in another court, a bankruptcy court must account for the cost of liquidating or estimating the claim if the stay remains.

Berrios v. Reyes · filed 2024-12-17(d)(1)

For these reasons, the bankruptcy court’s decision to deny stay relief because litigating the Appellants’ claim in the local court would be costly for the bankruptcy estate—without acknowledging that the claim will still need to be estimated or liquidated in some court—constituted error.

Section 362(d)(1) gives bankruptcy courts broad discretion to deny relief from the automatic stay when the balance of equities does not establish cause.

Guan v. Ellingsworth Residential Community Association, Inc. · filed 2025-01-13(d)(1)

Therefore, the balance of equities weighed in favor of not granting relief from the stay. Bankruptcy courts retain broad discretion to make such determinations, and none of the facts it relied on here were clearly erroneous. The Bankruptcy Court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Guan did not show cause.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when a bankruptcy filing is made in bad faith to delay eviction.

Djahida Chalek · filed 2025-01-29(d)(1)

This pattern of deliberate abuse—using chapter 7 not for its intended purpose (obtaining a discharge), but simply to delay eviction—constitutes bad faith, which is cause for relief from the automatic stay under section 362(d)(1).

Section 362(d)(1) does not treat a creditor’s choice to litigate in two forums, and the resulting hardship, as cause to lift the automatic stay.

Tammy D Cook · filed 2025-02-11(d)(1)

But it cannot establish cause for stay relief by making the affirmative choice to try its case in two different forums and then claiming that it is being disadvantaged and prejudiced by its own choice.

Section 362(d)(1) does not allow a creditor to establish cause for stay relief by choosing to litigate in two forums and then claiming hardship from that choice.

Dean R Kohn · filed 2025-02-11(d)(1)

But it cannot establish cause for stay relief by making the affirmative choice to try its case in two different forums and then claiming that it is being disadvantaged and prejudiced by its own choice.

Section 362(d)(1) does not allow stay relief for cause based on prejudice a creditor creates by choosing to litigate in two forums.

Frank F Lunn, IV · filed 2025-02-11(d)(1)

But it cannot establish cause for stay relief by making the affirmative choice to try its case in two different forums and then claiming that it is being disadvantaged and prejudiced by its own choice.

Section 362(d)(1) does not require relief from the automatic stay for a technical foreclosure default when the debtor remains current under the plan and the collateral has not lost value.

Dubuque Bank & Trust Company v. Daniels · filed 2025-02-19(d)(1)

However, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in finding that there was no “cause” under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) to lift the stay to allow for foreclosure on the Property, as the Debtors were making payments under the Plan, the collateral was being used as it was used pre-petition, and there was no evidence that the value of the collateral had decreased.

Section 362(d)(1) does not require relief from the automatic stay solely because a creditor has a right to foreclose after a technical default when the debtor is current on plan payments and the collateral has not lost value.

David L Daniels and Sandy E Daniels · filed 2025-02-19(d)(1)

However, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in finding that there was no “cause” under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) to lift the stay to allow for foreclosure on the Property, as the Debtors were making payments under the Plan, the collateral was being used as it was used pre-petition, and there was no evidence that the value of the collateral had decreased.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay when a debtor’s nonpayment leaves a secured creditor without adequate protection.

Samuel Aaron Laurion and Heather Renee Laurion · filed 2025-03-14(d)(1)

Here, § 362(d)(1) is easily met. The Debtor’s refusal to pay for the Truck leaves CorePlus inadequately protected because whatever equity might have existed has effectively been whittled away with time or will be diminished by wear and tear and the transaction costs of litigation.

Relief from the automatic stay may be denied when defending outside litigation would harm the debtor’s estate more than continuing the stay would harm a creditor that has filed an unsecured claim.

Daniel M. Risis · filed 2025-03-27(d)(1)

Finally, the harm to the Debtor’s estate outweighs the harm to the Movants because the Movants are a participating creditor in Debtor’s bankruptcy and have already asserted a general unsecured claim in the amount of $2,000,855.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause so a creditor may ask another court to decide a pending motion and whether to refer litigation to the bankruptcy court.

Daniel M. Risis · filed 2025-03-27(d)(1)

For the reasons outlined above, relief from the automatic stay is granted for cause pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §362(d)(1) to permit PB Financing to ask the District Court to render a decision on PB Financing’s Motion to dismiss Debtor’s Amended Complaint and/or to determine that all, or a part of, the District Court litigation should be referred to the Bankruptcy Court pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 157(a).

