11 U.S.C. § 362

Section 362 does not prevent a judgment creditor from perfecting a lien on another creditor’s claim against the debtor when perfection requires no action against the debtor or its estate.

ARC Energy Corp v. United States · filed 1997-09-16(a)

The holding of Tour Train, however, does not squarely apply in the instant case since Wallace would not need to lift the stay on actions against ARC, or allow execution against ARC, in order to perfect a lien.

Section 362 does not stay a postpetition transfer of property in which neither the debtor nor the bankruptcy estate retained an interest after a completed foreclosure sale.

In Re Theoclis · filed 1997-10-08

Therefore, after foreclosure of the Debtor’s equity of redemption, neither the Debtor nor the bankruptcy estate had any interest in the Bliss Property (other than the Debtor’s limited rights as a tenant at sufferance) and, as a result, the automatic stay was inapplicable to a transfer of title.

Section 362(a) does not protect supplemental security income payments belonging to a nondebtor child when the debtor receives them solely as the child’s representative payee; withholding from those payments to recover an overpayment does not violate the automatic stay.

In re Baker · filed 1997-10-30(a)

The payments belong to the child, Joshua T. Wrigglesworth, who is not a party to this bankruptcy proceeding and who is not afforded any of the protections of the automatic stay. The Debtors cannot rely upon the operation of the automatic stay to prevent the Social Security Administration from collecting the overpayment by withholding funds from the monthly supplemental securiincome payments.

Section 362(d) allows a bankruptcy court to condition continuation of the automatic stay on a debtor’s timely rent payments and to provide for termination of the stay if the debtor defaults.

In Re 1345 Main Partners, Ltd. · filed 1997-12-02(d)

Since relief from the stay also includes “conditioning the continuance of the automatic stay,” this Court has the authority to enter an order which provides for the automatic termination of the stay if the Debtor attempts to occupy the premises without timely making the required rental payments, a power that the Court will not hesitate to exercise should the facts so warrant.

Section 362 does not automatically stay actions against a bankrupt party’s co-debtors.

Fornaro v. McManus · filed 1997-12-16

By its terms, section 362 does not stay actions against co-debtors of the bankrupt party.

Section 362(a) stays actions against a debtor partnership, but does not stay actions against its general partners.

JER SKW Services, Inc. v. Gold · filed 1998-02-03(a)

However, the automatic stay provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) (1994) apply only to actions against the debtor-partnership and do not apply to actions against the general partners of the debtor.

Section 362(a) does not bar a creditor from recouping a prepetition overpayment from postpetition benefits when the claims arise from the same transaction.

Stratman v. Missouri Division of Employment Security (In Re Stratman) · filed 1998-02-26(a)

The next issue is whether the postpetition exercise of the right of recoupment violates the automatic stay. This Court has previously held that “the right of recoupment is exempt from the operation of the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362”.... Accordingly, MDES’ recoupment did not violate the automatic stay.

Section 362(a)(1) stays proceedings against a debtor on claims that arose or could have been brought before the bankruptcy petition.

James v. McCoy · filed 1998-03-30(a)(1)

The Bankruptcy Code provides that the filing of a petition in bankruptcy operates as a stay precluding the commencement or continuation of judicial proceedings against the debtor on any claim that “was or could have been commenced” before the filing of the petition.

Section 362 does not stay motions in a foreclosure proceeding that do not affect the bankruptcy debtor’s obligations.

Tompkins County Trust Co. v. Talandis · filed 1998-04-14

However, the motions before us do not affect Gerald’s obligations and, hence, are not governed by automatic stay provisions of 11 USC § 362.

Section 362 bars a creditor from taking possession or control of estate property after a bankruptcy petition is filed.

In Re Burnsed · filed 1998-08-14

The automatic stay operates to enjoin a creditor from attempting to possess or to exercise control over property of a bankruptcy estate once a petition has been filed. 11 U.S.C. § 362 (1998).

A creditor does not waive § 362(e) stay termination merely by acquiescing to a final hearing date beyond the statutory period.

Kalmanowicz v. Third National Bank & Trust Co. of Scranton (In re Kalmanowicz) · filed 1998-08-21(e)

Thus, a conclusion that the Bank’s mere acquiescence to the date of the final hearing would not constitute a waiver is fully justified under the circumstances of this case. The result would be that the Automatic Stay expired on July 17, 1993, because there was no waiver.

Section 362 automatically stays actions against the debtor and estate property, but does not automatically protect nondebtors such as the debtor’s officers.

Steaks to Go, Inc. v. Steak-Out Franchising, Inc. (In Re Steaks to Go, Inc.) · filed 1998-09-29

Commencement of a bankruptcy case operates as an automatic stay of actions against a debtor and of actions against property of the bankruptcy estate. 11 U.S.C. § 362. The automatic stay does not operate as to non-debtors.

Reinstating a dismissed Chapter 13 case restores the automatic stay as of the reinstatement date, even if the reinstatement order does not expressly reimpose it.

Diviney v. Nationsbank of Texas (In Re Diviney) · filed 1998-10-16(a)

We hold that reinstatement of the Third Case restored the automatic stay as of August 26, 1996, so the stay was in effect on September 7,1996, when the Bank repossessed the Car.

Section 362 treats entry of a default judgment after a bankruptcy filing as a stay violation, but mere continued pendency of a state court action filed before bankruptcy does not violate the stay.

In Re Halas · filed 1998-11-14

Although entry of the default judgment after bankruptcy filing was a stay violation, mere continued pendency of the state court action was not in violation of the stay.

Section 362’s automatic stay does not protect property kept from revesting in the debtor after dismissal when a later bankruptcy filing would not make it property of that estate.

In Re Halpern · filed 1999-01-22

This would immunize the property from the stay contained in 11 U.S.C. § 362 stay should a further filing be made by or against the Debtor because the property would not be property of the estate in that case.

Section 362(a) bars a monetary judgment against a debtor when stay relief permits litigation only over possession of property; the debtor cannot waive the stay’s protection.

Ousley v. Casada · filed 1999-02-09(a)

The bankruptcy court allowed the proceedings to continue as to the possession of the real and personal property involved, but it did not authorize proceeding toward a monetary judgment against Casada. Ousley claims the record indicates Casada waived all protection of the automatic stay, but she had no authority to do so.

Section 362(a) can bar a creditor from obtaining property in which a debtor claims an interest through a state court, even when that court relies on a settlement approved by the bankruptcy court handling the debtor’s case.

Dugas v. Claron Corporation · filed 1999-03-04(a)

That the state court professed to release those funds on the basis of terms in a settlement agreement approved by the same bankruptcy court with jurisdiction over the Dugas does not exempt the state court or Claron from the reaches of the stay in the Dugas’s bankruptcy case.

Section 362(a) bars the commencement or continuation of judicial proceedings against a debtor while the automatic stay is in effect.

Torre v. Fay's, Inc. · filed 1999-03-11(a)

Pursuant to 11 USC § 362 (a), the commencement or continuation of any judicial proceeding against Grand Union is foreclosed while the automatic stay is in effect.

Section 362(b) does not except education loans from the automatic stay, so a school may not withhold a debtor’s transcript to collect a pre-petition education debt.

Loyola University v. McClarty · filed 1999-04-19(b)

This court does not agree with this argument, but instead, concurs with the reasoning and conclusions of the bankruptcy court in its Memorandum Opinion. This Court also notes that from the plain language of 11 U.S.C. § 362(b), which lists 18 exceptions to the automatic stay, education loans are not included and, therefore, not excepted from the automatic stay.

Section 362(a) stays a pending appeal when a party files a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition.

