11 U.S.C. § 362

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

In re Schaffer · filed 2019-03-28(d)(1)

The Court also finds that the Debtor acted in bad faith when he, inter alia, spent the entire Distribution in direct contravention of the Trustee's Letter and without any means of repaying such amount to his creditors in the chapter 13 case. Accordingly, cause exists to lift the automatic stay so that Rashid may pursue his state law rights against the Second Distribution; Kichkin may recover its Gems under state law; and Rashid and Kichkin may resume, and liquidate, their claims against the Debtor in the State Court but may not execute on any judgment entered in State Court without further relief from this Court.

Section 362(d)(1) permits a court to terminate the automatic stay for cause, including defaults in post-petition payments.

Jamie Benjamin Billman and Melissa Marnell Billman · filed 2020-06-12(d)(1)

The court determines that cause exists for terminating the automatic stay, including defaults in post-petition payments that have come due.

Section 362(d)(1) requires a movant seeking relief from the automatic stay to make an initial showing of cause; a proposed setoff without mutual claims does not establish cause.

Rochester Drug Cooperative, Inc. · filed 2020-07-22(d)(1)

Here, the Court holds that the necessary element of mutuality of claims is not present. ... Mead Square has failed to carry its threshold burden to show cause exists to lift the automatic stay under § 362(d)(1).

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when a consolidated insurance coverage action would resolve the dispute efficiently and the balance of harms favors relief.

Kossoff PLLC and P. XENOPOULOS REALTY, LLC · filed 2023-05-10(d)(1)

Overall, the Court is persuaded that Continental has established cause to lift the stay so it can learn whether it does or does not have continuing obligations under the policy it issued Kossoff PLLC.

Section 362(d)(1) permits limited relief from the automatic stay for cause to allow pending litigation to reach judgment while enforcement remains stayed.

Thomas Singe · filed 2023-11-01(d)(1)

Bates Troy’s Motion for Limited Relief from Stay (Docket No. 20) is GRANTED; the State Court Actions may proceed to the issuance of findings of fact and conclusions of law, along with entry, but not enforcement, of judgment thereon.

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

Dean St Brooklyn LLC (DE) v. U.S. Bank National Association · filed 2024-02-14(d)(1)

The Bankruptcy Court appropriately looked to the Phoenix Piccadilly factors to make a finding of bad faith. Pursuant to that finding, the Bankruptcy Court properly lifted the automatic stay for cause under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) for a year.

Section 362(d)(1) permits a court to lift the automatic stay for cause when relevant factors favor allowing litigation in another forum to proceed.

Residential World Development, LLC · filed 2024-11-21(d)(1)

Here, the Court finds that Sonnax factors 1, 2, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12 are relevant, and each of those factors strongly favor granting stay relief. ... The motion for relief from the automatic stay is GRANTED for cause, under § 362(d)(1).

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when a debtor files a Chapter 13 case in bad faith.

Desma Nicole Rashidi · filed 2025-01-10(d)(1)

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the Movant—Credit Acceptance—is entitled to relief from the automatic stay under § 362(d) of the Bankruptcy Code for “cause”, based on a finding of the Debtor’s lack of good faith in filing her Chapter 13 case and an abuse of process.

Section 362(d)(1) permits a court to modify the automatic stay for cause when missed post-petition mortgage payments leave a creditor’s interest inadequately protected.

Russo v. Willmington Savings Fund Society, FSB · filed 2025-03-12(d)(1)

The Court therefore agrees with the Bankruptcy Court that Appellant Russo’s failure to make post-petition mortgage payments is sufficient “cause” to modify the automatic stay under Section 362(d)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 362(d)(1) allows relief from the automatic stay for cause; proposed state court proceedings that risk prejudicing debtors and conflicting with bankruptcy law may fail to establish cause.

Brian Harold Fallon and Paula Marie Fallon · filed 2025-03-31(d)(1)

Weighing the relevant Sonnax factors, sufficient cause does not exist under § 362(d)(1) to grant relief from the automatic stay.

Section 362(d)(1) leaves relief from the automatic stay for cause to the bankruptcy court’s discretion; an unliquidated state law claim does not automatically entitle a creditor to litigate it before dischargeability is decided.

Frank F Lunn, IV · 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 a court to modify the automatic stay for cause when the stay prevents a creditor from obtaining a potentially nondischargeable damages award before discharge.

James Liukonen · filed 2025-06-09(d)(1)

Section 362(d) of the Bankruptcy Code allows this court to modify §362(a)’s “automatic” stay on proceedings against a debtor when there is cause to do so. 11 U.S.C. §362(d). As explained above, Johnson’s claims against the debtor for intentional infliction of emotional distress damages are ones for personal injuries that potentially give rise to an award of damages made not dischargeable by §1328(a)(4), but only if Johnson obtains an award of damages before this court grants the discharge. Currently the §362(a) stay is depriving Johnson of her ability to obtain such an award. For that reason, the court concludes that there is cause to grant relief from the automatic stay.

Section 362(d)(1) does not provide cause to lift the automatic stay to terminate a license agreement when the agreement permits assignment to a successor in interest.

CRIVELLA HOLDINGS LIMITED v. MESEARCH MEDIA TECHNOLOGIES, LIMITED · filed 2025-08-25(d)(1)

Consequently, there is no cause for the Court to grant relief from the stay imposed by 11 U.S.C. § 362(d).

Section 362(d)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to lift the automatic stay for cause after considering the totality of the circumstances.

ARSENIS · filed 2025-12-29(d)(1)

A review of the transcript makes it plain that the Bankruptcy Court independently and properly analyzed the “totality of the circumstances” of the case, In re Wilson, 116 F.3d 87, 91 (3d Cir. 1997), and exercised its “discretion” to grant the Bank relief from the stay, In re Myers, 491 F.3d at 128; (see ECF No. 15-7 at 26:11—34:17.)

Section 362(d)(1) does not require lifting the automatic stay so a creditor can try prepetition claims before the bankruptcy court decides dischargeability; the court considers the factors relevant to cause.

Kohn · filed 2026-03-23(d)(1)

In summary, the Bankruptcy Court’s holding that it should resolve dischargeability issues before the determination of the existence of a debt, assuming any debts are excepted from the Debtors’ discharges, in reliance on the Fernstrom and Grogg factors, does not constitute reversible legal error.

Section 362(d)(1) permits a court to grant limited relief from the automatic stay for cause.

In re Apple Tree Life Sciences, Inc. · filed 2026-04-14(d)(1)

Regardless, I have determined that limited relief from stay should be granted to permit certain aspects of the Winding Up Petition to proceed.

Section 362(d) relief from the automatic stay permits a creditor to pursue nonbankruptcy remedies without abandoning estate property or automatically ending the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction over it.

In Re Ridgemont Apartment Associates · filed 1989-10-04(d)

Termination of the automatic stay is neither analogous to, nor the equivalent of, an abandonment of property of the estate. Notwithstanding relief from the stay, the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction of the property continues, but is subject to being changed.

Relief from the automatic stay does not itself transfer estate property to a secured creditor; the creditor must foreclose or otherwise take possession of the collateral.

United States v. Ayala (In Re Ayala) · filed 1989-10-10

The mere fact that counsel for the Plaintiff and Defendant and the Chapter 7 Trustee signed a Stipulation agreeing that the Court could enter an order granting relief from stay does not transfer the property (accounts receivable) from the estate to the secured creditor until the secured creditor either forecloses on the collateral or by some other manner physically takes possession of the collateral.

