11 U.S.C. § 362

The automatic stay terminates when the bankruptcy case is dismissed.

Ronald Joseph Smith · filed 2019-12-24(c)(2)(B)

The latter statement fails to recognize that, upon dismissal, the automatic stay terminates.

Dismissal of a bankruptcy case terminates the automatic stay by operation of law for all creditors.

Pajarillo v. U.S. Bank National Association · filed 2020-01-13(c)(2)(B)

The Bankruptcy Court’s dismissal of the underlying case mooted Debtor’s Motion because dismissal terminated the automatic stay by operation of law, lifting the automatic stay for all of Debtor’s creditors, not just U.S. Bank.

Under § 362(c)(1) and (2), dismissal of a bankruptcy case terminates the automatic stay.

Janis A Stewart · filed 2020-02-05(c)(1) and (2)

Upon reopening, the case would remain a dismissed case in which Stewart is not entitled to the protection of the automatic stay against future collection efforts by creditors: under 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(1) and (2), the dismissal terminated the automatic stay.

The automatic stay ends when the bankruptcy case is dismissed.

In Re: Sonya Laraye Owens · filed 2020-04-20(c)(2)(B)

The automatic stay was lifted upon dismissal of Ms. Owens’s petition on August 6, after which Ms. Owens was evicted from the property.

An automatic stay under § 362(a) ends when the bankruptcy case is dismissed.

Fox v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC · filed 2020-05-05(a)

An automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) is lifted when the bankruptcy case is dismissed.

Section 362(c)(2)(B) ends the automatic stay when a case is dismissed; vacating the dismissal later does not retroactively restore the stay for intervening creditor acts.

Pamela C. Parker · filed 2021-01-04(c)(2)(B)

Because there is overwhelming support for the proposition that the vacatur of an order of dismissal of a chapter 13 case does not retroactively impose the automatic stay, this Court concludes that the judicial sale to Laurel is not voidable because it did not violate the automatic stay.

Section 362(c)(2)(B) terminates the automatic stay when the bankruptcy case is dismissed.

In Re: Gonzalo J. Dunia · filed 2021-04-29(c)(2)(B)

Pursuant to Section 362, any automatic stay terminates upon dismissal of the case.

Dismissal of the bankruptcy case ends the automatic stay and moots an appeal from an order granting relief from the stay.

In Re: Bankruptcy Appeal of Tina M. Carson · filed 2022-05-31(c)(2)(B)

The dismissal of the bankruptcy eliminates the automatic stay altogether and renders moot any claim that the bankruptcy court did not have authority to grant Appellee relief from the stay.

Section 362(c)(2)(B) terminates the automatic stay when the bankruptcy case is dismissed.

Pons v. Regus Mgt. Group · filed 2022-11-04(c)(2)(B)

However, given that the underlying bankruptcy case has itself been dismissed, there no longer is an automatic stay in effect related to the Property.

Section 362(c)(2) terminates the automatic stay when the bankruptcy case is dismissed.

Arnold v. Aqua Finance, Inc. · filed 2023-02-17(c)(2)

The dismissal of the bankruptcy proceedings immediately terminated the stay on October 30, 2017.

Section 362(c)(2)(B) terminates the automatic stay by operation of law when the bankruptcy case is dismissed.

Bartenfelder v. Bartenfelder · filed 2023-03-31(c)(2)(B)

The automatic stay imposed by the filing of Ms. Bartenfelder’s bankruptcy case terminated by operation of law upon the dismissal of the bankruptcy case.

Section 362(c)(2)(B) ends the automatic stay when dismissal of the bankruptcy case is granted.

LaBranche v. Kansas City Public Schools · filed 2023-04-18(c)(2)(B)

Second, while the circuit court found it significant that “the Bankruptcy proceeding continued for some time after the dismissal was filed, and, until that later date, a stay remained in effect on the creditors in said Bankruptcy proceeding,” pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(2)(B), the stay ended when the dismissal was granted, which was prior to LaBranche receiving right to sue notices on the MHRA claims.

Section 362(c)(2)(B) ends the automatic stay when the bankruptcy case is dismissed.

City Bay Capital LLC v. BH&G Holdings, LLC · filed 2024-03-22(c)(2)(B)

This matter is therefore no longer stayed against BH&G Holdings.

Section 362(c)(2)(B) ends the automatic stay when the bankruptcy case is dismissed, so a receivership order entered after dismissal is not barred by the stay.