Astraea Aviation Services, Inc. v. Nations Air Inc. · filed 1999-04-27(a)

While this appeal was pending, 9 Lives filed a petition for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. The filing of this petition had the effect of staying the appeal. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a).

Section 362(a)(1) does not stay claims against a non-debtor co-defendant or the debtor’s counterclaims.

High Standard Mfg Co v. Stoeger Industries · filed 1999-07-23(a)(1)

The automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1), does not apply to the claims between Plaintiff and the non-debtor co-defendant, see Marcus, Stowell & Beyers v. Jefferson Investment Corp., 797 F.2d 227 (5th Cir. 1986), or to Armas’s counterclaims.

Section 362(a) stays proceedings against a defendant that has filed a bankruptcy petition, while proceedings against other defendants may continue.

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. J. United Electrical Contracting Corp. · filed 1999-08-09(a)

Since all proceedings in this Court against J. United are subject to the automatic stay in bankruptcy, see 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), this report and recommendation addresses only that portion of plaintiffs’ motion seeking relief against the other two defendants, Jerry G. Sarabella and Natalie Sarabella.

Section 362(a)'s breathing spell does not support an injunction against a regulatory rate proceeding when no party contends that the proceeding is stayed or falls outside the regulatory exception in § 362(b)(4).

LA Public Service v. Mabey · filed 1999-10-01(a)

Because appellees do not argue that the ... rate-making proceeding at issue in this appeal falls within the automatic stay provided by § 362(a) or outside the exception to the stay provided by § 362(b)(4), the injunction cannot properly rest on the “breathing spell” afforded by § 362(a).

Section 362’s automatic stay prevents foreclosure against a debtor’s property while allowing a suit on the note against a nondebtor.

Osbourne v. Buckman · filed 1999-12-03

Even though the Osbornes could have filed suit on the note against Buckman regardless of the bankruptcy stay, they were precluded from filing a foreclosure suit until the bankruptcy stay was lifted.

Section 362(c) permits a creditor to pursue recovery against property after it leaves the bankruptcy estate.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Carpenter (In Re Carpenter) · filed 2000-01-18(c)

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(c), a creditor is not precluded from recovering by the automatic stay after property is no longer considered property of the estate.

Section 362 automatically stays a pending proceeding against a debtor upon a bankruptcy filing, but does not stay the proceeding against a nondebtor codefendant.

Tabbert, Hahn, Earnest & Weddle, P.C. v. Lanza · filed 2000-03-31

An automatic stay of this proceeding, as to Mr. Lanza only, results from the filing of this bankruptcy, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362.

To determine a § 362 stay violation, a court considers whether a creditor disposed of estate property or property in the debtor’s possession while the stay remained in effect.

Greene v. Associates (In Re Green) · filed 2000-05-18(a)

For determination of a violation of the automatic stay by The Associates, the inquiry includes ascertaining, among other items, whether the Mustang was property of the estate or property in the possession of Mr. Greene, and, if so, whether it was disposed of by The Associates without the automatic stay being terminated, annulled, or otherwise modified.

Section 362(a) imposes the automatic stay when a bankruptcy petition is filed; it does not prohibit prepetition contempt findings, fines, or incarceration.

Womack v. Mays (In Re Womack) · filed 2000-08-23(a)

In any event, from the allegations of the complaint, the debtor’s incarceration occurred prior to the filing of the petition in bankruptcy. Since the debtor was not a debtor under title 11, there was no automatic stay in place precluding a prepetition finding of contempt, imposition of a fine, or incarceration. No stay being in effect at the time of the incarceration, there can be no wilful violation of the stay.

Section 362(a) makes the automatic stay effective when the bankruptcy petition is filed, so a trustee’s sale completed earlier that day does not violate the stay.

In Re McLouth · filed 2000-09-14(a)

Since Congress drafted § 362(a) in plain language stating that the filing of a petition operates as a stay, this Court holds that the automatic stay is effective upon the filing of the bankruptcy petition.

Section 362’s automatic stay may be reinstated after an order granting relief from the stay is vacated.

In Re Bushnell · filed 2000-10-04

5. That the portion of the Order of the United States Bankruptcy Court entered January 25, 2000, which granted the RICO Claimants’ motion for relief from stay is vacated; 6. That the automatic stay provided by 11 U.S.C. § 362 is reinstated; 7. That the remand is without prejudice to the Debtor’s right to appeal from the portion of the January 25, 2000 Order of the Bankruptcy Court which denied the Debtor’s Rule 37 preclusion motion.

Section 362(a) does not stay the filing of tax liens against property in which bankrupt mortgage guarantors have no ownership interest.

Town of East Lyme v. New England National, No. 547594 (Nov. 9, 2000) · filed 2000-11-09(a)

Similarly, in the present case § 362(a)(3) and (4) are inapplicable because the bankruptcy debtors did not have an ownership interest in the property. Furthermore, the defendant in the present case is challenging the creation and filing of tax liens rather than a mortgage foreclosure action. Unlike the Flanders case, therefore, 11 U.S.C. § 362 (a)(2), which requires a stay of "the enforcement . . . of a judgment," is entirely inapplicable. Contrary to the defendant's argument, therefore, the holding of the Flanders court actually supports the conclusion that the guarantors' bankruptcy filings did not stay the filing of the liens in the present case.

Section 362(a) is not violated when a proposed filing is never accepted by the other court and no judicial action occurs.

Lucabaugh v. Internal Revenue Service (In Re Lucabaugh) · filed 2000-12-19(a)

Here, this Court determines that there was no judicial action that could have violated the automatic stay. As noted by the Bankruptcy Court in its July 2000 Order, Ms. Raup’s Motion for Entry was never filed in the United States tax court.

Section 362(c) ends the automatic stay on actions against liened property when that property is no longer part of the bankruptcy estate.

Keeler v. Academy of American Franciscan History, Inc. (In Re Keeler) · filed 2001-01-16(c)

It is correct that actions necessary to liquidate liens are stayed under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), beginning at the instant of the filing of the petition. However that stay subsequently terminates by statute when the property which is the subject of the lien is no longer property of the bankruptcy estate. 11 U.S.C. § 362(c). In this case, the stay ended as to actions against property, at the time of the closing of the case.

Section 362 does not stay pursuit in another court of remedies for a debtor’s postpetition conduct unrelated to the bankruptcy estate.

Franklin Life Insurance v. Rousselle (In Re Rousselle) · filed 2001-02-21

Because the Court lacks jurisdiction to enjoin or award damages for Defendant’s postpetition conduct unrelated to the estate, the automatic stay imposed by 11 U.S.C. § 362 does not enjoin pursuit of remedies for Defendant’s postpetition conduct unrelated to the estate in another court.

Section 362(a) stays a pending civil action against a defendant that files for bankruptcy protection.

SA v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. · filed 2001-03-20(a)

Montgomery Ward has filed for protection under Chapter XI of the Bankruptcy laws. Consequently this action is stayed as against Montgomery Ward.

Section 362(c) ends the automatic stay upon confirmation of a Chapter 11 plan.

Mercury Capital Corp. v. Shepherds Beach, Inc. · filed 2001-03-26(c)

The automatic stay was lifted when the Bankruptcy Court issued the order confirming the Chapter 11 plan (see, 11 USC § 362 [c]; § 1141 [b]; In re Turning Point Lounge, 111 Bankr 44; In re Fortner Oilfield Servs., 49 Bankr 9).

Section 362 automatically stays the IRS from enforcing a prepetition tax levy when the taxpayer files for bankruptcy.

United States v. Buckner · filed 2001-04-10

However, when Buckner filed his bankruptcy petition shortly thereafter, the ability of the I.R.S. to enforce the levy was automatically stayed.