Modification of the automatic stay to permit a debtor’s appeal validates further judicial proceedings in that appeal without separate stay relief for the opposing party.

Danzig v. Grynberg (In Re Grynberg) · filed 1990-04-16(d)

Arguments that the requested relief should be denied because the Danzig Claimants neither sought nor received relief from the automatic stay are unpersuasive. 11 U.S.C. §§ 362(d). The stay was modified at the request of the debtors to allow the pursuit of the appeal. By the Court’s action, all further judicial proceedings were validated.

Section 362 renders a postpetition creditor collection action void from the outset, even if the creditor lacked notice of the bankruptcy filing.

In re Universal Trend, Inc. · filed 1990-05-30

Post-petition actions taken by creditors to collect a debt from the debtor are void ab initio and have no legal effect, even if the creditor had no notice of the bankruptcy filing.

Transfers made in violation of the automatic stay are voidable through an action brought during the bankruptcy case in which the violation occurred.

United States v. Schwartz (In Re Schwartz) · filed 1990-10-12

We therefore adopt the rule that transfers in violation of the automatic stay are voidable in an action brought during the bankruptcy in which the violation occurred.

Section 362 renders an unauthorized postpetition sale of estate property and distribution of the sale proceeds void and without effect.

Yorke v. Citibank, N.A. (In Re BNT Terminals, Inc.) · filed 1991-02-21

Thus, the sale and subsequent transfer of sale proceeds violated the automatic stay and are without effect.

Orders precluded by the automatic stay must be set aside; contempt proceedings may resume after relief from the stay or its expiration.

Interstate Commerce Commission v. Holmes Transportation, Inc. · filed 1991-05-06

In the event it is determined that the ICC action against HTI in district court, or any act to obtain possession or control of the private escrow, was subject to the automatic stay, the district court shall set aside any order precluded by the automatic stay, without prejudice to the right of any party, and without limitation on the power of the district court sua sponte, to reinstitute the civil contempt proceedings following relief from, or expiration of, the automatic stay, in accordance with Bankruptcy Code § 362(c) — (f).

An order confirming a foreclosure sale in violation of the automatic stay is voidable rather than void.

Tim Wargo & Sons, Inc. v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States · filed 1991-05-09

Assuming that appellant retained an interest in the property, we agree with appellant that the confirmation of the sale was a violation of the automatic stay;, however, we reject the contention raised in its first issue and hold that the chancellor’s act of confirming the sale was voidable.

Relief from the automatic stay under § 362(d) allows a previously enjoined action to proceed and does not prevent the trustee from removing and transferring it.

In Re Marathon Home Loans, Debtor. Bernice W. Chambers v. Lawrence A. Diamant, Chapter 11 Trustee for Marathon Home Loan · filed 1991-09-05(d)

The grant of relief from stay did not preclude removal and transfer by the trustee. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(d) (effect of relief from stay is to allow previously enjoined action to proceed).

The automatic stay prevents a secured creditor from foreclosing, and allowing it to retain postpetition rents without crediting the debt would effectively grant retroactive relief from the stay.

In Re Oaks Partners, Ltd. · filed 1991-12-09

However, the bankruptcy filing invokes the automatic stay which prevents the creditor from foreclosing. If First Union is allowed to keep the rents and not apply them to the debt, then one of the purposes of the automatic stay is defeated. In effect, allowing First Union to take the rents and not apply them to the debt amounts to a retroactive granting of relief from the stay.

Relief from the automatic stay does not abandon property of the estate or end the trustee’s interest in it.

Jones v. Star Bank, South Central Ohio (In re Angel) · filed 1992-01-29

Thus, the vehicles remained property of the estate and the Trustee possessed all interests of the Debtor for the benefit of the estate. Relief from stay did not effectuate an abandonment.

Section 362(a) makes a complaint filed in an unknowing violation of the automatic stay voidable rather than automatically void.

Cole v. Shoffner · filed 1992-07-01(a)

We conclude, as did the Fifth Circuit, that the filing of a complaint in an unknowing violation of an automatic stay in effect under 11 USC § 362 (a) is not void, but voidable.

Acts in violation of § 362’s automatic stay are void.

New Orleans Airport Motel Associates, Ltd. v. Lee (In Re Servico, Inc.) · filed 1992-08-31

The purpose of the automatic stay will be implemented by declaring void all acts in violation of the automatic stay.

Section 362(d)(1) generally does not permit relief from the automatic stay for an unsecured claim unless extraordinary circumstances justify it.

In Re Leibowitz · filed 1992-11-20(d)(1)

The general rule is that claims that are not viewed as secured in the context of § 362(d)(1) should not be granted relief from the stay unless extraordinary circumstances are established to justify such relief.

Relief from the automatic stay permits foreclosure to proceed without divesting the bankruptcy court of jurisdiction over the property or pending adversary actions.

Wittman v. Toll (In Re M.J. Cordry) · filed 1993-01-22(d)

The bankruptcy court in the case sub judice did fashion relief from the stay by allowing the foreclosure action to proceed and by reserving the right to modify the relief before a judicial sale if necessary to avoid prejudicing or mooting the trustee’s adversary actions. The bankruptcy court acted lawfully in retaining jurisdiction over the property and adjudicating the adversary actions.

Lifting the automatic stay does not itself abandon the bankruptcy estate’s interest in the property.

Montana Ranch Properties, Inc. v. Eastep · filed 1993-02-18

A lifting of a bankruptcy stay and abandonment of property by the bankruptcy estate are distinctly different.

When a creditor seeks rights to future proceeds, an order lifting the automatic stay must expressly address reinscription before it revives the creditor’s ability to reinscribe.

Sandoz v. Federal Deposit Insurance · filed 1993-05-28

Where, as here, the creditor seeks not only payments already made but also rights to future proceeds, the order lifting the stay must expressly address the creditor’s abilily to reinscribe before it may be given that effect.

An order lifting the automatic stay must expressly address a creditor’s ability to reinscribe its notice of assignment before the order can revive a duty to reinscribe when the creditor seeks rights to future proceeds.

Sandoz v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (In Re Pernie Bailey Drilling Co.) · filed 1993-06-01

Where, as here, the creditor seeks not only payments already made but also rights to future proceeds, the order lifting the stay must expressly address the creditor's ability to reinscribe before it may be given that effect.

Section 362(a)(3) stays postpetition attempts to obtain possession of estate property, and a state-court order entered in violation of the stay is void.

Fleet Consumer Discount Co. v. Graves (In Re Graves) · filed 1993-07-13(a)(3)

Furthermore, since the state-court Order denying the Debtor relief from the foreclosure judgment and execution was entered after the Debtor filed her bankruptcy petition, it violated the automatic stay which accompanied her bankruptcy filing and, therefore, is void. 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3) (the filing for bankruptcy stays all attempts to obtain possession of property from the estate of the Debtor).

An order lifting the automatic stay to permit repossession leaves any deficiency after sale of the collateral unsecured and requires adjustment of the creditor’s claim and plan payments.

In Re White · filed 1994-06-27(d)

This Court holds that once the § 362(d) Order lifting stay was granted, any and all deficiencies as to the claims secured by that collateral were (after sale) rendered unsecured, and the lender was obliged to advise the Chapter 13 debtors of the results of the sale so that the creditor’s claims and the Plan payments could be adjusted accordingly.

Violations of the automatic stay under § 362(a) are voidable rather than automatically void.