Bank of Hays v. CSR Worldwide OK, Inc. · filed 2024-04-23(c)(2)(B)

Furthermore, after the dismissal of CSR Worldwide and CSR-OK’s bankruptcy cases the automatic stay was lifted,2 meaning Plaintiffs’ Motion for Receiver and the subsequent order for Receiver were properly enacted.

Section 362(c)(2)(B) ends the automatic stay when the bankruptcy case is dismissed.

Tupper v. SN Servicing Corporation · filed 2024-08-30(c)(2)(B)

The automatic stay terminated once the second bankruptcy action was dismissed on February 2, 2024.

Section 362(c)(2)(B) ends the automatic stay when the bankruptcy case is dismissed.

Ronald Benjamin Mitchell and Deborah Ann Mitchell · filed 2024-11-21(c)(2)(B)

To the extent the Debtors seek to enforce the automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) in their Petition for Stay, the request fails because the automatic stay only “continues until the earliest of... the time the case is dismissed.” 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(2)(B). This case was dismissed on May 1, 2024, and the stay set forth in 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) expired at that time.

Section 362(c)(2)(B) ends the automatic stay when the bankruptcy case is dismissed.

In re: Jeffrey Wayne Jinka, Jr. · filed 2024-11-26(c)(2)(B)

But when the bankruptcy case was dismissed, the automatic stay resolved on its own under the relevant statute.

Section 362(c)(2)(B) ends the automatic stay when the bankruptcy case is dismissed.

Jinka v. Solverline Properties LLC · filed 2024-11-26(c)(2)(B)

But when Jinka’s bankruptcy case was dismissed, the automatic stay resolved on its own under the relevant statute.

Section 362(c)(2)(B) terminates the automatic stay when the bankruptcy case is dismissed.

Hurley v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. · filed 2025-01-02(c)(2)(B)

Also as relevant here, pursuant to Section 362(c), an automatic stay terminates upon dismissal of a bankruptcy case.

Dismissal of the bankruptcy case ends the automatic stay, allowing the stayed action to proceed.

Sifuentes v. National Public Data · filed 2025-01-30(c)(2)(B)

On October 15, 2024, Defendant filed a “Suggestion of Bankruptcy” that indicated the action has been stayed under 11 U.S.C. § 362. (ECF No. 8). The referenced bankruptcy docket reflects that the bankruptcy court entered an order dismissing the bankruptcy case on October 31, 2024. Thus, the Court may proceed here.

Section 362(c)(2) ends the automatic stay when the bankruptcy case is dismissed, even if the dismissal is appealed without a stay pending appeal.

Alfred Parker Mayo, Sr. · filed 2025-03-31(c)(2)

There is no “automatic stay” after a dismissal order even if that order is appealed.

Section 362(c)(2)(B) ends the automatic stay when the bankruptcy case is dismissed, making a request for relief from that stay moot.

In re Nicole Laura Alexis Lawtone-Bowles · filed 2026-02-17(c)(2)(B)

As stated, dismissal of the case results in the automatic stay no longer being in effect under 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(2)(B). Therefore, the relief requested in U.S. Bank’s motion is mooted by the dismissal of the case.

Section 362(c)(2)(B) terminates the automatic stay when the bankruptcy case is dismissed, making a dispute over the stay moot.

DESIR · filed 2026-03-16(c)(2)(B)

Moreover, any dispute about the automatic stay, which Desir contests in those appeals, is moot, as the automatic stay was terminated when Desir's bankruptcy case was dismissed.

The automatic stay ends when the bankruptcy case is dismissed.

In Re Erwin A. Porges, Also Known as E. Allen Porges, Debtor. Erwin A. Porges, Also Known as E. Allen Porges v. Gruntal · filed 1995-01-05

Porges’ voluntary dismissal of his bankruptcy case after learning of a probable adverse decision leads one to question his concern for his other creditors, and in any case the dismissal lifted the automatic bankruptcy stay and rendered moot the concept of equal treatment among creditors.

Section 362(c)(2)(B) ends the automatic stay when the bankruptcy case is dismissed.

Somohano v. Federal National Mortgage Association · filed 2019-11-18(c)(2)(B)

Normally, “dismissal of a [bankruptcy] case moots an appeal arising from the debtor's bankruptcy proceedings.” Neidich v. Salas, 783 F.3d 1215, 1216 (11th Cir. 2015); see also 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(2)(B) (providing that an automatic bankruptcy stay dissolves when the underlying case is dismissed).

Section 362(c)(1) keeps a stay against estate property in effect only while that property remains in the estate.