Section 362(a)(1) stays an appeal as to a bankrupt party but does not prevent the appeal from proceeding against nonbankrupt parties.

Forte v. Connerwood Healthcare, Inc. · filed 2001-04-18(a)(1)

However, Connerwood’s bankruptcy does not prevent this Court from proceeding with this appeal at least with respect to the non-bankrupt parties.

Section 362(a) automatically stays an action against a defendant who files a Chapter 11 petition, but does not stay the action against co-defendants absent unusual circumstances.

Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. United States Gypsum Co. · filed 2001-06-20(a)

As a result of provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), this matter is automatically stayed against Grace. Having found no unusual circumstances that would cause the matter to be stayed as to the remaining co-defendants (See McCartney v. Integra National Bank North, 106 F.3d 506, 510 (3d Cir.1997)), this matter will proceed as to the remaining defendants.

Section 362(a) protects a debtor from being brought into state-court litigation until the bankruptcy court orders otherwise, while the litigation may proceed against non-debtor parties.

Kalisher Properties, Ltd. v. Millennium Southwest Healthcare, Inc. (In Re Horn) · filed 2001-07-19(a)

This Court notes that all parties before this Court can be brought to the Texas Court with the exception of the Debtor, who is protected by the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) until this Court orders otherwise.

Section 362(a)(1) stays an appeal against a defendant that files a voluntary bankruptcy petition, but does not stay the appeal against other defendants.

Vogel v. U.S. Office Products Co. · filed 2001-07-25(a)(1)

The filing of a voluntary bankruptcy petition operates as a stay on the "continuation... of a judicial proceeding against the debtor." See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1). Therefore, this appeal is stayed as to USOP, but not as to any other defendant, pending action by the bankruptcy court that lifts the automatic stay or concludes the bankruptcy case.

Section 362(a)(1) automatically stays litigation against the bankruptcy debtor but does not itself stay proceedings against nonbankrupt codefendants.

Millard v. Developmental Disabilities Institute, Inc. · filed 2001-08-23(a)(1)

As all parties recognize, the Automatic Stay applies only to the debtor and does not stay proceedings brought against non-bankrupt co-defendants. ... Accordingly, the motion to extend the Automatic Stay of litigation to defendants DDIE, Veteri and Fink is denied.

Section 362(a) makes the automatic stay effective when the bankruptcy petition is filed, so a sale completed earlier that day is not stayed.

In Re Moore · filed 2001-09-14(a)

Based upon the plain language of Section 362(a), the automatic stay took effect as of 4:37 p.m. on November 14, 2000, i.e., the time the petition was filed.

Section 362(a) does not impose an automatic stay when a person ineligible to be a debtor under § 109(g) files a purported bankruptcy petition.

McKay v. Alliance Mortgage Corp. (In Re McKay) · filed 2001-09-25(a)

All of these sections taken together compel this Court to conclude that an entity, ineligible under § 109(g), cannot commence a voluntary case under § 301 by filing a purported petition, nor can the entity avail itself of the protection provided by 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), the automatic stay.

Section 362(c) lifts the automatic stay by operation of law when the bankruptcy case closes.

Diesel "Repower", Inc. v. Islander Investments Ltd. · filed 2001-11-09(c)

The bankruptcy case was closed on May 9, 2001. Therefore by operation of law the stay has been lifted and we proceed. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(c).

Section 362 automatically stays an appeal insofar as it concerns corporations in bankruptcy.

Pimper v. State Ex Rel. Simpson · filed 2001-11-19

Insofar as this appeal concerns the bankrupt corporations, it rests within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court and is subject to the mandatory automatic stay provisions of the United States Bankruptcy Code.

Section 362(a) stays claims against the debtor but ordinarily does not stay claims against nondebtor codefendants lacking an identity of interests with the debtor.

Kennamer v. Able Supply Company · filed 2002-01-03(a)

Therefore, while § 362 acted to stay any claims against the Federal-Mogul entities, including Garlock’s putative claim of contribution, it carried no force to stay actions as between the remaining co-defendants, the debtor and the various plaintiffs.

Section 362 rarely stays actions against nondebtor co-defendants.

Finch v. AC & S Inc · filed 2002-01-03

Section 362 is rarely, however, a valid basis on which to stay actions against non-debtors.

Section 362(a)(4) does not bar postpetition loans to a nonbankrupt corporation merely because a shareholder's property secures the loans under a lien created before bankruptcy; stock ownership alone does not extend the stay to the corporation.

Beeler v. Jewell (In re Stanton) · filed 2002-04-09(a)(4)

Section 362(a)(4) does not apply. That subsection stays any "act to create, perfect or enforce any lien against property of the estate." 6 A loan of money to a debtor not in bankruptcy does none of those things, as the Bankruptcy Appeals Panel majority stressed. 7 A business relationship of stock ownership does not ipso facto extend the automatic stay to nonbankrupts.

Section 362(a) does not stay an appeal when the bankrupt entity’s bond is not the subject of the appeal.

Sweet v. Pace Membership Warehouse, Inc. · filed 2002-05-02(a)

Kmart filed for bankruptcy on January 22, 2002, and subsequently filed a motion to pass the case in this Court, arguing that this appeal was subject to the automatic-stay provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). Because the Kmart bond was not the subject of the instant appeal, this Court denied the motion.

Section 362’s automatic stay does not protect co-defendants who did not file for bankruptcy.

Ruby Tuesday, Inc. v. Thomas · filed 2002-06-21

Charles, however, cannot prevail on the “bankruptcy stay” argument because Robert was the only petitioner-Charles and C.R. Thomas Corporation were not in bankruptcy and therefore the stay did not affect them, see, e.g., Fox Valley Constr. Workers Fringe Benefit Funds v. Pride of the Fox Masonry and Expert Restorations, 140 F.3d 661, 666 (7th Cir.1998).

Section 362(a)(4) does not appear to stay an amendment that merely extends a note secured by an otherwise valid lien.

Holta v. Certified Financial Services, Inc. · filed 2002-06-28(a)(4)

Here, the amendment does not appear to "create, perfect, or enforce" a lien; it simply extends a note secured by an otherwise valid Hen.

Section 362(a)(1) prevents valid service on a debtor while the automatic stay is in effect, but generally does not extend to nonbankrupt co-defendants or nullify the entire suit.

Gee v. Lucky Realty Homes, Inc. · filed 2002-07-09(a)(1)

Because the automatic stay extends to “the issuance or employment of process of a judicial ... action,” 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1), I agree that it precluded the Politzers from being validly served during the period in which the stay was in effect. ... However, neither the bankruptcy statute nor the case law of this circuit support the defendants’ assertions that the stay nullified the suit altogether or nullified service upon the Politzers’ co-defendants. In fact, the stay that protects a debtor in bankruptcy does not generally extend to a debtor’s co-defendants.

Section 362(a) imposes an automatic stay when a bankruptcy petition is filed; a court cannot reinstate that stay after it has been lifted.

Canter v. Canter (In re Canter) · filed 2002-08-15(a)

Because the stay under § 362 is "automatic” and "self-executing” only upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition, no authority exists for "reinstating” an automatic stay that has been lifted.

Section 362 stays actions against a debtor or estate property, but the stay does not protect other parties or affect an action over property not shown to be part of the bankruptcy estate.

Nef v. Ag Services of America, Inc. · filed 2002-09-11(a)(4)

Although the filing of a voluntary petition in bankruptcy effects an automatic stay as to the commencement or continuance of any claim against the debtor or his estate, the stay is not for the benefit of other parties. See Aluminum Co. of Am. v. Higgins, 5 Ark. App. 296, 635 S.W.2d 290 (1982); Van Balen v. Peoples Bank & Trust Co., 3 Ark. App. 243, 626 S.W.2d 205 (1982). Therefore, unless the Riceland Foods check was part of the estate in bankruptcy, this action was not affected by the stay.