Section 362(d)(1) leaves the decision whether cause warrants relief from the automatic stay to the bankruptcy court’s discretion.

Tammy D Cook · filed 2025-05-12(d)(1)

Importantly, the decision to grant or deny relief from the automatic stay for “cause” is a matter of bankruptcy court discretion.

Section 362(d)(1) does not entitle a creditor to litigate state-law liability and damages in another court before the bankruptcy court decides dischargeability; relief from the automatic stay for cause is discretionary.

Dean R Kohn · filed 2025-05-12(d)(1)

The crux of the matter is that Interinsurance Exchange believes it is entitled to try the state law liability and damage claims in California court before the dischargeability issues are decided here. Such entitlement, however, does not exist in the provisions of §362.

Section 362(d)(1) does not entitle a creditor to relief from the automatic stay to litigate state-law liability and damages before dischargeability is decided.

Francis S Rathbun · filed 2025-05-12(d)(1)

The crux of the matter is that Interinsurance Exchange believes it is entitled to try the state law liability and damage claims in California court before the dischargeability issues are decided here. Such entitlement, however, does not exist in the provisions of §362.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief for cause to let litigation proceed to judgment while keeping the stay in place against enforcement of the judgment against the debtor or estate property.

Bright Green Corporation · filed 2025-06-12(d)(1)

The same reasons the Court decided to abstain in the Adversary Proceeding and remand the removed action to State Court establish “cause” to modify the automatic stay to permit the State Court Action to proceed to final judgment, with the stay remaining in place with respect to enforcement of any judgment against the Debtor or property of the estate in this Bankruptcy Case.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when prior judgments establish that bankruptcy proceedings cannot change the debtor’s lack of rights in the property.

Crigler · filed 2025-07-23(d)(1)

To the contrary, it was reasonable to waive the stay in light of evidence that the Bankruptcy proceedings would not change the fact that Crigler did not have a right to the property she sought to protect.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause, including lack of adequate protection when collateral has no equity cushion and is uninsured and damaged.

John Anthony Crosby · filed 2025-07-31(d)(1)

Debtor acknowledges the Property is grossly underwater in terms of its value to debt ratio, so it is undisputed there is no equity cushion to provide adequate protection. Furthermore, the Property is uninsured,9 unoccupied, and has a hole in the roof. In addition, the loan matured in 2022, and Debtor has failed to pay off the loan. For these reasons, cause exists to grant relief pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §362(d)(1).

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause to pursue a state court appeal when the balance of relevant Sonnax factors favors lifting the stay.

Crane Enterprises LLC · filed 2025-08-08(d)(1)

In applying the Sonnax factors, the Court concludes that “cause” exists here to lift the stay pursuant to Section 362(d)(1).

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause; courts use the Sonnax factors to decide whether litigation should proceed in another forum, and denial is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Reiner v. Paneth · filed 2025-09-17(d)(1)

Thus, the Court affirms the Bankruptcy Court’s determination that the relevant Sonnax factors weighed against stay relief, and finds no abuse of discretion in its denial of the creditors’ motion under section 362(d)(1).

Section 362(d)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to consider all relevant factual circumstances when deciding whether cause exists to lift the automatic stay.

GmbH v. Bass · filed 2025-09-18(d)(1)

Therefore, a bankruptcy court, at minimum, may consider all factual circumstances relevant to the stay relief issued.

When deciding whether to lift the automatic stay for cause in a Chapter 15 case, a court may consider the debtor’s lack of assets in the United States as part of its prejudice analysis.

LACOM GmbH v. Bass · filed 2025-09-18(d)(1)

The Appellants are correct that having assets in the United States is not a prerequisite to filing a Chapter 15 petition, but their argument that a Bankruptcy Court may not consider the lack of assets fails.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when a debtor fails to make mortgage payments.

Joshua Nathaniel Blackmon · filed 2025-10-03(d)(1)

Mr. Blackmon’s failure to make mortgage payments by itself would support LoanDepot’s request for relief from the automatic stay.

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

Marisa Smith v. Shoma Homes At Nautica Single Family · filed 2025-10-06(d)(1)

A finding that a bankruptcy petition was filed in bad faith is sufficient cause for relief from an automatic stay.