In Re Jones · filed 1994-09-28(a)

Consequently, this Court must hold that violations of the automatic stay are merely voidable.

Section 362(a)(1) makes a judicial action brought against a debtor while the automatic stay is in effect void ab initio absent relief from the stay.

Hendrix v. Page · filed 1994-10-04(a)(1)

Absent relief from the stay, judicial actions and proceedings brought against the debtor while the stay is in effect are a nullity and are void ab initio.

Section 362(a) imposes a stay upon filing a new Chapter 13 petition, and a conditional order from an earlier case does not permit foreclosure without giving the debtor an opportunity to be heard.

Brengettcy v. National Mortgage Co. (In Re Brengettcy) · filed 1995-01-10(a)

Rather, the Court holds that the debtor must be given an opportunity to be heard in the subsequent chapter 13 case before a creditor can proceed to foreclosure.

Relief from the automatic stay under § 362(d) permits a foreclosure referee to calculate the mortgage debt despite the pending bankruptcy case.

In Re Five Boroughs Mortg. Co., Inc. · filed 1995-01-23(d)

Upon modification of the automatic stay in favor of a mortgagee, a referee appointed “to compute” is permitted to calculate the debt owed by the mortgagor to the mortgagee and arrive at a sum certain. Termination of the automatic stay signifies that the referee can perform this duty without concern for the pending bankruptcy case.

A § 6672 penalty assessment that violates § 362(a)(6) is voidable when the assessment does not frustrate the purposes of the automatic stay.

Bronson v. United States · filed 1995-01-26(a)(6)

Accordingly, we hold, as the CFC did in effect, that the assessment the IRS made against Bronson for the § 6672 penalties is voidable. We so hold not, as the CFC states, because Bronson’s actions were sufficient to negate the policies of the automatic stay, but because the assessment itself does not violate the policies of the automatic stay.

A tax lien notice filed in violation of the automatic stay is void and remains void after dismissal unless the creditor obtains relief validating the filing.

In Re Ullrich · filed 1995-05-16(a)

The NFTL filing was void not “avoided”, and the IRS took no action to validate its action or seek retroactive relief. ... Therefore, the IRS’ act of filing the NFTL remained void.

Section 362(d) relief permits a creditor to pursue property but does not itself abandon the property or remove it from the estate.

Gibbons v. Stemcor USA, Inc. (In Re B.S. Livingston & Co.) · filed 1995-08-23(d)

Finally, a rule under which the lifting of the stay constitutes an abandonment as a matter of law would seem difficult to reconcile with § 362(d) which, as the bankruptcy court pointed out, merely permits a creditor to attempt to regain the property subject thereto.

Section 362(a) does not require a mortgagee’s assignee to obtain separate relief from the automatic stay before foreclosing when the mortgagee already obtained relief.

Noone v. Cyr (In Re Noone) · filed 1995-11-09(a)

Normand St. Cyr, as an assignee of the Danvers Savings Bank, was not required to seek and obtain relief from the automatic stay before conducting a foreclosure sale.

Section 362(d) relief from stay determines only whether a creditor has a colorable claim and does not adjudicate the validity of that claim.

Pemelton v. Russell Trusts Partnership · filed 1995-12-14(d)

As a matter of law, the only issue properly and necessarily before a bankruptcy court during relief from stay proceedings is whether the movant creditor has a colorable claim; thus, a decision to lift the stay is not an adjudication of the validity or avoidability of the claim, but only a determination that the creditor’s claim is sufficiently plausible to allow its prosecution elsewhere.

A deed issued from foreclosure proceedings conducted in violation of the automatic stay is void.

United States Ex Rel. Farmers Home Administration v. Reed · filed 1996-07-09(a)(1)

Therefore, a deed issued in violation of an automatic stay is void.

An IRS tax assessment made in violation of the automatic stay is void.

Goldston v. United States · filed 1997-01-06(a)(4)

Although Taxpayer attempts to imbue a different status to the effect of violating an automatic stay, void is void, whatever the context.

Actions taken in violation of the automatic stay under § 362 are voidable rather than automatically void.

Rowe v. Ocwen Federal Bank & Trust · filed 1997-12-16

The law in the 5th Circuit is that actions taken in violation of the § 362 bankruptcy stay are merely voidable and not void.

Section 362(a) does not require a separate motion for stay relief to assert a permissible setoff defensively against a debtor’s claim.

Labrum & Doak v. Brown (In Re Labrum & Doak, LLP) · filed 1998-08-14(a)

We find that McCoy’s setoff of $50,-000 for the unpaid portion of his termination benefits is allowable under § 553(a) without the need for a separate motion for relief from the automatic stay.

Section 362(a) makes actions taken in violation of the automatic stay voidable, subject to a court’s equitable decision to void or validate them.

First American Title Insurance v. Lett (In Re Lett) · filed 1999-08-24(a)

This Court believes that the better reasoned and more logical interpretation of § 362(a) is that actions taken in violation of the automatic stay are voidable, and are subject to being either voided or validated by a bankruptcy court or some other court on the basis of equitable considerations.

An action taken in violation of the automatic stay, including the post-petition entry of a default judgment against a debtor, is void from the outset.

LaBarge v. Vierkant (In Re Vierkant) · filed 1999-11-02(a)(1)

We hold that an action taken in violation of the automatic stay is void ab initio.

An action taken in violation of the automatic stay is void from the outset.

LaBarge v. Vierkant · filed 1999-11-02

We hold that an action taken in violation of the automatic stay is void ab initio.

Relief from the automatic stay can operate as abandonment of property from the bankruptcy estate, causing it to revert to the debtor.

Catalano v. Commissioner · filed 2000-03-09

We hold that the relief from stay as to petitioner’s residence was an abandonment whereby the property effectively reverted to petitioner.

A conditional automatic stay does not invalidate a foreclosure sale that becomes final after the debtor fails to provide the required security and the stay is lifted.

Four Star Enterprises Ltd. Partnership v. Council of Unit Owners of Carousel Center Condominium, Inc. · filed 2000-06-07(a)

By not posting adequate security, it squandered its only prospect of keeping the stay in place, and we think it now exalts form over substance when it argues that a mere technical defect renders the foreclosure sale invalid.

Section 362(a)(1) makes a complaint filed against a debtor during the automatic stay void and unable to invoke the state court’s subject matter jurisdiction, even if the bankruptcy case is later dismissed.

Little Texas, Inc. v. Buchen Modification of opinion filed Feb. 8, 2001 · filed 2001-03-14(a)(1)

Accordingly, we hold that Little Texas’ complaint, filed in violation of the automatic stay, was void and could not invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the circuit court.

Section 362(a) makes acts violating the automatic stay void for all purposes, with permanent effect.

40235 Washington St. Corp. v. LUSARDI · filed 2001-10-10(a)

Violations of the automatic stay are void for all purposes. Their ineffectiveness is permanent, not temporary.

Section 362(a)(3) renders ineffective a postpetition trust declaration that makes the debtor’s exclusion from an estate asset irrevocable.

Lawrence v. Goldberg · filed 2002-01-23(a)(3)

We agree with the district court that this 1999 Declaration is to be given no effect herein. It was done in violation of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3) and the stay order entered by the district court.

Section 362(a)(1) makes a postpetition action to foreclose a debtor’s right of redemption void, and lack of notice or knowledge of the bankruptcy alone does not validate it.