Massachusetts v. Pappalardo (In Re Steenstra) · filed 2004-03-31(c)(1)

Although the Bankruptcy Code is not specific as to when the bankruptcy estate terminates, the First Circuit has held that dismissal of the bankruptcy petition ordinarily terminates the estate and the automatic stay. ... This proposition is supported by § 362(c)(1), which provides that “the stay of an act against property of the estate ... continues until such property is no longer property of the estate.” ... Therefore, dismissal of a bankruptcy petition “has the simultaneous effect of undoing the bankruptcy estate and lifting the automatic stay, just as the filing of the petition creates the bankruptcy estate and imposes the automatic stay.” ... In the instant case, the bankruptcy estate and the automatic stay terminated immediately upon the docketing of the dismissal order.

Section 362’s automatic stay ends upon dismissal, leaving funds formerly in the bankruptcy estate unprotected from garnishment.

Rick Warren v. United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Oklahoma · filed 2021-04-27(c)(1)

Because of the termination of the automatic stay and the non-existence of the prior bankruptcy estate upon entry of a dismissal order, the Trustee is effectively no longer operating as court-appointed fiduciary.

Section 362(c)(2) ends the automatic stay when the bankruptcy case is dismissed; an appeal does not reinstate it.

Jeffries v. Herr · filed 2024-06-13(c)(2)

The automatic stay that applied to Keith Jeffries’ Chapter 13 case terminated when the Bankruptcy Court dismissed the case. Thus, there is currently no automatic stay in effect that would prevent the scheduled foreclosure sale.

Section 362(c)(2) ends the automatic stay when a bankruptcy case is dismissed.

Okorie v. PriorityOne Bank · filed 2024-11-05(c)(2)

This action taken at Okorie’s request terminated the stay altogether, resulting in the case being closed.

Section 362(c)(2) ends the automatic stay when the bankruptcy case is dismissed.

Keith James Jeffries · filed 2025-01-27(c)(2)

The Bankruptcy Court committed no clear error by lifting the automatic stay after it dismissed Jeffries’ Chapter 13 case.

Section 362(c)(2)(B) terminates the automatic stay when the bankruptcy case is dismissed, making a pending request for stay relief moot.

Maxine Bonaparte · filed 2026-05-05(c)(2)(B)

However, because this case is subject to dismissal under § 1307(c), Deutsche Bank’s request for stay relief is moot. Upon dismissal, the automatic stay imposed by § 362(a) terminates by operation of law.

Section 362(a)(6) prevents a creditor from taking affirmative action after a bankruptcy petition to accelerate the maturity of a debt.

First Bank Investors' Trust v. Tarkio College · filed 1997-11-12(a)(6)

Furthermore, because the May 14, 1991, letter did not operate to accelerate the maturity of Tarkio's note effective May 24, 1991, and because the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(6) (applicable upon Tarkio's May 17, 1991, petition for bankruptcy protection) prevented FBIT from thereafter taking any affirmative action to accelerate maturity of the note, the note has never been accelerated.

Section 362(a)(6) bars a creditor from accelerating a debt and attempting to enforce it without relief from the automatic stay.

Mims v. Fidelity Funding, Inc. (In Re Auto International Refrigeration) · filed 2002-03-15(a)(6)

In fact, had Defendants actually accelerated the debt and attempted to enforce the claim without receiving relief from the automatic stay, it would have been in violation of the stay.

Section 362(a) bars a creditor from decelerating debt when doing so would increase its claim against the bankruptcy estate.

U.S. Bank Trust National Ass'n v. American Airlines, Inc. (In re AMR Corp.) · filed 2013-01-17(a)

Any deceleration of these notes, however, is barred by the automatic stay imposed by the filing of this bankruptcy.

Section 362(a)(1) makes a civil action commenced against a debtor after the automatic stay takes effect void from its commencement.

Musacchio v. The Hertz Corporation · filed 2025-04-04(a)(1)

The filing of this civil complaint in violation of the stay is thus void from its commencement, and therefore, this action is dismissed.

Section 362(a) makes a lawsuit filed against a debtor after its bankruptcy petition void from the outset, even if the plaintiff lacked notice of the bankruptcy.

South Dallas Water Authority v. Guarantee Co. of North America, USA · filed 2011-02-09(a)

In light of the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this Court find that plaintiffs action in filing suit against Wainwright violated the automatic stay (albeit, unintentionally) and was, therefore, void ab initio and without effect, ... such that the citizenship of Wainwright need not be considered in determining whether this Court may exercise diversity jurisdiction, see In re Miller, supra.