Section 362(a)(1) stays proceedings against the debtor but does not stay claims against non-debtor codefendants.

Chung v. New Silver Palace Restaurant, Inc. · filed 2002-09-13(a)(1)

The automatic stay imposed by section 362(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) affects only The New Silver Palace, Inc.; it does not apply to plaintiffs claims against the restaurant’s non-debtor co-defendants.

Section 362’s automatic stay does not apply to suits brought by the debtor.

Hall, William L. v. Enodis Corporation · filed 2002-09-18

Much of that litigation involved Consolidated or Hall as a plaintiff, and the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362 does not apply to suits by the debtor.

Section 362(a)(1) stays prosecution of a pre-petition claim against the debtor even when the creditor seeks recovery only from a third-party fund.

Bergman v. Wintroub (In Re Wintroub) · filed 2002-10-25(a)(1)

Rather, the Creditor’s claim is a pre-petition claim against the debtor based on alleged wrongdoing by the debtor which falls squarely within the ambit of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1). The fact that the Creditor seeks limited relief from the automatic stay to pursue recovery from the Fund and not from the financial resources of the debtor or the estate does not change the nature of the claim nor does it remove the claim from the scope of the automatic stay.

Section 362 stays prosecution of a contempt motion against the debtor, so withdrawal of the stayed motion provides no benefit to the estate or creditors.

In Re Trism, Inc. · filed 2002-11-25

The Committee points out in its post-hearing brief that ReGen's withdrawal of the contempt motion was of no benefit to the Debtors' estates or creditors because prosecution of the contempt motion was stayed by the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362. The Court agrees with the Committee.

Section 362(a)(1) stays the continuation of litigation against a debtor in other courts.

Maria Burnam and Jessica Contreras, Individually and as Next Friend of Ashley Johnson, a Minor Child v. Patt · filed 2003-01-30(a)(1)

11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) stays the continuation of litigation in other courts pending against the debtor.

Ignoring the automatic stay imposed under § 362 can warrant sanctions.

Gutman v. O'Connor · filed 2003-02-14

Our review of the record supports the conclusion of the bankruptcy court that appellant ignored the automatic stay imposed by the bankruptcy court, that this conduct merited sanction, and that the sanction imposed does not constitute an abuse of discretion.

Section 362 automatically stays proceedings against a bankruptcy debtor but does not extend the stay to nonbankrupt codefendants.

Reed v. Peoples State Bank of Many · filed 2003-03-05

While 11 U.S.C. § 362 provides an automatic stay to protect debtors filing bankruptcy, the automatic stay does not apply to non-bankrupt co-defendants.

Section 362(a) takes effect when a bankruptcy petition is filed, making a foreclosure sale held after that filing void.

In Re Schleier · filed 2003-03-14(a)

The automatic stay takes effect when the bankruptcy petition is filed. After that point, actions taken in violation of the stay are void. Here, the foreclosure sale is void because it took place after Schleier filed her petition.

Section 362 bars a creditor from obtaining a state-court execution and attempting to levy on property of the bankruptcy estate.

In Re Newport Creamery, Inc. · filed 2003-03-17

The stay violation occurred when McKenna obtained an execution from the Providence County Superior Court and attempted to levy on the escrowed funds.

Section 362(a)(6) stays acts to force a former residential tenant to vacate even when the debtor no longer has a lease or leasehold estate.

In Re Moore · filed 2003-03-25(a)(6)

Acts against the former lessee to force such a bankrupt to vacate the residential real property are stayed under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(6) even if the debtor has no lease or leasehold estate.

Claims to enforce the automatic stay generally fall within the bankruptcy court’s exclusive jurisdiction and may be kept there instead of sent to arbitration.

Startec Global Communications Corp. v. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (In Re Startec Global Communications Corp.) · filed 2003-04-24

As to Plaintiffs’ cause of action for violation of the automatic stay, enforcement of the automatic stay is generally held to be the exclusive jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court. ... Furthermore, to the extent that any of the causes of action might be subject to the arbitration provision, because the actions are within this court’s core jurisdiction and, at least as to some counts, exclusive jurisdiction, the court in its discretion finds that the best interests of the estate will be served by litigation of all claims before this court so as to provide one forum to determine all issues.

Section 362(c) terminates the automatic stay as to acts against estate property when the estate is fully administered and the case is closed.

Russell v. Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation (In Re Russell) · filed 2003-05-15(c)

But the trustee reported the estate was fully administered and the case was closed in January, 2003, so the automatic stay as to an act against property of the estate then terminated pursuant to § 362(c).

Section 549(c) does not create an exception to the automatic stay imposed by section 362(a).

40235 Washington Street Corp. v. W.C. Lusardi · filed 2003-05-23(a)

Because we hold that section 549(c) does not create an exception to section 362(a), we do not reach the issue whether Lusardi's purchase at the Riverside County tax foreclosure sale met the requirements of section 549(c).

Section 362(a)'s automatic stay does not bar a creditor's independent claim against an employer/garnishee for failing to withhold wages when the employer holds no property of the debtor or bankruptcy estate.

Kenosha Hospital & Medical Center v. Garcia · filed 2003-06-11(a)

Any action taken by Kenosha Hospital against Richter with regard to a claim under Wis. Stat. § 812.41 does not involve Garcia's estate or a collection against Garcia personally. Consequently, the automatic stay provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) do not apply.

The automatic stay cannot be waived by a debtor’s appearance and motion to open judgment in state court after the bankruptcy case is dismissed.

In Re Izzi · filed 2003-07-30

However, the Third Circuit has stated the law in this area quite plainly: “The automatic stay cannot be waived.” ... In light of this clear statement of the law, the Court must reject the Estate’s argument out of hand, and will affirm the Bankruptcy Court’s decision.

The automatic stay covers claims against a debtor under both its corporate name and its registered trademark when the names identify one corporate entity.

Econo Lube N' Tune, Inc., and Econo Lube N Tune v. Draper-Lawson · filed 2003-08-21(a)(1)

Thus, the record reflects that appellants comprise a single corporate entity. ... We hold that the automatic bankruptcy stay applies to both appellants.

Section 362(a)(1) stays actions against the debtor after a bankruptcy filing, but does not bar actions against nonbankrupt codefendants.

United States Ex Rel. Bowman v. Computer Learning Centers, Inc. · filed 2003-08-25(a)(1)

However, “a section 362(a)(1) stay is available only for the debtor’s benefit and does not prohibit actions against nonbankrupt third parties or codefendants.” In re S.I. Acquisition, Inc., 817 F.2d 1142, 1147 (5th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, we VACATE the district court’s order of dismissal and REMAND this matter for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Violations of the automatic stay under § 362(a)(1) are voidable and subject to discretionary cure.

Chapman v. Bituminous Insurance (In Re Coho Resources, Inc.) · filed 2003-09-08(a)(1)

We adhere to the view that violations are merely “voidable” and are subject to discretionary “cure.”

Section 362 does not stay the self-effectuating lapse of a nonconforming zoning use when the municipality takes no action to enforce the zoning ordinance.

Lawson v. Town of Sardinia (In Re Chaffee Aggregates, Inc.) · filed 2003-10-09

For all of the reasons stated herein, I must conclude that the automatic stay simply has no application to the present lapse of a non-conforming use of property under the zoning ordinance of the Town of Sardinia.