A bankruptcy court may lift the automatic stay for cause without including an in-depth analysis of the Curtis factors in its order.

Century Indemnity Company v. The Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Francisco · filed 2025-11-07(d)(1)

Not including an in-depth analysis in the order granting the stipulation does not show error. Nor does it suggest that the bankruptcy court abused its discretion in lifting the automatic stay.

Section 362(d)(1) requires a creditor seeking stay relief for lack of adequate protection to make a prima facie showing that cause exists to lift the stay as to the collateral at issue.

WT Repair, LLC · filed 2025-11-20(d)(1)

In short, the Bank did not establish that cause exists to lift the stay with respect to its interest in the Collateral not subject to the Agreed Order (i.e., the miscellaneous parts, tools, and inventory necessary for the Debtor to continue operating its repair shop) nor did the Bank refute the evidence on the Debtor’s ability to make adequate protection payments to the Bank from the income generated by the repair business.

Section 362(d)(1) permits termination of the automatic stay for cause when a debtor fails to make mortgage and court-ordered adequate protection payments.

Gladys Esowe · filed 2025-12-17(d)(1)

Cause exists to terminate the Stay. A consistent failure to make monthly mortgage payments constitutes prima facie evidence of cause. See In re Taylor, 151 B.R. 646, 648 (E.D.N.Y. 1993). Once a party makes that showing, it becomes incumbent upon the debtor to “establish that the [creditor]’s interest in the property is adequately protected.” Id. Here, the Debtor filed no response to the Motion. The Debtor has failed to pay any post- petition interest since November 1, 2024, accumulating $12,013.39 in arrears as of March 2025, and has further defaulted on the monthly adequate protection payments of $2,400 ordered by this Court. (First Motion ¶¶ 9-10; Motion ¶ 6). Under these circumstances it is appropriate for this Court to terminate the Stay. No evidence of adequate protection has been provided.

Section 362(d)(1) allows relief from the automatic stay for cause when a debtor is delinquent on payments for a secured vehicle and has no equity in it.

Jamie Marie Bowman · filed 2026-01-12(d)(1)

Based upon the fact that Bowman 1s, admittedly, delinquent on the Mazda payments and that there is no equity in the vehicle, this Court concludes that granting stay relief to People First FCU is warranted.

Section 362(d)(1) requires a creditor seeking relief from the automatic stay to show cause; a right to setoff alone does not establish cause.

Steven K. Bailey · filed 2026-02-02(d)(1)

Therefore, even if Appellant could prove that a right to setoff exists, she still has not carried her burden of proving that the bankruptcy court erred in denying relief from stay because she needs to show more than a right to setoff – she needs to show that there is cause for relief from the stay.

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

Citizens Bank NA v. Corbin L Young · filed 2026-02-09(d)(1)

The filing of a bankruptcy petition in bad faith constitutes “cause” to lift the stay pursuant to § 362(d)(1).

Section 362(d) allows relief from an automatic stay for bad faith when the movant shows both subjective bad faith and objective futility.

Herlihy v. DBMP, LLC · filed 2026-02-11(d)

Thus, we have noted that the lack-of-good-faith requirement implied in “cause” in both § 1112(b) and § 362(d) requires the movant to show both subjective bad faith and objective futility.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when the balance of hardships favors completing a pending arbitration.

EAD Constructors, Inc. · filed 2026-03-05(d)(1)

Under § 362(d)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code, the court shall grant relief from the automatic stay “for cause.” 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). ... The test balances the hardships on the parties and the estate. ... The remaining factors and the balance of hardships favor granting relief to arbitrate.

Section 362(d)(1) requires a movant seeking relief from the automatic stay for cause to provide enough factual and legal support for the court to conduct a stay relief analysis.

In re Soni Holdings, LLC · filed 2026-03-06(d)(1)

Moreover, the bullet-point request contained in the Omnibus Motion fails to establish the mimimum record necessary for the Court to conduct a proper stay relief analysis — including the controlling factors set forth in Sonnax Indus., Inc. v. Tri Component Prods. Corp. (In re Sonnax Indus., Inc.), 907 F.2d 1280 (2d Cir. 1990) — to determine whether cause exists to lift the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1).

Section 362(d)(1) does not treat missed plan payments alone as automatic cause to lift the stay; the court considers the circumstances, including the creditor’s equity cushion.