Section 362 automatically stays claims against a debtor when it files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

Pesantez v. Boyle Environmental Services, Inc. · filed 1998-06-02

All claims as against Greaney are automatically stayed by its filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection (11 USC § 362), and as against Reliance, Greaney’s surety, by the Bankruptcy Court’s bar orders of April 18, 1994 and January 22, 1998.

Section 362(a) imposes the automatic stay when a debtor files again during a § 109(g) 180-day refiling bar unless the prior dismissal order expressly provides that a future filing will not invoke the stay.

In Re Flores · filed 2003-03-21(a)

As amplified below, orders entered by this Court dismissing cases with prejudice for 180 days pursuant to Section 109(g) are not intended and will not be construed to void the automatic stay in the event of a subsequent filing by the debtor within 180 days, unless the order of dismissal expressly states that a future fifing within 180 days will not invoke the automatic stay.

Section 362(a)(1) bars commencement of a proceeding against a debtor during the automatic stay if it could have been commenced before bankruptcy; a proceeding commenced during the stay is void.

Padrino Maritime, Inc. v. Rizo · filed 2004-01-22(a)(1)

Any action taken against appellant between May 19, 1999 and June 9, 2000 was void and without legal effect because the automatic stay barred the commencement of any proceedings against appellant that could have commenced before it filed for bankruptcy.

Section 362(a)(1) bars a plaintiff from filing a state court suit against a debtor after the debtor files for bankruptcy protection.

Brown v. Jevic · filed 2009-07-31(a)(1)

Brown sued JEVIC in state court on May 27, 2008, just one week after JEV-IC had filed for bankruptcy protection. This was plainly improper under the automatic stay, 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1).

Section 362(a) automatically stays claims against a debtor when the debtor files a bankruptcy petition.

Adams v. Old Republic Insurance Co · filed 2020-06-09(a)

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), a mandatory stay of all claims against the debtor took effect at the time of the filing of the bankruptcy petition and, for the purpose of clarifying the debtor’s status herein, the Court acknowledges all claims against Hertz Corp. and related entities are STAYED pending notice from the presiding bankruptcy court that the stay has been lifted.

A bankruptcy filing triggers the automatic stay of proceedings against the debtor.

Mark Mazza v. · filed 2023-01-09

The act of filing triggers the automatic stay provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 362. ... Accordingly, we will stay the proceeding as to Mark Mazza.

Section 362(a)(1) imposes an immediate stay when a bankruptcy petition is filed, preventing efforts to collect prepetition obligations from the debtor.

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Etc. v. Zahodiakin · filed 2023-12-06(a)(1)

The most fundamental protection triggered by a bankruptcy filing is the immediate imposition of an automatic stay, which prevents all efforts against the debtor to collect pre-petition obligations.

Section 362 automatically stays the commencement or continuation of prepetition judicial proceedings against a debtor when the debtor files for bankruptcy.

Yagovane v. Givans, No. 310639 (Jun. 3, 1992) · filed 1992-06-03

Pursuant to 362 of the Bankruptcy Code, the petition for bankruptcy status filed by the defendant Riss on November 3, 1989, effectuated an automatic stay to enjoin; the commencement or continuation. . .of a judicial proceeding against the debtor that was or could have been commenced before the commencement of the [stay]. . . . 11 U.S.C. § 362 .

Section 362(b)(6) permits a stockbroker to liquidate securities pledged in a margin account to meet margin calls without first obtaining relief from the automatic stay.

In Re Herbert Herman Weisberg Delphine Ruth Weisberg, Debtors, Edward M. Wolkowitz, Trustee and David R. Weinstein v. Sh · filed 1998-02-17(b)(6)

We affirm the BAP’s conclusion that Section 362(b)(6) allowed Shearson to liquidate Weisberg’s securities without first obtaining relief from the automatic stay.

Section 362(a)(1) automatically stays mortgage foreclosure actions when the debtor files a bankruptcy petition.

Lubonty v. U.S. Bank N.A. · filed 2018-03-28(a)(1)

The filing of a petition for protection under the Bankruptcy Code imposes "an automatic stay of any mortgage foreclosure actions" ( Mercury Capital Corp. v Shepherds Beach, 281 AD2d 604, 605; see 11 USC § 362[a][1]; Zuckerman v 234-6 W. 22 St. Corp., 267 AD2d 130).

Section 362(b)(24) does not except a postpetition foreclosure sale from the automatic stay merely because the buyer lacked knowledge of the bankruptcy; the good-faith purchaser defense under section 549(c) applies only to voluntary transfers.