In Re Cherise Wilson-Gomes · filed 2002-07-30(a)(1)

In the instant case the petition to foreclose the Debtor’s right of redemption was filed post-bankruptcy, it is clearly void. Neither Phoenix nor Conley have attempted to show how or why their action should be validated, and lack of notice or knowledge of the bankruptcy filing alone is not sufficient.

Section 362(a) makes actions taken in violation of the automatic stay void, including judgments entered against a debtor while the stay is in effect.

Jones v. Cain · filed 2002-08-08(a)

We find the cases that follow the majority rule to be more persuasive, and thus we join the majority of courts in holding that actions taken in violation of the automatic stay are void.

Section 362(a)(6) continues to bar a creditor from acting to establish a deficiency when stay relief authorizes only repossession and disposition of its collateral.

Baxter v. Systems & Services Technologies, Inc. (In Re Dykes) · filed 2002-12-09(a)(6)

Just as in SST’s case AFS got exactly what it asked for: relief from § 362(a)(5) to proceed in rem, against its collateral but was not granted relief from § 362(a)(6) to proceed against the debtor to establish a deficiency under O.C.G.A. § 10-1-36.

Section 362(a) makes a transfer that violates the automatic stay invalid and without legal effect; § 549(c) does not create an exception for good faith purchasers.

Ford v. Loftin (In Re Ford) · filed 2003-08-01(a)

For the foregoing textual, conceptual, and policy reasons, therefore, the Court concludes that § 362(a) renders a transfer of property in violation of its provisions invalid and without lawful effect and that § 549(c) does not provide an exception to such operation of the stay.

A demand made in violation of the automatic stay is voidable rather than automatically void.

Carrieri v. Jobs. Com, Inc. · filed 2003-10-31(a)

Moreover, even if the March 2002 letter demands were viewed to be in violation of the automatic stay,... the demands would not be void, but merely voidable. ... No one has taken any action to cause the demands to be voided.

Section 362(a)(1) renders void ab initio a state-court possession order entered after the bankruptcy petition in a prepetition eviction action against the debtor.

In Re Vanzandt · filed 2004-04-02(a)(1)

In any event, the state court order was void ab initio as a result of 11 U.S.C. section 362(a)(1).

Relief from the automatic stay authorizing foreclosure under loan documents and state law permits a lender to credit bid its contractual debt rather than only its allowed bankruptcy claim.

Home & Hearth Plano Parkway, L.P. v. Lasalle Bank, N.A. (In Re Home & Hearth Plano Parkway, L.P.) · filed 2004-12-15

First, the Order Denying Confirmation granted LaSalle relief from the automatic stay “to permit foreclosure under the terms of the Deed of Trust, and to pursue any other available state law remedies under the loan documents of [sic] applicable law, to the exclusion of the Debtor and all other creditors” (emphasis added). Thus, the Order Denying Confirmation expressly authorized LaSalle to proceed under the terms of the Loan Documents and Texas law, both of which permit LaSalle to credit bid the amount of its debt, as calculated under the Loan Documents.

Relief from the automatic stay obtained before confirmation does not exempt a creditor from a later confirmed Chapter 13 plan that provides for payments to it.

In Re Sullivan · filed 2005-01-14

A confirmation order which provides for payments to a creditor’ is binding upon that creditor notwithstanding the fact that the creditor obtained relief from the automatic stay prior to confirmation of the plan.

Tax sales conducted in violation of the automatic stay are merely voidable, not void ab initio, and remain valid until grounds for annulment are proved.

Joshua Inv. Corp. v. HOME SALES COUNSELING · filed 2005-01-19

In this case, Joshua argues that the tax sales were void ab initio, because they violated the automatic stay in place by virtue of its bankruptcy that occurred almost twenty years ago; however, we have concluded that not to be the case. As we have determined that the tax sales were merely voidable, they are, by definition, valid until Joshua can prove why they should be annulled.

The automatic stay applies even when a creditor lacks knowledge of the bankruptcy filing, and actions taken in violation of it are voidable.

Industrial Bank N.A. v. Brown (In Re Brown) · filed 2005-06-21

Actions taken by appellant against debtor or his property while those stays were in effect were subject to the stays even though appellant had no knowledge that the cases had been filed. ... Appellant’s actions, when they were taken, against debtor and his property during the pendency of the cases were voidable.

An appeal stayed under section 362 may be reinstated after the bankruptcy court lifts the stay to allow the underlying eviction proceeding to continue.

Vercher v. Walter Mortgage Company · filed 2005-10-06

The bankruptcy court has now lifted the stay to allow appellee Walter Mortgage Company to continue with its eviction proceeding pursuant to its judgment in the forcible entry and detainer action that is the subject of this appeal. Accordingly, we reinstate the appeal.

Lifting the automatic stay restores a secured creditor’s state-law rights to realize on its collateral.

In Re Bell · filed 2006-03-03(d)

Lift of the § 362 stay puts the secured creditor in precisely the circumstance it would have been in had bankruptcy not intervened and had the creditor realized upon its collateral exclusively under State Law.

Section 362 renders state-court orders denying an objection to a foreclosure sale and granting possession void when entered after reinstatement of the automatic stay.

In Re Clarke · filed 2006-03-24(a)

Accordingly, this Court properly considers the impact of the stay on the February 28 Orders, and finds that because the February 28 Orders were entered after the stay was reinstated, the February 28 Orders are void and of no effect.

Absent unusual circumstances, actions taken in violation of § 362(a) are void, and the resulting legal expenses are presumptively unreasonable and not reimbursable under a mortgage without justification.

In Re Pitts · filed 2006-11-08(a)

Absent unusual circumstances, legal actions taken and expenses incurred in violation of the Bankruptcy Code’s statutory injunction found in 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) are void. It follows that the expenses are presumptively unreasonable. Wachovia has come forward with no explanation or evidence to justify the continuation of the foreclosure action in the period April through August 2000 while the automatic stay was in effect. Therefore, I find that the $2,767.50 in legal expenses incurred while the automatic stay prohibited prosecution of the pending mortgage foreclosure action are unreasonable and are not reimbursable under the mortgage.

When a court order conditions the automatic stay on continued mortgage payments, foreclosure after a default that terminates the stay does not violate section 362.

Williams v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. · filed 2007-08-08(a)

Because the automatic stay was conditional, and because Williams did not satisfy the condition, the lender defendants did not violate the automatic stay when they foreclosed on the property. The automatic stay lasted only as long as Williams made his mortgage payments. As soon as Williams defaulted in those payments, the automatic stay was lifted.

A summary proceeding for relief from the automatic stay does not preclude a later fraud action when the fraud claims were not adjudicated.

Mullarkey v. Tamboer · filed 2008-07-31(e)

The Bankruptcy Court’s reliance on its stay proceedings to support preclusion, either by res judicata or collateral estoppel, was error. The prior bankruptcy orders respecting the motion to stay were not final judgments, and by their nature cannot have preclusive effect on the instant action. The hearing on a motion for relief from stay is meant to be a summary proceeding, and the statute requires prompt action by the bankruptcy court.

Section 362(a)(1) stays continuation of a lawsuit against a debtor upon a bankruptcy filing, and a judgment entered afterward in violation of the stay is void from the outset.

Sheriden Woods Health Care Center, Inc. v. Floyd (In Re Floyd) · filed 2009-06-25(a)(1)

Although not discussed in the plaintiffs papers submitted with the motion, the November judgment was obviously entered in the state-court proceeding approximately a month after the filing of the debtor’s bankruptcy petition. It is well-settled law in this Circuit that a postpetition state-court judgment entered against the debtor is void ab initio when entered in violation of § 362(a).