CHRISTOPHER JUSTIN RISHER · filed 2026-03-06(d)(1)

There is no per se rule that the lack of plan payments, without more, is cause to lift the stay.

A movant seeking relief from the automatic stay based on a debtor’s bad-faith bankruptcy filing must show both subjective bad faith and objective futility.

Buckingham · filed 2026-03-16(d)

To the extent Ms. Weiss asserts Carolin’s two-pronged standard is inapplicable in the stay lift context, that position was recently rejected by our Court of Appeals in another -- nearly identical -- Chapter 11 bankruptcy case involving a Texas Two-Step created entity seeking § 524 reorganization due to its sprawling asbestos-related liabilities. See DBMP, 167 F.4th at 151 (explaining “the lack-of-good-faith requirement implied in ‘cause’ in both § 1112(b) and § 362(d) requires the movant to show both subjective bad faith and objective futility.”) (emphasis added)).

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when a secured creditor lacks an equity cushion and the debtor cannot make adequate protection payments.

Hashem Hosseini · filed 2026-03-18(d)(1)

Given the lack of equity cushion, and the Debtor’s apparent inability to make monthly adequate protection payments, the Court finds that cause exists to lift the automatic stay under section 362(d)(1).

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for lack of adequate protection when the debtor has stopped making payments and the debt substantially exceeds the collateral’s value.

Monisha R. Mapp · filed 2026-03-19(d)(1)

Debtor has failed to make any payment towards the Contract since April 2025, owing $25,933.90 as of the filing of the Motion, and the Opposition has made no claim to the contrary. The balance owed to Ally—over $130,000—substantially exceeds the value of the vehicle—under $74,000. This satisfies Ally’s burden of demonstrating that it is not adequately protected.

Section 362(d)(1) does not automatically supply cause to lift the stay whenever bankruptcy interrupts prepetition litigation; stay relief depends on the relevant factors and the bankruptcy court’s discretion.

Cook · filed 2026-03-23(d)(1)

Considering the posture of this case, Interinsurance Exchange effectively advocates for a rule that any time prepetition litigation is stayed by bankruptcy, there exists “cause” — without regard for Fernstrom or Grogg, or the bankruptcy court's inherent discretion in deciding stay relief —for a creditor to be relieved from the stay to continue the litigation. No authority cited by Interinsurance Exchange supports such a rule, whether within this Circuit or elsewhere.

Section 362(d)(1) requires a court deciding whether cause exists to lift the automatic stay to consider prejudice to the debtor or estate, relative hardship, and the creditor’s likelihood of success in the other litigation.

Lunn · filed 2026-03-23(d)(1)

In determining whether “cause” exists to lift the automatic stay, Fernstrom requires a bankruptcy court to consider 1) “the prejudice to the debtor or the bankruptcy estate from allowing the non-bankruptcy litigation to continue;” 2) “the relative hardship to the debtor and to the party seeking relief;” and 3) “the creditor’s probability of prevailing on the merits in the litigation, before it could lift the automatic stay.”

Section 362(d)(1) requires a creditor seeking stay relief for cause based on missed postpetition mortgage payments to make a prima facie showing of material nonpayment; unreliable payment records fail to carry that burden.

In re Kenneth J. Ashcraft and Deborah D. Ashcraft · filed 2026-03-25(d)(1)

It was Citigroup’s burden to make a prima facie showing of its factual and legal right to the relief that it sought. Citigroup had the opportunity to proffer records showing that the Debtors materially failed to make post-petition mortgage payments and that “cause” therefore existed to lift the automatic stay. Citigroup did not carry its burden.

Under § 362(d)(1), the balance of harms may weigh against granting relief from the automatic stay.

In re TM36, LLC · filed 2026-05-03(d)(1)

Lastly, the balance of harms does not favor granting relief from the stay.

Section 362(d)(1) allows relief from the stay for cause so a state court can complete a partition sale of jointly owned property when the debtor cannot divest the other owner through a Chapter 13 plan.

Robert C. Rankin · filed 2026-05-13(d)(1)

The Court finds there is cause under § 362(d)(1) to grant the Motion and allow the parties to return to state court for further proceedings as that court deems appropriate, including sale of the Property by the real estate commissioner.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when a debtor continues to withhold postpetition condominium common charges after a prolonged prepetition default.