Patty Denice Mitchell · filed 2024-12-02(b)(24)

In this case, Catamount did not acquire the debtor's interest in her residence through a voluntary sale initiated by the debtor. Instead, it acquired the debtor's interest in her residence at a foreclosure sale conducted at the behest of U.S. Bank. Therefore, the “good faith purchaser” defense to avoidance under section 549(a) is unavailable to Catamount, and in turn, the exception to the automatic stay provided by section 362(b)(24) is inapplicable.

The automatic stay voids a foreclosure sale that becomes final after the bankruptcy petition under an applicable state overbid period, even if the auction occurred before filing.

SHANNON HAGER · filed 2023-06-26(a)(3)

Finalizing the sale on or after that date violates the stay. Any violation of the stay is void and without effect.

Section 362(a)(3) renders a foreclosure sale void when the sale becomes final after the bankruptcy petition, even if the auction occurred before filing.

SHANNON HAGER · filed 2023-05-25(a)(3)

The foreclosure sale was finalized post-petition and is thus void as a violation of the automatic stay.

Section 362(a) does not bar foreclosure of property owned by someone other than the debtor when the debtor has no ownership interest and the sale does not deprive the debtor of any possessory right.

Denise W. Wright · filed 2022-07-06(a)

Even if such an alleged possessory right existed and was protected by the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), the foreclosure sale conducted by Fieldstone did not violate that right. The foreclosure sale did not, in and of itself, deprive the Debtor of any such possessory right.

Sections 362(a)(1) and (a)(2) stay a foreclosure sale when the debtor is a named defendant in the foreclosure action, even if the debtor has only a possessory interest in the property.

In Re: Eileen Fogarty · filed 2022-07-06(a)(1), (a)(2)

As a matter of first impression, we hold that two of the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay provisions, 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) and (a)(2), are violated by the foreclosure sale of a property when the debtor is a named party in the foreclosure proceedings, even if the debtor’s direct interest in the property is only possessory.

Section 362(a) is violated when an execution sale transfers ownership after the bankruptcy petition is filed; a sale completed before filing does not violate the stay.

In re Dixon · filed 2013-04-05(a)

Applying the MVC provisions discussed above, the Court concludes that an evidentiary hearing is necessary to determine whether title to the motorcycle passed to the execution sale purchaser before the Debtor filed his bankruptcy petition. If it did, then the sale of Debtor’s motorcycle was not a violation of the automatic stay. If it did not, then the motorcycle sale occurred post-petition, and the sale violated the automatic stay.

Section 362(a) prohibits a postpetition foreclosure sale and recording the resulting deed, and a purchaser’s refusal to cooperate in setting aside the sale continues the stay violation; the foreclosure sale is void.

Tyson v. Hunt (In Re Tyson) · filed 2011-06-07(a)

As a result of these findings, the Court concludes that the foreclosure sale, the recordation of the deed and Hunt’s failure to cooperate in setting aside the foreclosure sale are violations of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). There are no equitable circumstances that indicate an exception should be made to the general rule that actions taken in violation of the automatic stay in this case are invalid and voidable. The Court therefore concludes that the foreclosure sale conducted on October 5, 2010, is void.

Section 362(a)(1) stays a foreclosure sale even when the debtor does not own the property if the debtor remains a defendant in the foreclosure action and judgment as a guarantor of the debt.

In Re Ebadi · filed 2011-03-30(a)(1)

LP continued the Foreclosure Action by conducting the Foreclosure Sale. This constitutes both a continuation of a judicial action against the debtor and a continuation of a judicial action to recover a claim against the debtor, both violations of the plain language of Section 362(a)(1) of the Code.

Section 362(a) stays a creditor’s postpetition foreclosure action against a debtor’s residence.

Pro Finance, Inc. v. Spriggs (In Re Spriggs) · filed 1998-04-16(a)(1), (a)(3)-(6)

The automatic stay clearly was applicable to Pro Finance’s foreclosure action against the Debtor’s residence, see 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) & (3)-(6), and Pro Finance has not argued that an exception to the stay under § 362(b) applies.

Section 362(a)(6) may be violated by repeated workplace calls pressuring a debtor to sign a reaffirmation agreement while the automatic stay is in force.

Rogers v. NationsCredit Financial Services Corp. · filed 1999-01-20(a)(6)

Plaintiff alleges that she was subject to repeated phone calls by Defendant at her place of employment demanding that she sign the reaffirmation agreement, during the time at which the automatic stay was in force. This raises a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Defendant’s conduct violated § 362(a).

Section 362(a) bars confirmation of a foreclosure sale after a bankruptcy petition is filed, even when the sale itself preceded the petition.