Section 362(a)(1) stays continuation of a prepetition lawsuit against the debtor, and a postpetition damages judgment entered in violation of that stay is void.

In Re Integrated Technology Solutions, Inc. · filed 2009-09-17(a)(1)

Because the Court finds that the Damages Judgment is void because it violated the automatic stay, the Court need not address ITS’s argument that the post-petition entry of the Damages Judgment and issuance of a transcript of judgment constitute voidable post-petition transfers under 11 U.S.C. § 549.

Section 362(a)(1) does not prevent a creditor from filing an amended complaint after the automatic stay has been lifted.

Chris Keefe Builders, Inc. v. Hazzard · filed 2010-03-26(a)(1)

In any event, plaintiff filed the first amended complaint after the stay was lifted (cf. Levant, 33 AD3d at 368). Thus, the Hazzard defendants are accountable for their default in failing to answer that amended complaint and the de facto admissions that flow from that default.

Section 362(k) provides relief to a debtor for violations of the automatic stay.

Lambert v. Schwab (In Re Lambert) · filed 2010-09-03(k)

In that regard, I have little hesitancy to conclude that I indeed have jurisdiction to adjudicate violations of the automatic stay. Relief in favor of the debtor is specifically provided for in 11 U.S.C. § 362(k).

Section 362(a)(1) voids a suit continued against a debtor after its bankruptcy filing and subsequent actions in that suit, including a default judgment.

Church Mutual Insurance v. American Home Assurance Co. (In Re Heating Oil Partners, LP) · filed 2011-05-16(a)(1)

We further conclude, that when Church filed its amended complaint on June 29, 2006 to add HOP as a defendant (noting that HOP was a successor in interest to Beacon), that filing violated the automatic stay, rendering that proceeding and all subsequent actions, including the default judgment, in that case void and without vitality.

Relief from the automatic stay does not terminate the bankruptcy estate’s interest in the property; the estate may retain a redemption interest after foreclosure.

Seaver v. New Buffalo Auto Sales, LLC (In Re Hecker) · filed 2011-10-20

The orders granting U.S. Bank and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. relief from the automatic stay and the commencement of foreclosure proceedings likewise failed to terminate the bankruptcy estate’s interest in Northridge. Even after U.S. Bank foreclosed its mortgage, the bankruptcy estate still held at least a redemption interest.

Section 362’s automatic stay does not bar state-court action taken after the bankruptcy court lifts the stay.

Timco, LLC v. T & M Sales Agency, Inc. (In Re Timco, LLC) · filed 2012-03-09(a)

However, the state court did not violate the automatic stay as it acted only after the bankruptcy court had lifted the stay.

Section 362(a) stay relief permitting a divorce court to distribute marital property does not authorize a collusive consent judgment that deprives the bankruptcy estate of the debtor’s property.

In re Yelverton · filed 2012-08-08(a)

This court’s order lifting the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) to permit the Superior Court to proceed to make an equitable distribution of marital property under § 16-910 was not intended to authorize a collusive consent judgment (one to which Senyi is not entitled by reason of § 16—910(a)) that attempts to deprive the bankruptcy estate of the debtor’s shares in Yelverton Farms, Ltd.

Section 362’s automatic stay remains in effect when the bankruptcy court relieves a debtor from an order granting conditional future relief from the stay.

Timmons v. Rose Acceptance, Inc. (In re Timmons) · filed 2012-09-20

For the above reasons and pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (applicable to this proceeding by Rule 7065 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure), the Court concludes that the debtor is temporarily relieved from operation of the Court’s May 24, 2012, Order, the automatic stay of section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code is in effect, and that the defendant is due to be enjoined from foreclosing on the debtor’s home on September 21, 2012.

A stay relief order allowing a secured creditor to exercise its rights and remedies under applicable law permits the creditor to send a state-law notice of statutory attorney’s fees without violating the automatic stay.

Trauner v. State Bank & Trust Co. (In re Solid Rock Development Corp.) · filed 2012-09-27

Nevertheless, the Court rules in this case that SB & T was permitted to send the letter under O.C.G.A. § 13-1-11 and did not violate the automatic stay by doing so.

Relief from the automatic stay permits a state court to act, and a later reversal of that relief does not retroactively invalidate the state court’s action.

Timco, LLC v. T & M Sales Agency, Inc. (In Re Timco, LLC) · filed 2013-01-15

But once the bankruptcy court lifted the stay, the state court was free to act. A later determination by us that the bankruptcy court erroneously granted relief would not retract the express permission the state court received at the time to go forward.

Section 362(a)(1) makes a judgment entered during a continued suit against the debtor invalid even if the creditor lacked notice of the bankruptcy; it has no legal effect unless the bankruptcy court grants retroactive stay relief.

Richardson v. Trustees of Indiana University (In re Richardson) · filed 2013-08-21(a)(1)

Here, the trial that took place in the Monroe Circuit Court on Defendant’s action against Debtor and the resulting Judgment were a continuation of a judicial proceeding against Debtor and, as such, constitutes a violation of the automatic stay. The fact that Defendant did not learn of the bankruptcy case until after entry of the Judgment does not alter that result. ... But the Court stresses that unless and until such relief is granted by the Court, the act remains invalid and has no legal effect.

When stay relief permits only in rem foreclosure, a creditor remains barred from seeking personal collection against the debtor.

Arcay v. Banco Santander de Puerto Rico (In re Velez Arcay) · filed 2013-09-27(a)

In other words, Banco San-tander had actual knowledge that the only remedy it was allowed to seek in the State Court was an in rem foreclosure judgment, not an in personam collection of monies against the Debtor.

A foreclosure sale is void if the automatic stay was in effect when the sale occurred.

Hudson v. Martingale Investments, LLC (In Re Hudson) · filed 2014-01-14

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

A transfer made in violation of the automatic stay is void, and relief restores the parties to their status before the violation.

Jubber v. Bank of Utah (In Re C.W. Mining Co.) · filed 2014-04-15(a)

Any transfer made in violation of the automatic stay is void and the parties are returned to the status quo as it existed before the violation occurred.

A recorded in rem stay-relief order under § 362(d)(4) protects the creditor’s agents when they act within the scope of their agency to enforce remedies against the covered property.

Black v. HSBC Bank, USA (In re Black) · filed 2014-07-25(d)(4)

The In Rem Order did not need to specify that the stay has been lifted as to the “Movant’s agents” in order to protect those acting on behalf of HSBC.

Actions violating the automatic stay are voidable, but are not voided when the debtor unreasonably withholds notice of the stay and voiding would prejudice the creditor.

In re Dixon · filed 2015-04-21(a)

Under that rule, actions taken in violation of the automatic stay, while voidable, are not to be actually voided “where the debtor unreasonably withholds notice of the stay and the creditor would be prejudiced if the debtor is able to raise the stay as a defense.”

Section 362(a) stays continuation of a judicial proceeding against the debtor; actions taken in violation of the stay are void.

United States Trustee v. Franz (In re Franz) · filed 2015-11-05(a)

One such Code requirement is the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) against the continuation of a judicial action or proceeding against the debtor. Relief from the stay was neither sought nor granted in the instant case in order to proceed with a divorce case in Idaho. Actions taken in violation of the stay are void, not voidable.

Section 362(a) stays state court proceedings when a bankruptcy petition is filed; after the bankruptcy court lifts the stay, the state court may render judgment.