In re Hanna Jesionowska Practice LLC · filed 2026-05-14(d)(1)

Here, consistent with the statute’s terms and this line of authority, Debtor's failure to make post-petition common charge payments constitutes “cause” for lifting the stay under Section 362(d)(1), especially because that ongoing post-petition failure follows a long period of prepetition default that has persisted since August 2023.

Section 362(d)(1) does not provide cause to lift the stay for a creditor’s lawsuit when continuing it would interfere with estate administration, threaten significant insurance assets, and impair reorganization.

Dockside Association, Inc. · filed 2026-05-20(d)(1)

The Court concludes that Wiggins has failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for relief from stay under the Robbins framework. Dockside has demonstrated that continuation of the Lawsuit would interfere with administration of the estate, jeopardize preservation of potentially significant insurance assets, and impair the orderly restructuring process contemplated by Chapter 11.

Delay in selling property, by itself, is insufficient cause for relief from the automatic stay under § 362(d)(1).

Santiago v. Rico · filed 2026-06-02(d)(1)

The record in this case demonstrates that the bankruptcy court relied solely on the debtor’s delay in selling the property to grant stay relief under § 362(d)(1). The court did not discuss why that delay in the context of this case would constitute cause. The foregoing case law establishes that delay, alone, is insufficient.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when a debtor’s failure to pay post-petition rent leaves the landlord without adequate protection.

Robert Ludvik Blumenblatt · filed 2026-06-10(d)(1)

Based on the evidence presented by the Movant, the Court agrees with the Movant that relief from the automatic stay is warranted under Section 362(d)(1) for lack of adequate protection.

Relief from the automatic stay requires a valid ground; a prior dismissal under § 109(f) does not justify relief against a corporate debtor when the record shows no other ground.

Matter of La Cache Land Co., Inc. · filed 1985-11-14(d)(1)

The record contains no other reason why appellant may not file this bankruptcy petition and afford itself of an automatic stay. Nor does it contain any other reason why appellee is entitled to relief from the stay.

Section 362(d)(1) allows the stay to remain in effect when the creditor has not shown cause for relief and the debtor has established adequate protection.

In Re Rouse · filed 1984-10-16(d)(1)

In view of the evidence presented, we find that PSFS has not established a prima facie case for relief from the stay under § 362(d)(1). The debtor has met his burden of proof, however, on the issue of adequate protection. Therefore, the automatic stay shall remain in effect to allow the debtor an opportunity for confirmation and ultimate consummation of his Chapter 13 plan.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay after notice and a hearing for cause, including lack of adequate protection of an interest in property.

In Re Steve A. BUCKNER, Debtor. FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION, Appellee, v. Steve A. BUCKNER, Appellant · filed 1995-09-14(d)(1)

The relief from stay provision permits the bankruptcy court, after notice and a hearing, to lift the automatic stay "for cause, including the lack of adequate protection of an interest in property of such party in interest." 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1).

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when a Chapter 11 case was filed in bad faith.

Pacific Rim Investments, LLP v. Oriam, LLC (In Re Pacific Rim Investments, LLP) · filed 2000-01-25(d)(1)

Similarly, with the exception of In re Victoria Ltd. Partnership, courts have consistently determined the filing of a Chapter 11 case in bad faith is “cause” for termination of the automatic stay under § 362(d)(1).

Mutual obligations subject to setoff provide an initial showing of cause for relief from the automatic stay under § 362(d)(1).

In Re Nuclear Imaging Systems, Inc. · filed 2000-10-18(d)(1)

Courts have generally concluded that the existence of mutual obligations subject to set-off constitutes sufficient ‘cause’ to meet the creditor’s initial eviden-tiary burden in seeking relief from the automatic stay.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay to pursue eviction when a lease terminated before bankruptcy and the debtor has no continuing right to occupy the property.

Pride Aircraft, Inc · filed 2020-10-30(d)(1)

The court held an evidentiary hearing and, after weighing the evidence presented at trial, concludes that the lease from GRAA to HSI of Plot No. 28 terminated pre-petition. The court further finds the Debtor failed to demonstrate that it has a continuing right to occupy the property. Accordingly, GRAA’s motion for relief from stay to seek to evict the Debtor from Plot No. 28 is granted.

A debtor’s lack of good faith in filing may constitute cause to lift the automatic stay.