Merrill Lynch Credit Corp. v. King · filed 2000-06-12(a)

The Court will vacate the later orders entered during the period of the automatic stay, however, because an action to confirm the sale falls under those actions prohibited by 11 U.S.C. § 362(a).

Section 362(a)(6) permits a secured creditor to accept voluntary payments during the automatic stay so long as the payments were not improperly induced.

David J. Pertuso, Karen A. Pertuso v. Ford Motor Credit Company · filed 2000-11-22(a)(6)

We believe, however, that a secured creditor’s acceptance of voluntary payments does not run afoul of the automatic stay as long as the payments have not been induced improperly.

Section 362(a)(1) renders a complaint filed against a debtor during the automatic stay void and unable to invoke the state court’s jurisdiction.

Little Texas, Inc. v. Buchen · filed 2001-02-08(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 stays government setoff after a bankruptcy petition unless the bankruptcy court lifts the stay.

Washington International Insurance v. United States · filed 2001-03-28(a)(7)

The Court notes that Washington International fails to address the fact that once a bankruptcy petition is filed, the automatic stay provision of 11 U.S.C. §362(h) prevents the application of the government’s right to setoff. Setoff could occur only where the United States petitioned the bankruptcy court to lift the automatic stay.

Section 362(a)(4) bars foreclosure to enforce a lien against estate property during the automatic stay; a foreclosure in violation of the stay is void and passes no title.

Oles v. Curl · filed 2001-04-06(a)(4)

Consequently, neither the Curls nor their substitute trustee could enforce their lien or deed of trust through foreclosure. 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(4). Because they nonetheless attempted to do so, the foreclosure was void, and the Curls acquired no title to the property.

Section 362(a)(6) prohibits a creditor aware of the automatic stay from threatening to repossess a debtor’s furniture to collect a pre-petition debt.

McDonald v. Norwest Financial, Inc. (In Re McDonald) · filed 2001-07-23(a)(6)

Taking this allegation as true, as the Court must, ... this in and of itself would be an intentional act in violation of § 362(a)(6) at a time when the Defendants were aware the Debtors were protected by the automatic stay.

Section 362(a)(1) automatically stays proceedings against a debtor upon a bankruptcy filing, but a court may decide motions when its order will not affect the debtor’s assets or interfere with the stay’s protections.

Jefferson County School District v. Lead Industries Ass'n, Inc. · filed 2002-05-17(a)(1)

As the instant Motions for Relief from Judgment and for Interlocutory Appeal are not well taken and will be denied, the Court finds that the Opinion and Order entered this day will not affect the assets of Defendant Lead Industries or otherwise interfere with the protections afforded it by section 362, and is therefore not inconsistent with the terms of the automatic stay. Accordingly, the Court finds that it has jurisdiction to consider and rule upon the instant motions of Plaintiff.

Section 362(a)(1) bars a creditor from prompting the issuance of process in a pending action against a debtor during the automatic stay, and a judgment predicated on that act is void.

In Re Weber · filed 2002-09-26(a)(1)

It was attorney Prue’s letter which prompted the Land Court to issue the citation and set the clock ticking against the Debtor. Among the acts forbidden by § 362(a) is the commencement or continuation of judicial proceedings against the debtor. ... This Court does so today and rules that the default judgment of foreclosure entered by the Land Court on May 5,1997 is void as having been issued and predicated on acts committed in violation of the automatic stay.

Section 362(a)(1) prevents completion of a foreclosure transfer after a bankruptcy filing when the debtor retains an equity of redemption in the property at filing.

In Re Grassie · filed 2003-04-25(a)(1)

Accordingly, because the Debtor retained his equity of redemption at the time of his filing, the Property remained in the Debtor's bankruptcy estate. The automatic stay therefore applies to the Property and prevents completion of the transfer of the Property to the Purchaser.

Section 362(a) bars a party from initiating discovery against a debtor on a non-exempt claim while the automatic stay is in effect.

Klass v. Klass · filed 2003-09-08(a)

The filing of discovery by a party against the debtor with respect to a non-exempt claim against the debtor does not fall within that exception.

Section 362(a)(1) permits a court to dismiss or transfer a case on jurisdictional grounds during the automatic stay because that action is not a prohibited continuation of the case.

MTGLQ Investors, L.P. v. Guire · filed 2003-10-07(a)(1)

I will therefore join other courts that have considered the issue in concluding that dismissing or transferring the case on jurisdictional grounds does not constitute a prohibited “continuation” of the action under § 362.

Section 362(a)(1) bars proceedings against a debtor that could have begun before bankruptcy, and actions taken during the stay are void.