In re Native Wholesale Supply Co. · filed 2016-06-16(a)

Although 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) imposed an automatic stay of proceedings in state court upon the filing of the bankruptcy petition, this court conditionally lifted that stay by order dated April 26, 2011. Consequently, the Oklahoma court regained proper jurisdiction to render its judgment against the debtor.

Entering a judgment without lifting the automatic stay, even if erroneous, is harmless when it causes the debtor no prejudice.

Cowin v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., et · filed 2017-07-18(a)

Cowin has failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the bankruptcy court entering the Countrywide Adversary Judgment without lifting the automatic stay in his Chapter 7 case. Any error would be harmless, and we affirm the district court on that basis.

Actions taken in violation of the automatic stay are void from the outset and have no effect.

In re Jocelyn · filed 2017-10-05

In the Eleventh Circuit, actions taken in violation of the automatic stay are void ab initio and are, therefore, without effect.

A decision granting relief from the automatic stay under Section 362 is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Lisa Sabrina Wayne Bristol · filed 2019-11-15

The decision whether to grant relief from the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362 is within the bankruptcy court’s discretion and may be overturned on appeal only for abuse of discretion.

A claim outside the scope of a modification of the automatic stay cannot proceed while the stay remains in place.

Austin v. Auto Handling Corporation · filed 2020-03-24

Because Thompson’s newly-asserted claims would violate the terms of the stay modification, they cannot be pursued in this Court while the stay remains in place.

Section 362(a)(1) stays proceedings against a debtor, and a judgment entered in violation of the unmodified stay is void in its entirety.

Tanekkia Harris · filed 2020-05-28(a)(1)

Entry of the Consent Judgment in violation of the unmodified stay renders it void—in its entirety—ab initio.

An order granting or denying relief from the automatic stay generally is not a final judgment on the merits of the parties’ underlying claims.

In Re: Enrique V. Greenberg · filed 2021-02-02

Further, an order granting or denying a motion for relief from the stay is also generally not a final judgment on the merits.

Section 362 does not retroactively impose the automatic stay on actions taken while a court order granting relief from the stay was in effect, even if that order is later vacated.

Wheeler Financial Inc v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA · filed 2021-08-19(d)(1)

In short, the general rule appears to be that courts may not retroactively impose an automatic stay that was previously lifted. There is no reason to think the rule operates any differently where, as here, the vacated order granted one creditor relief from the stay rather than dismissing the case and thereby lifting the stay completely.

Relief from the automatic stay under § 362(d) lifts restraints on creditor action but does not divest the bankruptcy court of jurisdiction over the property.

Beyha v. Conestoga Title Insurance Company · filed 2022-03-10(d)

By its terms, a stay relief order under 11 U.S.C. §362(d) does not address the court’s jurisdiction.

Section 362(d) allows retroactive relief from the automatic stay to validate a suit filed during the stay, but relief intended only to operate prospectively does not validate that suit.

Coy Cox, Jr. v. Specialty Vehicle Solutions · filed 2022-05-09(d)

Whether intentional or not, the relief sought in the motion was a stay to resume a pre-petition suit, not a stay to retroactively validate an otherwise void post-petition suit.

Acts that violate the automatic stay under § 362(a) are void regardless of whether the violation was willful or technical.

Valentine v. Holmes, III · filed 2022-12-02(a)

This memorandum decision holds that all acts taken in violation of the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) are void and are of absolutely no effect whatsoever regardless of whether the acts are willful or so-called “technical” automatic stay violations.

Lifting the automatic stay as to an entire property defeats a claim that pursuing a title action concerning that property violated the stay.

In Re: Simon Zarour · filed 2023-01-19(a)

The Court finds that the Bankruptcy Court did not err in dismissing Zarour’s main claims based on its prior order lifting the stay in the underlying bankruptcy proceeding.

When relief from the automatic stay permits possession litigation but preserves the stay for enforcement of monetary judgments, seeking a writ of possession for failure to pay court-ordered rent pending appeal does not violate the stay.

Jason Mitchell Hines · filed 2023-11-22(a)

In summary, SPM’s request for issuance of a writ of possession neither violated the automatic stay nor this Court’s September 11, 2023 Order because it was not an act to enforce a monetary judgment.

Relief from the automatic stay permits a stayed lawsuit to proceed but does not take control of estate property from the chapter 7 trustee or restore it to the prepetition debtor.

Department 13, Inc. · filed 2024-03-05

In any event, a stay relief order allows a lawsuit that is otherwise stayed by virtue of § 362 of the Bankruptcy Code to proceed. Such an order does not, however, divest the chapter 7 trustee of its control over estate property or reinstate the prepetition debtor.

Section 362 stay relief permits a stayed lawsuit to proceed but does not remove the chapter 7 trustee’s control over estate property or restore control to the prepetition debtor.

Miller v. Shattil · filed 2024-03-05

In any event, a stay relief order allows a lawsuit that is otherwise stayed by virtue of § 362 of the Bankruptcy Code to proceed. Such an order does not, however, divest the chapter 7 trustee of its control over estate property or reinstate the prepetition debtor.

A lawsuit filed against a debtor in violation of the automatic stay is voidable, and the court may decline to void its filing.

Washtenaw County, Michigan v. Ottoman · filed 2024-11-08(a)

First, while it is true that the filing of the State Court Lawsuit, as against Roger Ottoman only, was a violation of the automatic stay, and therefore voidable, this Court will not void the filing of that lawsuit.

Section 362(a) does not stay property or related litigation covered by an effective prospective stay relief order when a later debtor has not obtained relief from that order.

700 Trust · filed 2024-12-27(a)

700 Trust has not moved for relief from the prospective stay relief granted by the Maryland Bankruptcy Court, so the automatic stay did not go into effect as to the Naples property or Naples Litigation when 700 Trust filed this case.

Once the automatic stay has been properly lifted, § 362(a) permits subsequent foreclosure sales and enforcement actions.

(PS) Mora v. USBC, Eastern District of CA, Sacramento Division · filed 2025-08-29(a)

Because the stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) had been properly lifted, subsequent foreclosure sales and enforcement actions were permitted, and Mr. Dahl did not breach his duties as trustee by not attempting to stop them.

Confirmation of a reorganization plan renders a pending motion for relief from the automatic stay moot.

In Re White · filed 1984-06-20(d)(2)

This court's order confirming the debtors’ plan renders Midland’s request for relief from the stay moot.

A prior chapter 7 stay-relief order does not preclude a fresh decision under § 362(d) in a later chapter 13 case when the circumstances relevant to relief have changed.

In Re Fuller · filed 1989-05-17(d)

The basic questions in the current stay litigation proceeding are 1) whether the automatic stay should be lifted for cause (including lack of adequate protection), 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1), or 2) whether the stay should be lifted because the debtor does not have an equity in his residence and the residence is not necessary to the debtor’s effective reorganization, 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2). ... More importantly, the court does not believe, given the differing natures of chapter 7 and chapter 13, and the significant lapse of time between the two stay proceedings, that the order in the first stay proceeding has any relevance to the instant stay proceeding. ... The court finds that neither issue preclusion nor claim preclusion is present in the instant proceeding.

Relief from the automatic stay permits a creditor to pursue existing state-law remedies but does not enlarge those remedies or diminish the debtor’s state-law rights.

In Re Manderson · filed 1990-11-28

This Court’s granting of Leader Federal’s Motion for Relief from Stay on December 6, 1989, merely authorized the Creditor to use those remedies available to it under Section 9-503 for gaining possession. Relief from the Chapter 7 stay did not expand the Creditor’s remedy nor contract the Debtor’s rights under Ala. Code § 7-9-503.