Sternitzky, Jon v. State Bank Financial · filed 2022-11-14(d)(1)

Bankruptcy courts routinely find that a lack of good faith in filing may serve as sufficient cause to lift the automatic stay and to dismiss a bankruptcy case.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when a foreclosure sale was confirmed before the bankruptcy petition and the debtor had no remaining interest in the property.

New England Bank & Trust Co. v. Loubier (In Re Loubier) · filed 1980-09-30(d)(1)

I hold that the Bank and the Committee have established cause, under the circumstances of this proceeding, pursuant to § 362(d)(1) to permit the granting of relief from stay.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause so a creditor can liquidate a claim against the debtor to pursue insurance coverage, where doing so does not jeopardize the debtor or the bankruptcy estate.

Elliott v. Hardison · filed 1982-11-15(d)(1)

The Court can find no policy of the Bankruptcy Code that would be fostered by preventing Mr. Elliott from liquidating his claim against Mr. Hardison, neither has the Court been shown that to allow Mr. Elliott to liquidate his claim would jeopardize Mr. Hardison’s bankrupt estate or the effective reorganization of that estate. The Court, therefore, cannot find that the bankruptcy court erred or that it abused its discretion in allowing the pending personal injury suit of Mr. Elliott to proceed.

Nonpayment of use and occupancy is not cause to lift the automatic stay when the debtor neither receives revenue from nor uses the property.

In re Concert Arts Society, Inc. · filed 1983-03-14(d)(1)

Cause does not lie in the nonpayment of use and occupancy by Concert Arts. ... Beyond its existing direction of a limited provision for use and occupancy payments to Beacway during the times Concert Arts actually uses the theater, this court would be holding contrary to settled bankruptcy law if it directed Concert Arts to pay use and occupancy to Beacway when Concert Arts neither receives any monies from 50/50 nor has the use of the theater.

Section 362(d)(1) requires relief from the automatic stay for cause; lack of adequate protection is one example of cause, not an exhaustive definition.

Farmhand, Inc. v. Lahman Manufacturing Co. (In Re Lahman Manufacturing Co.) · filed 1983-05-10(d)(1)

Thereunder, the Court is required to grant relief from the stay for cause at the request of a party in interest. Section 362(d)(1) does not provide an inclusive list of what would be considered “cause” but only specifies that lack of adequate protection is cause for granting relief.

Section 362(d)(1) permits modification of the automatic stay for cause when allowing litigation against the debtor in another court serves judicial economy and the debtor fails to prove otherwise.

In Re Humphreys Pest Control Co., Inc. · filed 1984-01-06(d)(1)

Since the issues to be litigated in the movants’ suit now pending against the debtors’ officers and agents are the same issues the movants will raise against the debtors, it appears that judicial economy will be served by allowing the suit to go forward in the District Court. In conclusion, we find there is “cause” to lift the stay, the debtors having failed to sustain their burden of proving otherwise. Accordingly, we will grant modification of the stay to allow the movants to commence litigation against the debtors in the District Court on the same cause of action now pending against the debtors’ officers and agents.

A landlord was not entitled to relief from the stay for cause under § 362(d)(1) when the debtor had paid the postpetition rent due.

In Re Law Clinic of Mott & Gray, P.C. · filed 1984-05-10(d)(1)

In the case at bench the testimony reveals that, as of the date of the hearing on this matter, the debtor had paid the one ... rent payment which accrued during the postpetition period. Based on this evidence we must find that PSFS is not entitled to relief from the stay “for cause” under § 362(d)(1).

Section 362(d)(1) requires relief from the automatic stay for cause, including lack of adequate protection.

In Re Polries Bros. · filed 1985-02-04(d)(1)

This section mandates relief from stay for cause, including the lack of adequate protection.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause and places the initial burden on the party seeking relief.

Teilhaber Manufacturing Co. v. Unarco Industries, Inc. (In Re UNR Industries, Inc.) · filed 1985-09-13(d)(1)

The proponent of a request for relief from the section 362(a) automatic stay bears the initial burden to establish “cause” warranting entry of such relief. Once such initial showing has been made by the creditor, the burden lies with the debtor to demonstrate its entitlement to the continuation of the stay.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay to establish a debtor’s liability in state court when the creditor seeks payment from a third-party recovery fund.