Padrino Maritime v. Rizo · filed 2004-01-22(a)(1)

Any action taken against appellant between May 19, 1999 and June 9, 1999 was void and without legal effect because the automatic stay barred the commencement of any proceedings against appellant that could have commenced before it filed for bankruptcy.

Section 362 renders a postpetition sheriff’s sale enforcing a prepetition judgment or estate-property lien invalid regardless of notice unless the stay is annulled, and section 549(c) supplies no exception.

Singleton v. Abusaad (In Re Abusaad) · filed 2004-03-18(a)(2), (a)(4), (d)

Such acts violated the automatic stay regardless of whether Springpark or the Sheriff or the purchaser had knowledge of the filing of the petition. ... Regardless of the label placed on the effect of an action taken in violation of the stay, it is clear that such an action is invalid and of no effect unless and until the action is made valid by subsequent judicial action annulling the automatic stay. ... Section 549(c), by its very terms is not an exception to § 362, but an exception to the trustee’s avoiding powers under § 549(a).

A purchaser at a sheriff’s sale that is void ab initio for violating the automatic stay lacks cause for stay relief merely to acquire legal title and possession.

Beal Bank SSB v. Brown (In Re Brown) · filed 2004-07-12(a)(2), (d)(1)

At the very least, the sheriffs sale amounted to the enforcement, against property of the bankruptcy estate, of a pre-petition judgment against debtor. 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(2). ... Applying these principles to the present matter, we conclude that the sheriffs sale of the property in which debtor has an interest is void ab initio. The action whereby Beal Bank obtained the equitable interest in the property is a nullity. This being so, there is no basis or reason for granting Beal Bank relief from the automatic stay so that Beal Bank may acquire legal title to the property and the right to possess it.

Section 362(a) bars a non-bankruptcy court from confirming nunc pro tunc a foreclosure sale conducted during the automatic stay without relief from the bankruptcy court.

Homeside Lending, Inc. v. Watts · filed 2005-03-21(a)

Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly denied the appellants’ motion to confirm, nunc pro tunc, the foreclosure sale which occurred during the pendency of the automatic stay.

Section 362 automatically stays a foreclosure sale upon a bankruptcy filing, rendering a motion to enjoin the sale moot.

Debiasse v. Chevy Chase Bank Corp. · filed 2005-08-04

Before a ruling issued, DeBiasse filed a bankruptcy action which automatically stays the sale. See 11 U.S.C. § 362. ... The motion for emergency injunctive relief is denied as moot.

The automatic stay does not bar a postpetition tax foreclosure sale when the debtor lost all right, title and interest in the property upon expiration of the redemption period before filing bankruptcy.

Fisher v. Moon (In Re Fisher) · filed 2006-10-04

Consequently, when the Debtor filed bankruptcy on July 25, 2005, she no longer had any proprietary interest in the Bridge-ton Township Property and the sale of this Property on July 26, 2005 did not violate the automatic stay.

Section 362(a) subjects funds in a debtor’s bank accounts to the automatic stay, preventing creditors from seizing them until the stay is lifted.

Insurance Co. of State of Pennsylvania v. HSBC Bank USA · filed 2007-02-15(a)

All of Herkimer’s property was subject to the bankruptcy stay, and the wholesaler was required to deposit proceeds from its business within 24 hours of receipt. Neither the Bank, the State, nor any other entity had rights to funds in Herkimer’s accounts at the Bank until the bankruptcy stay was lifted.

Section 362(a) permits a court to decide an appeal already briefed and fully argued when the disposition preserves the status quo, does not affect the debtor’s property, and aids the bankruptcy court in disposing of the debtor’s assets.

Brighton Collectibles, Inc. v. Renaissance Group International · filed 2007-06-20(a)

The courts may issue rulings in ongoing litigation involving the debtor in limited circumstances where such rulings are “consistent with the purpose of [section 362(a) ].” ... This case had already been briefed and fully argued, and the disposition does not upset the status quo or affect the property of the debtor. We issue this memorandum to aid the bankruptcy court in determining the proper disposition of debtor’s assets.

The automatic stay bars service of process on a pre-petition claim, and service in violation of the stay is void unless the bankruptcy court retroactively annuls the stay.

McMahon v. Ryan · filed 2007-08-24(a)(1), (d)

Accordingly, as a general rule, the automatic stay prohibits a plaintiff from initiating or proceeding with a lawsuit against the debtor after a petition for bankruptcy has been filed, when the suit seeks to recover on a pre-petition claim. ... This includes service of process. ... While it is true that actions taken in violation of the automatic stay are void, bankruptcy courts are authorized to validate such actions by retroactively annulling the stay when the circumstances warrant such relief. ... Thus, if Ryan wants to rehabilitate the service of process, she must attempt to do it in a federal forum.