Section 362(a) stays a new action against a debtor on a prepetition judgment, tolling the limitations period for that action during the stay.

Kertesz v. Ostrovsky · filed 2004-01-28(a)

Because the commencement of appellants’ new action on the judgment was stayed during the pendency of the automatic stay, the California statute of limitations was tolled during this period and appellants’ complaint is not time barred.

A pre-petition waiver of the automatic stay may be enforced through a case-specific assessment of equitable factors, with each factor's weight varying according to the facts and circumstances.

In Re Frye · filed 2005-04-08(d)

Whether a pre-petition waiver is enforceable will be analyzed using the ten factors articulated in this Court’s February 24th Decision, and the weight to be given to each factor will vary on a case-by-case basis based upon the equities, facts and circumstances presented. Based upon the record before it in this case, after analyzing the ten salient factors, the Court finds that nine of the ten factors support enforcing the pre-petition waiver and granting Union Bank relief from stay.

A Chapter 11 debtor-in-possession or case trustee may waive the automatic stay without court approval by affirmatively pursuing estate administration, including appealing a judgment against the estate, but the appeal remains stayed until such affirmative action occurs.

In Re Mid-City Parking, Inc. · filed 2005-10-31(a)(1)

A Chapter 11 debtor-in-possession or case trustee may waive the protections afforded by § 362(a) when the actions that would otherwise violate the stay are in furtherance of his statutory duties of administering the bankruptcy estate, including appealing judgments against the debt- or’s estate in nonbankruptcy forums. ... Until a debtor-in-possession or trustee takes affirmative action showing an intent to prosecute the appeal of a judgment claim, however, an appeal from a judgment against the debtor’s estate is stayed pursuant to § 362(a)(1).

Section 362(a)(1) stays during bankruptcy proceedings lawsuits that could have been commenced before the bankruptcy petition or that assert causes of action arising before the petition.

Hazelquist v. Guchi Moochie Tackle Co. · filed 2006-02-09(a)(1)

Thus, any lawsuit that could have been commenced before the filing of a bankruptcy petition or that asserts a cause of action that arose before the filing of a bankruptcy petition is stayed during bankruptcy proceedings.

A postpetition setoff of a tax refund without stay relief violates the automatic stay even when the creditor is entitled to setoff, but damages are unwarranted where none are proven or would result.

In Re Baucom · filed 2006-03-15(a)(7)

Although the RHD was entitled to a setoff against the Debtor’s income tax refund, doing so without first obtaining relief from the automatic stay violated the stay, if the setoff occurred postpetition. ... Accordingly, although the RHD may have violated the stay if it set off the Debtor’s income tax refund without first seeking relief in this Court, I find that no damages would be warranted, or were proven, for such violation here.

Section 362(a) does not create an automatic stay when an individual files a bankruptcy petition without obtaining the credit counseling required by section 109(h) or qualifying for an exception.

In Re Elmendorf · filed 2006-07-18(a)

When read together, §§ 109(h), 301 and 362(a) establish that no stay can exist for debtors who fail to obtain the required credit counseling or qualify for an exception.

Section 362 does not stay conveyance of property in which the debtor’s leasehold interest terminated before bankruptcy or actions brought by the debtor for the benefit of the estate.

Role Models America, Inc. v. Harvey · filed 2006-09-28

Because the plaintiffs interest in the property terminated prior to the plaintiffs filing for bankruptcy, the automatic stay provision does not apply. ... Section 362, however, only applies to claims made by creditors against debtors (here, the plaintiff) and it does not address actions brought by the debtor which would inure to the benefit of the bankrupt estate.

A claim for breach of the automatic stay derives from the debtor and is subject to a binding arbitration agreement absent congressional intent to preclude waiver of judicial remedies.

Jalbert v. Pacific Employers Insurance (In Re Olympus Healthcare Group, Inc.) · filed 2006-10-06

Likewise, the breach of the automatic stay count derives from the Debtors. The automatic stay is one of the “fundamental debtor protections” which is used as a shield to protect the debtor and the assets of the estate from creditors seeking to recover on pre-petition claims. ... This Court must therefore enforce the arbitration provision contained within the Program Agreement as contemplated by the parties.

Section 362(a)(1) generally stays proceedings against the debtor alone, not actions against nondebtor codefendants or actions brought by the debtor.

Edwards v. Ghandour · filed 2007-06-07(a)(1)

With regard to the tolling of NRCP 41(e)’s prescriptive period during a bankruptcy automatic stay, a defendant’s bankruptcy filing generally invokes the automatic stay with respect to proceedings against that defendant only. Thus, an action can proceed against nondebtor codefendants, and NRCP 41(e)’s five-year rule continues to run with respect to those codefendants unless the trial court enters a separate stay of the action. And since the automatic bankruptcy stay generally applies to actions “against the debtor,” not actions by a debtor, a plaintiff’s filing for bankruptcy protection usually will not implicate the bankruptcy stay or toll the NRCP 41(e) period.

Section 362 automatically stays proceedings with respect to a plaintiff who has filed for bankruptcy.

Randall v. Lady of America Franchise Corp. · filed 2007-07-24

Proceedings with respect to Allanson are therefore automatically stayed under 11 U.S.C. § 362.

Section 362(a) renders a judicial sale conducted in violation of the automatic stay void, and the good-faith-purchaser protection in § 549(c) is not an exception to the stay.

Glendenning v. Third Federal Savings Bank (In Re Glendenning) · filed 2007-07-30(a)

This decision that § 549(c) is not an exception to § 362(a) is sufficient in itself to invalidate the Sale, which is then subject to a declaration that it is void as consummated in violation of § 362(a).

The automatic stay protects a debtor's opportunity to reorganize, but preserving the stay alone cannot justify a reorganization that otherwise serves no purpose.

In Re Compañía De Alimentos Fargo, S.A. · filed 2007-10-12(a)

The automatic stay is not an end unto itself, but a protection a debtor gets to allow it to reorganize. If the reorganization serves no purpose, the automatic stay cannot give it a purpose.

Section 362(a) does not shield a debtor from counterclaims arising from its own repossession action or extend the debtor’s stay protection to a purchaser of its assets.

Green Tree Servicing, LLC v. Duncan · filed 2008-08-18(a)

Assuming Green Tree is the debtor, the automatic stay does not protect it in this case. It affirmatively filed its ease; it cannot complain that it has to defend itself from counterclaims arising out of that case. ... Green Tree Servicing did not file the bankruptcy petition, and the bankruptcy proceeding did not concern Green Tree. Instead Green Tree purchased Conseco’s assets in the bankruptcy proceeding. Conseco, not Green Tree, is the debtor. That fact, in itself, is enough to reverse the District Court’s decision. A purchaser of a debt- or’s assets does not purchase the debtor’s right to a stay.

Section 362(a) does not require a stay of proceedings against a Chapter 11 debtor's codefendants, even when joint and several liability is assumed.

In Re the Stay of Proceedings Against Johns-Manville Corp. · filed 2009-06-04(a)

Turning to the first issue, we conclude that 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) does not mandate a stay as to the codefendants of Chapter 11 debtors.

Section 362 automatically stays further action in an appeal when an appellee files for bankruptcy.

Robert Pavelka and Dena Pavelka v. Foxworth-Galbraith Lumber Company · filed 2009-08-19

Further action in this appeal is automatically stayed. See 11 U.S.C. § 362.

Section 362(a)(3) does not stay a counterclaim seeking a declaration that the debtor does not own disputed property when the counterclaim does not seek possession or control of estate property.

Washington Mut., Inc. v. FDIC · filed 2009-10-05(a)(3)

Nor does the automatic stay apply to JPMC's counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment finding that WMI does not own the property at issue. JPMC does not seek to take possession of or assert control over WMI's cause of action here, which is rightfully part of the estate.