Granger v. Harris (In Re Harris) · filed 1988-04-25(d)(1)

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Applicants’ Motion for Relief from Stay is granted for the purpose of determining the Debtor’s liability, if any, in that certain real estate transaction for which a complaint has been filed in Larimer County District Court.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when a creditor’s perfected lien is superior to the trustee’s interest.

Matter of US Marketing Concepts, Inc. · filed 1990-03-29(d)(1)

Here “cause” exists to terminate the automatic stay. Don Jacobs holds a perfected lien upon the proceeds of debt- or’s fraudulent conveyances in the hands of the garnishees, which is superior to the interest of the trustee.

Section 362(d)(1) permits modification of the automatic stay for cause to let state court litigation proceed to judgment when doing so will not adversely affect estate property or increase the debtor’s liability.

In Re Stanton · filed 1990-11-30(d)(1)

The stipulation executed between the trustee in bankruptcy and Berkley Arms Apartment Corporation modifying the automatic stay so as to allow the latter to proceed with the litigation in New Jersey against the named defendants, including the debtor, up to the point of judgment, is supported by sufficient cause within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1).

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when a landlord seeks to pursue eviction after the lease was terminated before bankruptcy.

In Re Seven Stars Restaurant, Inc. · filed 1990-12-19(d)(1)

The movant’s request for relief from the stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) is granted because cause has been shown to support the movants’ right to continue with their action for a state court order of eviction.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause to allow immediate distribution of marital property to a former spouse when the debtor retains enough assets to pay creditors in full.

In Re Claughton · filed 1992-04-27(d)(1)

Based on this finding, the Court concludes that the marital property awarded to Mixson is not necessary to the Debtor’s reorganization and that it would be inappropriate for this Court to reallocate the marital property distribution determined by the Florida courts for the convenience of the Debtor and his creditors. Based on these same findings, the Court further concludes that cause exists to modify the stay to allow Mixson to receive immediate distribution of marital property awarded to her.

Section 362(d)(1) requires cause to grant relief from the automatic stay; a receiver’s unauthorized attempt to terminate a lease did not establish cause while the lease remained in effect.

In Re Gourmet Services, Inc. · filed 1992-05-06(d)(1)

As the Lease apparently remains in effect and may be assumed by the Debtor, assuming the Debtor has the ability to comply with the provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 365, the Court finds that cause does not exist to justify relief from stay.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause after considering state court expertise, judicial economy, and whether the bankruptcy estate can be protected.

Robbins v. Robbins (In re Robbins) · filed 1992-05-19(d)(1)

The factors that courts consider in deciding whether to lift the automatic stay include (1) whether the issues in the pending litigation involve only state law, so the expertise of the bankruptcy court is unnecessary; (2) whether modifying the stay will promote judicial economy and whether there would be greater interference with the bankruptcy case if the stay were not lifted because matters would have to be litigated in bankruptcy court; and (3) whether the estate can be protected properly by a requirement that creditors seek enforcement of any judgment through the bankruptcy court.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause, including enforcement of a state court injunction to remedy a nuisance before winter.

In Re Lamberjack · filed 1992-10-09(d)(1)

The court finds that movant has established cause. A judgment upon the state court action has been entered by that court directing Debtor to remove the southerly gas pump and the hook at the end of the piling. Enforcement of this mandatory permanent injunction has been stayed by the filing of Debtor’s petition. Movant has supported his request for relief stating that these two conditions represent a nuisance and, furthermore, that the optimum time for remedying this situation is before the onset of winter.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause, including allowing a secured creditor to collect a judgment when the debtor retains enough assets to pay other creditors in full.

Claughton v. Mixson (In re Claughton) · filed 1993-07-16(d)(1)

Section 362(d)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code authorizes bankruptcy courts to lift the automatic stay “for cause”. ... Accordingly, this court finds that the bankruptcy court’s findings are not clearly erroneous and entry of the order lifting the stay and allowing a secured creditor to collect a judgment was not an abuse of discretion.

Section 362(d)(1) requires a creditor to show cause to lift the automatic stay; an unconsented property transfer did not establish cause where the creditor accepted six years of payments.

In Re Allston · filed 1997-03-20(d)(1)

Insofar as it seeks relief under § 362(d)(1), it is not enough for the Bank to simply assert that there is “cause” for the automatic stay to be vacated because the transfer by Anissa Allston to her parents in 1991 was not in accordance with the terms of the mortgage. To the extent that this argument had any force, it pales in the face of the Bank having accepted six years of payment from the Debtors.