Relief from the automatic stay under § 362(d)(2) does not itself abandon property or remove it from the bankruptcy estate.

Tatge v. American Security Bank (In Re Forrest Marbury House Associates Ltd. Partnership) · filed 1992-02-18(d)(2)

In the District’s view, § 362(d)(2) relief is indistinguishable from abandonment relief. ... The District’s argument rests on an erroneous premise. Until the real property was sold at foreclosure sale, the real property remained property of the estate.

Section 362 permits relief against a person who violated the automatic stay even when the same motion names another person who did not.

In re Younk · filed 1996-05-17(h)

It appears from the findings of fact set forth in Judge Eisenberg’s order, none of which are challenged by the appellants, that it was Thomas who engaged in actions which violated the automatic stay. Moreover, Thomas does not deny that he violated the automatic stay provisions of the bankruptcy code. In my opinion, the fact that the motion was filed against both Thomas and Angela Younk did not preclude the bankruptcy judge from granting the motion -with respect to Thomas and denying the motion with respect to Angela.

Relief from the automatic stay to permit foreclosure does not eliminate the estate’s claim to sale proceeds exceeding the creditor’s allowed secured claim.

In Re Markos Gurnee Partnership · filed 1997-04-01

The fact that relief from the automatic stay was granted to allow the bank to complete its foreclosure sale did not deprive the estate of a claim to any sale proceeds in excess of the amount of the bank's allowed secured claim.

Section 362 requires courts to construe an order modifying the automatic stay strictly when deciding whether a proceeding was authorized to continue.

New Milford Savings Bank v. Jajer · filed 1999-03-02

Strictly construing the order modifying the stay, as we must, we cannot conclude that the trial court’s opening of the 1994 foreclosure judgment for the purpose of amending the complaint to include the third parcel was done in violation of that order.

The bankruptcy court retains the issue of the effect of the § 362 automatic stay when related contract issues are sent to arbitration.

Barber-Greene Co. v. Zeco Co. · filed 1982-01-21

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the issue in this controversy relating to the effect of the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. Section 362 shall be retained, and all other issues having to do with the existence of appropriate cause for termination, and the consequences shall be the subject of arbitration pursuant to Section 17 of the dealership agreement between Barber-Greene and Zeco and Zeco is directed to commence and proceed with arbitration, and in default of commencement of such arbitration within 30 days of the date of this order, its counterclaim herein shall be dismissed on appropriate motion.

Section 362(d) permits a debtor opposing stay relief to challenge a creditor’s state court judgment when the challenge could bar recovery or lien enforcement.

In Re Souders · filed 1987-06-10(d)

We have no hesitancy in concluding that the constitutional and statutory validity of a state court judgment, let alone its revival, can be asserted by a debtor as defenses to a motion for relief from the automatic stay.

Section 362(a)(1)'s automatic stay does not bar a creditor's forcible entry and detainer action when a bankruptcy court has lifted the stay to allow that action.

Harris v. Thruston · filed 2016-09-22(a)(1)

The bankruptcy court order authorized BMO to file an FED action seeking a writ of restitution. We affirm the entry of judgment in favor of BMO on its FED claim.

A prior order granting relief from the automatic stay can remain effective against a later Chapter 13 filing when that order is res judicata.

In Re Bystrek · filed 1982-03-03(a)

Once relief from the stay is properly granted, the mortgagee is entitled to proceed with foreclosure proceedings. ... The Order granting relief from the stay is determinative of the issue.

An assessment of a prepetition claim made in violation of the automatic stay is void and without effect.

Olson v. United States · filed 1991-11-01(a)(6)

However, this Court further finds that the Bankruptcy Court was correct in its subsequent legal conclusion that the assessment under § 6672 was void and without effect because it was made in violation of the automatic stay imposed by 11 U.S.C. § 362.

Section 362 makes a state action commenced against a debtor during the automatic stay void from its outset, even if the creditor was unaware of the bankruptcy.

In Re Izzi · filed 1996-06-12(a)

Therefore, we find that, at least as to the Husband, the State Action was void ab initio and could not validly serve as a basis for the entry of the Judgment against him.

Section 362(a)(7) does not give an assignee the trustee's bankruptcy powers after the automatic stay is lifted.

MNC Commercial Corporation v. Joseph T. Ryerson & Son · filed 1989-08-25(a)(7)

The effect of lifting the automatic stay is only to allow MNC to pursue its remedies under state law, not to allow it to assert the unique powers of a trustee to marshal the estate.

An order granting relief from the automatic stay can permit a creditor to pursue its claims without joining the bankruptcy estate, while the estate retains an interest in any surplus proceeds.

Sunlight Electrical v. Turchi, J. · filed 2015-03-30(d)

On January 21, 2010, the bankruptcy court granted relief from the automatic stay to Sunlight so that it could proceed in federal district court against Appellees. This order effectively reduced the bankruptcy estates’ rights to a remote and contingent interest in the outcome of Sunlight’s action against Appellees.

Section 362(k) does not provide damages for a foreclosure expressly authorized by an order lifting the automatic stay.

In Re: Aurora Commercial Corp. · filed 2020-07-24(k)

Given that order, there was plainly no violation of the automatic stay, let alone a willful violation, when ALS subsequently foreclosed on and sold the property in September 2009 as expressly permitted by the order of the Colorado bankruptcy court.

A stay relief order permitting claim liquidation allowed entry of a money judgment including attorney fees.

Michael M Paczkowski · filed 2022-10-06(a)

The Lift-Stay Order terminated the automatic stay to permit Respondents to “liquidate and otherwise pursue their respective claims against the Debtor. . . .” [Lift-Stay Order, ¶ 3.] ... Reducing a claim to a money judgment against Debtor, including an award of attorney fees, is liquidating a claim.

A modification of the automatic stay allowing litigation to a final judgment can permit an appeal pursued in the debtor’s name.

Kroft v. Viper Trans, Inc. · filed 2025-03-31(a)(1)

We agree with Viper Trans that its right to pursue the present appeal on its own behalf is allowed by the bankruptcy court’s order of June 27, 2023, and that it is not acting in violation of ... the automatic stay by pursuing this appeal.

Section 362’s automatic stay does not operate against a court with jurisdiction over the debtor.

In Re Teerlink Ranch Ltd., a California Limited Partnership, Debtor. Heber N. Teerlink Erma D. Teerlink v. Lambe · filed 1989-10-06

Contrary to TRL’s contention, the district court’s order did not violate the automatic stay accorded the debtor by 11 U.S.C. § 362. The stay does not operate against the court with jurisdiction over the bankrupt.

Section 362’s automatic stay applies to all entities, including parties that are not creditors.

Edgewater Construction Group, Inc. · filed 2023-08-02(a)

Section 362 specifically states that it applies “to all entities”.

Section 362(a) binds all entities, including people who are not creditors of the debtor.

In re Neal · filed 1989-10-20(a)

Section 362(a) provides a stay that is applicable to all entities, not just creditors.

Section 362’s automatic stay cannot be asserted by a nondebtor to challenge a sheriff’s sale of the debtor’s property.

Dime Savings Bank, FSB v. Greene · filed 2002-12-17

Brion Greene had no standing to assert the application of Kenneth Greene’s bankruptcy stay in a challenge to a sheriffs sale of Kenneth Greene’s property.