Section 362(a) bars service of process on Chapter 11 debtors for prebankruptcy claims, making them unavailable for service while the automatic stay applies.

Evelyn Nye, Individually and as Surviving Spouse and Next-of-Kin of Hugh Todd Nye v. Bayer Cropscience, Inc. · filed 2009-10-14(a)

Although North Brother’s contends that the four manufacturers, all Chapter 11 debtors, are amenable to service of process, the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C.A. § 362 (a) clearly prohibits service of process, as follows: ... Based on the foregoing, the Trial Court correctly determined that all four manufacturers were not amenable to service of process in Tennessee and that initiation of the strict liability suit against North Brothers was appropriate.

Section 362(a) does not stay a creditor’s repossession of property owned by a nondebtor corporation when the creditor enforces its separate rights against the corporation, even if the debtor guaranteed the corporation’s loan.

In Re White · filed 2009-10-16(a)

It is held that § 362 does not stay the repossession because the creditor is enforcing its separate rights against the nondebtor corporation, not its rights against the debtor.

Section 362(a) automatically stays actions against the debtor but does not extend the stay to related nondebtors such as guarantors or co-obligors.

Saxby's Coffee Worldwide, LLC v. Larson (In Re Saxby's Coffee Worldwide, LLC) · filed 2009-12-04(a)

The automatic stay of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), applies only to a “debtor” and “may not be invoked by entities such as sureties, guarantors, co-obligors, or others with a similar legal or factual nexus to the ... debtor.”

Section 362’s automatic stay protects the debtor and property of the estate, but does not cover foreclosure against property owned by a third party outside the estate.

In Re Powell · filed 2009-12-09

The protections of the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362 and the discharge injunction of 11 U.S.C. § 524, apply only to the Debtor and property of the estate. The foreclosure action at issue concerns the property of Deacon, not the Debtor, and does not involve any property of the estate.

Section 362 calls for caution before treating a private party’s report of wrongful conduct to government regulators as a violation of the automatic stay.

110 Beaver Street Partnership v. Goffe, Inc. · filed 2009-12-17(a)

There is substantial reason to believe that the Partnership would not prevail on the Stay Claim. In In re McMullen, 386 F.3d 320, 328 (1st Cir. 2004), we held that, for public policy reasons, courts should be circumspect about construing a “private party’s reporting of wrongful conduct to governmental regulatory authorities” as a violation of the automatic stay.

Section 362(a)(2) does not stay enforcement of a judgment after the bankruptcy stay has terminated.

DeCORSO v. CALDERARO · filed 2009-12-29(a)(2)

The bankruptcy stay terminated on February 10, 2005, and the eviction was not carried out until February 12, 2005. There was no bankruptcy stay in effect at the time of the eviction.

Section 362(a) imposes the automatic stay when an involuntary bankruptcy petition is filed, just as when a voluntary petition is filed.

In Re Letourneau · filed 2010-02-04(a)

An involuntary case gives rise to the automatic stay under section 362 just as much as a voluntary case.

Section 362’s automatic stay prohibits a creditor from bringing a deficiency action against a debtor guarantor together with the borrower.

In Re Perry · filed 2010-02-24

if UDF were to bring a deficiency action against both Perry and Hidden Lakes within the six month limitations period, it would violate the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362.

Section 362 protects the bankrupt lessee and does not forbid foreclosure on an owner participant’s interest when the lessee consents to and benefits from the sale.

Bremer Bank v. John Hancock Life Insurance · filed 2010-04-13

The § 362 automatic stay is intended to protect the bankrupt lessee, NWA, not the owner participant. ... Concluding that the sale was forbidden by the § 362 stay would undermine the goal of that provision.

Section 362’s automatic stay cannot be waived before bankruptcy by consumer debtors through a mortgage modification agreement; such a waiver is void as against public policy.

Emigrant Mortgage Co. v. Corcione · filed 2010-04-16

It is axiomatic that a pre-bankruptcy waiver of such a valuable statutory right, even if freely bargained for (and in this court’s opinion, this is certainly not the case), should not, under any circumstances, be enforced against consumer debtors such as defendants. In the view of this court, such a highly questionable waiver as this one is unconscionable, unreasonable, overreaching and is absolutely void as against public policy.

Section 362(a)(1) stays a creditor’s derivative effort to recover a prepetition claim against the debtor from a transferee of the debtor’s property.

In Re Dreier LLP · filed 2010-04-28(a)(1)

The Trustees are the sole parties with standing to prosecute avoidance claims, ... and the application of the automatic stay reflects the recognition that a creditor’s attempt to recover its claim against the estate from GSO will interfere with Trustees’ ability to pursue recoveries for the benefit of all creditors of the estates.

Section 362’s automatic stay was not violated by the Commissioner’s actions concerning the tax liability at issue.

Becker v. Comm'r · filed 2010-06-02

We likewise find no such action that violated the automatic stay.

A creditor that promptly terminates a wage garnishment after notice of a bankruptcy filing is unlikely to have willfully violated the automatic stay.

Pickerel v. Household Realty Corp. (In Re Pickerel) · filed 2010-06-08(a)

The Court finds this approach to be proper. It is difficult to discern how the Defendant, having taken timely action to terminate the wage garnishment upon receiving notice of the Debtors’ present bankruptcy filing, could be found to have willfully violated the automatic stay in the present bankruptcy case.

Section 362(a) automatically stays a pending appeal when the appellant files for chapter 7 bankruptcy.

Hissey v. JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A. · filed 2010-06-18(a)

Accordingly, his appeal is automatically stayed. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) (West 2004).

Section 362’s automatic stay does not extend to lawsuits initiated by the debtor, so a debtor’s bankruptcy filing does not prevent an appeal in such a suit from proceeding.

Ponton v. AFSCME, AFL-CIO · filed 2010-09-23

Further, because “[t]he automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 362, does not extend to lawsuits initiated by the debtor,” Crosby v. Monroe Cnty., 394 F.3d 1328, 1331 n.2 (11th Cir. 2004), we are satisfied that Ponton’s bankruptcy filing does not prevent us from adjudicating this appeal.

When the bankruptcy court lifts the automatic stay under § 362, the appellate court may lift its stay of proceedings in the appeal.

Ninestar Technology Co. v. International Trade Commission · filed 2010-09-24

On May 12, 2010 this court stayed all proceedings pursuant to the automatic stay proceedings provision of 11 U.S.C. § 362. The ITC and intervenors inform the court that on July 16, 2010 the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California lifted the automatic stay. In light of the Bankruptcy Court’s order, the ITC requests that we lift the stay of proceedings in this appeal. Town Sky’s short response fails to persuade the court that the stay should remain in effect. We therefore grant the motion and lift the stay of proceedings.

Section 362(a) does not extend an individual debtor’s automatic stay to a corporation’s assets merely because the debtor owns all of its stock.

In Re Furlong · filed 2010-09-28(a)

And unless a corporation is itself a bankruptcy debtor, the automatic stay afforded to an individual debtor under § 362(a) does not extend to the assets of a corporation in which the debtor has an interest, even if the interest is 100% of the corporate stock.

Section 362(a) stays proceedings against debtors and their property, but does not automatically stay proceedings against nondebtors.

Brash v. Richards · filed 2010-10-15(a)

By its terms, section 362 applies only to “debtors,” the property of “debtors” and the property of the estates of “debtors.”

Section 362 stays further consideration of a bankrupt defendant’s pending appeal until the bankruptcy court lifts the stay.