Section 362(d)(1) permits a court to modify the automatic stay for cause so a foreclosure can proceed when the estate has no interest in the property.

In re Ragin · filed 2000-03-03(d)(1)

Consequently, there is sufficient “cause” under § 362(d)(1) to modify the stay to allow the Foreclosure Action to be completed in accordance with state law.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause, assessed by balancing prejudice to the debtor’s estate against the hardship to the party seeking relief.

Stone Street Services, Inc. v. Granati (In Re Granati) · filed 2001-04-09(d)(1)

At the request of the party stayed, the automatic stay may be annulled, terminated, modified, or conditioned, for “cause,” which includes but is not limited to lack of adequate protection. ... In the present case, the balance-of-hardships test slightly favors the debtor. ... For the foregoing reasons, a separate order will be entered vacating the order of March 8, 2001, and denying the motion for relief from automatic stay.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when an unsecured creditor faces continuing unreimbursed expenses.

Enodis Corp. v. Wausau Ins. Co. (In Re Consolidated Industries Corp.) · filed 2001-11-07(d)(1)

Although § 362(d)(1) more commonly comes into play when the court is called upon to consider the rights of secured creditors, it is not limited to those situations.

Section 362 permits a court to modify the automatic stay for cause to allow state court litigation to continue when doing so promotes judicial economy and does not prejudice other creditors.

Gelinas v. Gelinas (In Re Gelinas) · filed 2001-11-26(d)(1)

The court concludes that the movants have established cause for the granting of their motion, and the court will enter an order modifying the automatic stay to permit the movants to conclude the debtor’s appeal, enforce the injunction provision of the state-court ruling, and determine damages in accordance with the ruling.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when claimants have a colorable claim to pursue in another forum.

Prototype Engineering & Manufacturing, Inc. · filed 2020-06-24(d)(1)

Cause is shown under 11 U.S.C. 362(d)(1) because claimants have a colorable ... argument to assert a claim in a nonbankruptcy forum, though the court does not rule on the merits on any such claim as that determination is left for the other forum.

Rejection of a lease creates cause for relief from the automatic stay.

RentalAccess, LLC v. Johnson (In re Johnson) · filed 2018-06-13(d)(1)

Because the Debtor failed to timely assume the lease, it is deemed rejected. The rejection of a lease creates cause for relief from the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when continuing the stay would prevent a court from giving full faith and credit to an enforceable state court possession order.

In re Ind. Hotel Equities, LLC · filed 2018-07-26(d)(1)

Therefore, failing to grant relief from stay as requested by the IAA would amount to a failure by this Court to give full faith and credit to the State Court Decision, as required by the Full Faith and Credit statute and the doctrine of collateral estoppel. This Court cannot do this. This state of affairs establishes "cause," under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1), to modify the automatic stay to permit the IAA to seek, in the Indiana courts, to enforce the possession order of the State Court Decision.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause, including when an enforceable prepetition stay waiver and an unfeasible reorganization warrant relief.

In Re Bryan Road, LLC · filed 2008-02-12(d)(1)

Based on the discussion above, I find that stay relief is warranted under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). ... Since under the circumstances of this case the Forbearance Agreement is enforceable, it is apparent to me that there is sufficient cause to grant the Bank the relief it seeks.

Section 362(d)(1) requires relief from the automatic stay for cause when the relevant factors favor completing pending state court litigation and claimed harm to the bankruptcy estate lacks evidentiary support.

In re Roger · filed 2015-10-13(d)(1)

Thus, on this record, the Court finds that the Bankruptcy Court abused its discretion in finding a lack of “cause” to support granting relief from stay.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause, assessed case by case with attention to judicial economy and the movant’s likelihood of success in the other litigation.

Credit Investments, Inc. v. United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado · filed 2015-11-05(d)(1)

Accordingly, we hold that the bankruptcy court correctly concluded that the interests of judicial economy and the expeditious and economical determination of litigation favored stay relief, and it’s Order Lifting Stay was not an abuse of discretion.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause, including lack of adequate protection of a creditor’s interest in property.

Sterling v. 1279 St. Johns Place, LLC (In re Sterling) · filed 2017-03-03(d)(1)

Second, Judge Lane needed proof of a basis to lift the stay. In this case, the proffered basis was Appellant’s failure to make post-petition payments on the Three Properties.