Section 362’s bankruptcy stay does not automatically extend from a bankrupt corporation to its officers who are codefendants.

Goldstein v. Worldcom · filed 2003-08-25

After receipt of a “suggestion of bankruptcy,” this court determined that the bankruptcy stay of proceedings (11 U.S.C. § 362) extended only to WorldCom and not to Ebbers and Sullivan.

Section 362’s automatic stay binds a creditor whose claim arose before the bankruptcy petition.

Kansas Department of Labor v. Boyd (In re Boyd) · filed 2016-07-12

However, Plaintiff is still bound by the provisions of the automatic stay because its claim arose pre-petition.

Section 362(a)’s automatic stay generally protects the debtor, but does not automatically protect the debtor’s corporate affiliates.

Klinkenborg Aerial Spraying & Seeding, Inc. v. Rotorcraft Development Corp. · filed 2017-05-04(a)

As a general rule, 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)’s automatic stay only protects the debtor and not corporate affiliates.

Section 362(a)(6) bars an entity, including a creditor’s agent, from collecting a prepetition debt; the agent may be liable for violating the stay even when acting for another.

In re Odom · filed 2017-08-10(a)(6)

The cited decisions find support in the text of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), which does not limit the statutory injunction to the acts of creditors. The statute states that the bankruptcy filing operates as a stay “applicable to all entities.” The Code defines entity as including “person, estate, trust governmental unit and the United States trustee.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(15). Thus, § 362(a) creates a comprehensive injunction. If an entity acts to collect a prepetition debt not subject to automatic stay exceptions stated in § 362(b), the entity has violated the statutory injunction. It is irrelevant that the entity was collecting the debt on behalf of another.

Section 362(a)(1) generally does not stay a lawsuit against a corporation when only its principal has filed for bankruptcy and no bankruptcy estate property is involved.

Dieckmann v. JH Construction 2, LLC d/b/a JH Exteriors · filed 2021-03-09(a)(1)

But JH Construction was not a party to the First Bankruptcy; the First Bankruptcy was commenced by Joshua Hudson in his individual capacity. ... Thus, the default judgment entered against JH Construction was not void because it was not entered in violation of the stay in the First Bankruptcy.

Section 362(a) directly protects debtors, but does not directly protect a person who is not a debtor.

Arthur M. Reardon and Jillayne Reardon · filed 2025-08-04(a)

The automatic stay under section 362(a) protects debtors. ... So, protections for debtors do not apply to him directly.

Section 362(a)'s automatic stay applies only to the debtor and cannot be extended to third-party co-guarantors.

In Re National Staffing Services, LLC · filed 2005-11-23(a)

At the commencement of a case, a stay arises by operation of law pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). ... But, by its express terms, the only entity to which the § 362 stay applies is the debtor. As such, it may not be extended to third parties such as the Debt- or’s co-guarantors.

Section 362(a)’s automatic stay protects the debtor and property of the debtor or the bankruptcy estate, but does not stay an action against a non-debtor corporation merely because its owner filed for bankruptcy.

Tristate Roofing Inc v. Achten's Quality Roofing & Construction Inc · filed 2023-11-13(a)

The automatic stay of section 362(a) protects only the debtor, property of the debtor, or property of the estate.

Under § 362(c)(1), an order modifying the automatic stay operates only until plan confirmation unless the order provides that it will survive confirmation.

Atalanta Corp. v. Allen (In re Allen) · filed 2002-08-16(c)(1)

An order modifying the automatic stay thus operates only until the confirmation of the reorganization plan — unless, of course, as in Lenox, the order itself provides that it will outlast the reorganization.

Section 362(d)(2) does not allow a creditor to raise preconfirmation grounds for stay relief after confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan absent a post-confirmation change in circumstances.

Society Bank v. Botteri (In Re Botteri) · filed 1989-11-01(d)(2)

As a result of this section, the bank is bound by the terms of the debtor’s plan and, absent a post-confirmation change in circumstances, may not attempt to alter its treatment under the plan. ... Here, to have avoided being bound by the confirmation order it was necessary for the bank to file an objection to confirmation and not merely a motion for relief from stay.

After a Chapter 13 plan is confirmed, § 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay only for the debtor’s material failure to comply with the plan.

In Re Powers · filed 1991-04-29(d)(1)

However, with respect to a confirmed Chapter 13 case, “Once the plan has been confirmed the only cause for relief from stay that may be validly asserted is the debtor’s material failure to comply with the plan.” 5 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 1307.01 at 1327-3 (15th ed. 1990) (citing In re Ellis, 60 B.R. 432 (9th Cir. BAP 1985)). Therefore, Kimes’ motion for relief from stay must be denied.

After confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan, a secured creditor whose claim the plan provides for and pays can obtain relief from the automatic stay only by showing a substantial default under the plan.

Owens v. Fleet Mortgage (In Re Owens) · filed 1991-10-10(d)(1)

Once a Chapter 13 plan is confirmed, a secured creditor whose claim is provided for in, and whose claim is being paid within the context of, the plan can obtain relief only by showing that the debtor has substantially defaulted in performances due under the terms of the plan.

After confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan, a creditor cannot use a motion for relief from the automatic stay to raise preconfirmation grounds for changing its treatment under the plan when it failed to object to confirmation.

In Re Minzler · filed 1993-09-07(d)(2)

In this case, to have avoided being bound by the confirmation order Shastar had to file an objection to confirmation and not merely a motion for relief from stay.

Section 362(a)(3) and (a)(4) do not stay a levy on property that vested in Chapter 12 debtors upon plan confirmation and was no longer property of the estate.

In re McKeon · filed 1997-06-13(a)(3), (a)(4)

Furthermore, the order confirming the Chapter 12 plan explicitly provided that the Tractor would be property of the debtors. Because the Tractor did not constitute property of the bankruptcy estate at the time of Snyder’s attempt to levy, I conclude that sections 362(a)(3) and (a)(4) were not violated.

A secured creditor may seek relief from the automatic stay for inadequate protection arising after confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan, but cannot use the motion to raise an objection it could have made before confirmation.

Chevy Chase Bank v. Locke · filed 1998-11-10(d)

If a secured creditor fails to object to a proposed plan, then the creditor is precluded from raising that claim in a later motion. However, after the confirmation of the plan if circumstances then develop in which a secured creditor will not be adequately protected, then that creditor may make a motion seeking relief from the automatic stay.

Section 362(d)(2) relief is generally unavailable after plan confirmation because confirmation resolves whether the secured property is necessary to an effective reorganization.

In Re Matthews · filed 1999-01-27(d)(2)

Confirmation of a plan basically eliminates any argument that relief is appropriate under § 362(d)(2) because the movant must prove that the secured property at issue is not necessary to an effective reorganization.

Section 362(d) does not allow a creditor to use a post-confirmation stay-relief motion to challenge a confirmed Chapter 13 plan based on a later change in law; the creditor must establish grounds for relief from the stay.

In Re Crowley · filed 2000-12-08(d)

A post-confirmation motion for relief from stay does not provide an independent or alternate vehicle for challenging the terms of a confirmed chapter 13 plan, which was appealable.

A creditor with notice of a Chapter 13 plan cannot use a motion to modify the automatic stay to attack the confirmed plan after failing to object before confirmation.

In Re Commings · filed 2003-07-31(d)

Having failed to object to the debtors’ plan before confirmation despite notice of the bankruptcy and the plan, NIC is barred from using its motion to modify the stay to do so now.