CertainTeed Corp. v. Dexter · filed 2010-12-16

However, Garlock filed for bankruptcy shortly before the oral argument was to be held, and the automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 362, barred further consideration of the appeal. This opinion, therefore, does not directly resolve Garlock’s appeal, which was stayed and remains open until the stay is lifted by the bankruptcy court.

Section 362(a) does not bar creditors from foreclosing on real property owned by a debtor’s nondebtor subsidiaries.

In Re Davis Heritage GP Holdings, LLC · filed 2011-01-03(a)

All other creditors of the Debtor with claims to the properties owned by the Lower Tier LLCs are free to pursue those claims through foreclosure on those real properties, thereby. diminishing the value of the Debtor’s only asset (membership in the Middle Tier LLCs), beyond the control of Inervest.

Section 362(e) permits a court to extend the automatic stay for a specified period in compelling circumstances, including time needed for mortgage loss mitigation negotiations.

In Re Sosa · filed 2011-01-28(e)

Even giving hypothetical deference to the creditor’s argument, the Court disagrees that § 362 is so constraining that such a conflict should result in the nullification of the entire Program. Section 362(e) authorizes the court to extend the automatic stay for a specific time in “compelling circumstances.” In light of the adoption of federal housing programs designed to assist distressed borrowers and their lenders, compelling circumstances clearly exist to extend the stay for the 60 to 90 days required by the negotiating parties to complete the loss mitigation process.

Section 362(a)(1) does not bar an appellate court from remanding an action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction when the decision does not reach the merits or affect the debtor’s assets or creditors.

Lindley Contours, LLC v. Aabb Fitness Holdings, Inc. · filed 2011-02-08(a)(1)

We therefore find that a decision remanding to the district court with instructions to remand to the state court for lack of jurisdiction is not a prohibited “continuation” of the action under § 362.

Section 362(a) voids a tax-sale purchaser’s notice foreclosing a debtor’s redemption right when the notice is served after the bankruptcy case begins.

Greyfield Resources, Inc. v. Drummer (In Re Drummer) · filed 2011-08-05(a)

Because the Barment Notice was served after the commencement of the instant case, the service of the Barment Notice is void pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a).

Section 362 permits entry of a judgment after the bankruptcy court terminates the automatic stay retroactively and authorizes that entry.

Nelson, L.P. v. Jannace · filed 2011-08-30

Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the amended judgment was properly entered after the Bankruptcy Court terminated ab initio the automatic bankruptcy stay of actions against Jannace and permitted entry of the judgment.

Section 362(c) leaves no automatic stay in effect for exempt property that has left the estate once the debtors have received their discharges.

White v. Commercial Bank & Trust Co. (In Re White) · filed 2011-11-16(c)

However, as Commercial Bank pointed out in its brief, because the underlying property is exempt and thus no longer property of the estate and the debtors have received their discharges, none of the provisions of the automatic stay are applicable, 11 U.S.C. § 362(c), rendering the appeal from that portion of the bankruptcy court’s order moot.

A divorce property division entered in violation of Section 362’s automatic stay is void even after the bankruptcy case is dismissed, unless the bankruptcy court retroactively validates it.

Dudley v. Sheldon Dudley. · filed 2011-12-09(a)

The provision was at all times void as an action taken in violation of the automatic stay, and only the bankruptcy court could retroactively validate the trial court’s violation of the stay.

Section 362 automatically stays further action in a pending appeal when the appellant files a bankruptcy proceeding.

in the Estate of Florene K. Grace · filed 2011-12-14

Further action in this appeal has been automatically stayed. See 11 U.S.C. § 362.

Section 362 automatically stays further action in an appeal when an appellant files for bankruptcy.

William R. Vance, Jr. and David R. Toups v. Vance · filed 2011-12-14

Appellant William R. Vance has filed a notice that he filed a bankruptcy proceeding on September 13, 2011. See TEX. R. APP. P. 8.1. Further action in this appeal has been automatically stayed. See 11 U.S.C. § 362.

Section 362 stays an appeal when a party files for bankruptcy, and the stay of briefing may be lifted after the bankruptcy case closes.

Calico Brand, Inc. v. Ameritek Imports, Inc. · filed 2011-12-29

These appeals were stayed pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362 upon the filing of Ameri-tek Imports, Inc.’s bankruptcy petition. Calico Brand, Inc., et al. informs the court that the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California has closed the bankruptcy case. ... (1) The stay of briefing is lifted.

The automatic stay does not bar litigation against a debtor’s partner over funds the debtor lent to the partner and no longer owns.

In Re W.A.R. LLP · filed 2012-01-27(a)

Further, because W.A.R. LLP lacked any claim to the funds in the court’s registry — aside from the $4,611.66 that Cartinhour in essence concedes is property of the estate — Judge Huvelle, Judge Delk, and Judge Teel all appropriately determined that the proceedings before Judge Huvelle did not violate the automatic stay.

Section 362’s automatic stay was not violated by an ejectment complaint filed without knowledge of the bankruptcy when proceedings stopped upon notice, or by a summary judgment entered after discharge and lifting of the stay.

James v. Intown Ventures, LLC · filed 2012-02-27

Intown’s complaint for ejectment was filed in superior court in 2008, at a time when neither Intown nor James’ own counsel was aware of her bankruptcy filing. Upon learning James had filed for bankruptcy protection, Intown agreed to a stay of all proceedings in the ejectment action. No further action was taken until James was discharged from bankruptcy and the stay was lifted. Only after discharge did Intown file and the trial court consider the motion for partial summary judgment which is the subject of this appeal. The record evidence thus demonstrates that neither the complaint nor the summary judgment order was entered in violation of the automatic stay.

Section 362(a) stays claims against a debtor, but does not stay claims brought by the debtor.

Sergent v. McKinstry ex rel. BD Unsecured Creditors Trust · filed 2012-03-21(a)

Yet only claims against a debtor — not by a debtor — trigger the automatic stay and are required to proceed in bankruptcy court.

Section 362(a)(1) stays an appeal in an action originally brought against the debtor, while proceedings against solvent codefendants may continue absent unusual circumstances.

Fifth Third Bank v. Dial Properties, LLC · filed 2012-04-06(a)(1)

Because this action was originally brought against the debtor, Jeff Dial, this appeal is stayed as against him. We proceed on the merits against the remaining, solvent codefendants.

Section 362(a) does not stay actions against nondebtor guarantors or nondebtor property.

In re Madawaska Hardscape Products, Inc. · filed 2012-06-08(a)

The automatic stay in this case does not apply to stay action against non-debtor guarantors or non-debtor property.

Section 362 ordinarily protects only the debtor, but an appeal involving a nondebtor co-defendant cannot proceed when deciding that co-defendant’s liability would necessarily decide the debtor’s intertwined rights and obligations.

Bree v. Farmers & Merchants Bank · filed 2012-06-20(a)(1)

Ordinarily, parties other than GMAC are not entitled to the protection of the automatic stay under §362. ... In contrast, here the rights and obligations of F&M are intertwined with and dependent upon those of GMAC, as they arise in large part from GMAC’s loan documents. Moreover, the Brees allege that GMAC and F&M conspired together to deprive them of their property. Thus any decision as to F&M must necessarily involve a decision as to the merits of GMAC’s contentions, which we may not make.

Section 362(a)(1) automatically stays appellate proceedings against a party that files a voluntary bankruptcy petition.

McLeod v. PB Investment Corporation · filed 2012-08-01(a)(1)

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1), the filing of such a petition operates as an automatic stay of any judicial proceeding against Residential Funding Company, LLC, including appellate proceedings.

Section 362(k) treats oral notice of a bankruptcy filing as sufficient knowledge of the automatic stay for a willful violation claim.

Johnson v. Magee Rentals, Inc. (In re Johnson) · filed 2012-08-28(k)

This Court finds persuasive those decisions that have held that oral notice of the filing of a bankruptcy petition is sufficient to satisfy the “knowledge” element of § 362(k).

Section 362 stays litigation against the debtor but does not stay litigation against solvent codefendants.

Spencer v. S. Boyd, Inc. · filed 2012-09-28(a)(1)

It is well established that the automatic stay entered pursuant to § 362 pertained only to litigation against Mr. Boyd, not his solvent codefendants.

Section 362 automatically stays further action in an appeal when an appellant files a bankruptcy petition.

McDowell, Mary Pat v. Fritts, Jeff · filed 2012-10-03

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362, further action in this cause is automatically stayed.

Section 362(a) stays the continuation of an action against a Chapter 11 debtor, but does not extend that stay to nonbankrupt codefendants.

Vasquez v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp. · filed 2012-11-21(a)

However, the automatic stay provisions of the federal bankruptcy code did not extend to the non-bankrupt Elmhurst defendants (see Rosenbaum v Dane & Murphy, 189 AD2d 760, 761 [1993]).

Section 362(a) does not automatically stay litigation against separate legal entities or nondebtor codefendants, even when the debtor owns the entity.

In re Lengacher · filed 2012-12-12(a)

It does not protect separate legal entities, corporations, partnerships or non-debtor co-defendants in pending litigation.

Section 362 automatically stays further action in an appeal when the appellants are debtors in a pending Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding.

Randy G. Gooch and Irene G. Gooch v. Deiterman · filed 2013-01-17

Further action in this appeal has been automatically stayed. See 11 U.S.C. § 362.

Section 362 stays claims against a party who has filed for bankruptcy.

Zoom Electric, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 595 · filed 2013-02-08

Because Counter-Defendant and Cross-Defendant Vieko Horak has filed for bankruptcy, the claims against him are stayed pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362.

Section 362 automatically stays further action in a pending appeal when the appellee files for bankruptcy.

Tenet Healthsystem Hospitals Dallas, Inc. v. North Texas Medical Group, P.A · filed 2013-04-18

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362, further action in this cause is automatically stayed.

Section 362 stays a pending appeal when the appellant files a bankruptcy petition.

Littlefield v. Littlefield · filed 2013-05-07

Appellant Gregory A. Littlefield has filed a docketing statement, attaching a copy of his bankruptcy petition (United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Texas, case number 13-40227- rfn11). Accordingly, the appeal is stayed. See 11 U.S.C. § 362; Tex. R. App. P. 8.2.

Section 362 stays appellate review as to defendants that have filed for bankruptcy while allowing review to proceed as to a nonbankrupt codefendant.

Amber Arpaio v. Dupre · filed 2013-05-20

After oral argument, the Court was advised that two of the three Defendants – MRA and Mantra – had filed for relief under the Bankruptcy Code. Therefore, in light of the automatic stay provision of 11 U.S.C. § 362, our opinion will review the District Court‟s ruling with respect to Defendant Francis only.

Section 362 automatically stays further action in a pending appeal when an appellee has filed for bankruptcy.

CJY Investment, L.L.C. v. United Central Bank · filed 2013-05-22

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362, further action in this cause is automatically stayed.

Section 362(a)(1) does not prevent dismissal of an appeal for lack of jurisdiction when the appeal concerns claims by the debtor rather than claims against it.

Ascendant Universal Fund v. White Stallion Estates · filed 2013-06-11(a)(1)

As this appeal and cross-appeal apparently pertain only to the claims by appellant Ascendant Universal Fund I, LLC, not those against Ascendant Universal Fund I, the automatic bankruptcy stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) (2010), does not prevent this jurisdictional disposition.

Section 362(a)(1) stays proceedings against the debtor, but does not stay a debtor’s own claims against another party.

Templos v. Ford Motor Company · filed 2013-06-11(a)(1)

However, the automatic stay is only applicable to claims against the debtor.

Section 362(a) generally stays proceedings against the bankrupt debtor, and a nondebtor codefendant must establish an exception to receive the stay’s protection.

Theobald v. Morris Ventures, LLC · filed 2013-07-03(a)

For Theobald, a non-debtor, non-bankrupt co-defendant, to benefit from Janiak’s stay, he had to prove he was entitled to an exception. ... Theobald offered no evidence and made no argument establishing that he was entitled to an exception. Therefore, the trial court was not precluded from proceeding on Morris Ventures’s claims against Theobald and Wingspan.

Section 362(a) automatically stays a pending appeal when the appellee files a bankruptcy petition.

Eakin v. Butler · filed 2013-07-12(a)

As a result of Butler’s bankruptcy filing, this action is automatically stayed by operation of law.

Section 362(a) does not prevent a contract from lapsing under its own terms when a required payment is not made.

Maifeld v. West Coast Life Insurance (In re Maifeld) · filed 2013-07-15(a)

The policy lapsed on its own terms, by virtue of nonpayment of the premium. The automatic stay enjoins various acts, but Maifeld cites no part of the stay that enjoins the lapsing of a contract by its own terms.

Section 362 automatically stays further action in a pending appeal when an appellant files a bankruptcy petition.

Brown v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation · filed 2013-07-31

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362, further action in this cause is automatically stayed.

Section 362(a) stays claims against a debtor but does not stay an appeal in a case initiated by the debtor when no claims are brought against him.

Thad F. Baker A/K/A Fred Baker v. W. R. Edwards, Jr. · filed 2013-08-21(a)

Because the automatic stay is only applicable to claims against the debtor, we GRANT appellee’s August 5, 2013 motion regarding involuntary bankruptcy and appellants’ August 6, 2013 motion to reinstate appeal suspended by bankruptcy.

Section 362(a) does not stay appeals that do not concern an action brought against the bankruptcy debtor or otherwise fall within its terms.

Jackson Hewitt, Inc. v. Barnes Enterprises, Inc. · filed 2013-08-22(a)

That stay does not apply, however, to the instant appeals because they do not concern an action that was brought against her or otherwise fall under § 362(a).

Section 362’s automatic stay can support sanctions for a violation without a separate formal order concerning the stay.

MA Salazar, Inc. v. Incorporated Village of Atlantic Beach · filed 2013-09-17

In other words, the absence of a formal order regarding the automatic stay did not preclude the Bankruptcy Court from sanctioning the Village for proceeding with the demolition without submitting a proposed order regarding the automatic stay.

Section 362 automatically stays further action in an appeal when the appellant files a bankruptcy petition.

Amah v. Perry · filed 2014-05-22

It appearing that appellant has filed a petition for relief under the United States Bankruptcy Code, further action in the above-styled case is STAYED by operation of law pursuant to 11 U. S. C. § 362.

Section 362 automatically stays further action in an appeal when the appellee files a bankruptcy petition.

Eclat Private Equity, Inc. v. Parsa · filed 2014-08-15

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362, further action in this cause is automatically stayed.

A debtor in possession may ratify a prepetition waiver of the automatic stay, supporting relief from the stay for the creditor.

In re Triple A & R Capital Investment, Inc. · filed 2014-10-09

This Debtor, as a debtor in possession, ratified and agreed to be bound by clauses in the Forbearance Agreement which expressly contained a waiver of the protection afforded by the automatic stay.

Section 362(a)(8) does not bar a Tax Court case commenced before the bankruptcy petition triggered the automatic stay.

Perry v. Comm'r · filed 2014-11-10(a)(8)

Because her case in this Court was commenced before the automatic stay came into effect, the automatic stay cannot serve to preclude its antecedent commencement.