Section 362 bars a postpetition foreclosure sale regardless of notice of the bankruptcy filing, and the sale remains invalid unless the court annuls the stay.

Jackson v. Priority Trustees Services of Mississippi, L.L.C. (In Re Jackson) · filed 2008-07-17(a)(3), (d)

Thus, the foreclosure sale, conducted the day after the filing of the Bankruptcy Petition, constituted an act “to obtain possession of property of the estate” in violation of § 362. This point is valid regardless of whether The Bank of New York, MSP, Priority, or Randolph had knowledge of the filing of the Bankruptcy Petition. ... Thus, in the matter before the Court, the foreclosure sale conducted in violation of the automatic stay is invalid unless the Court makes it valid by annulling the automatic stay.

A foreclosure sale conducted in violation of the automatic stay is void.

Barraza Family Limited Partnership v. Levitas · filed 2009-03-05

We hold that the trial court did not err in concluding that it had subject matter jurisdiction and that the foreclosure sale was in violation of the automatic stay and, therefore, void.

A foreclosure sale conducted in violation of the automatic stay is void.

Barraza Family Limited Partnership v. Levitas · filed 2009-03-05

We hold that the trial court did not err in concluding ... that the foreclosure sale was in violation of the automatic stay and, therefore, void.

Section 362 automatically stays foreclosure when a debtor files for bankruptcy, and a foreclosure during the stay without court approval is void.

Diggs v. LaSalle National Bank Association · filed 2012-05-30(a)

Once Mr. Diggs initiated bankruptcy proceedings, an automatic stay was placed on his property. EMC was, therefore, not entitled to foreclose on the property without court approval. As such, the foreclosure on May 14, 2007 was void ab initio and had no legal effect.

Section 362 stays completion of a foreclosure sale upon a bankruptcy filing, preventing the parties’ rights in the sale from becoming fixed.

Hinson v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (In re Hinson) · filed 2012-04-17

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362, the bankruptcy filing stayed the completion of the foreclosure sale, preventing the rights of the parties from becoming fixed.

Section 362(a) does not prevent a court from dismissing stayed claims against a debtor as moot when the court can grant no meaningful relief.

IWOI, LLC v. Monaco Coach Corp. · filed 2012-08-20(a)

But dismissing Plaintiff's claims against Monaco as moot because no meaningful relief can be granted to Plaintiff as to any of its claims against Monaco does nothing to disturb the automatic stay or undermine the purpose of the stay in Monaco’s bankruptcy case.

Section 362(a) prevents dismissal of an action against a debtor while the automatic stay remains in effect because dismissal would continue the action.

Lewis v. Lycoming · filed 2013-01-10(a)

Further, this court may not dismiss the action against the Precision Defendants until the stay is lifted because a dismissal would constitute a continuation of the action under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a).

Section 362 bars foreclosure of a debtor’s property during bankruptcy unless the bankruptcy court lifts the automatic stay.

Saravia v. Sherman Benson and Ricky J. Gandy · filed 2014-03-27

Because the bankruptcy court had not lifted the automatic stay, some evidence supports the trial court’s finding that Benson’s first attempted foreclosure was invalid.

Section 362(a) requires suspension of an appeal affected by a debtor’s bankruptcy stay, but does not require the court to hold the appeal in abeyance indefinitely.

Brouillard v. DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc. · filed 2014-04-25(a)

We agree with the Brouillards and DLJ Mortgage Capital that 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) compels this Court to suspend this appeal, as it relates to both of the Brouillards, during the pendency of Claude’s bankruptcy petition. Nevertheless, we disagree with the parties that section 362 mandates that this Court indefinitely hold this appeal in abeyance.

Section 362(a) permits dismissal of an appeal without prejudice during the automatic stay when the dismissal does not reach the merits and is consistent with protecting debtors and creditors.

Vault Corp. v. Mills · filed 2014-05-21(a)

Accordingly, we conclude that judicial efficiency will be best served if this appeal is dismissed without prejudice, Because a dismissal without prejudice will not require this court to reach the merits of this appeal and is not inconsistent with the primary purposes of the bankruptcy stay—to provide protection for debtors and creditors—we further conclude that such dismissal will not violate the bankruptcy stay.

Section 362(a)(1) allows dismissal of an appeal against a debtor without prejudice during the automatic stay when dismissal does not require consideration of the merits and is consistent with the stay’s purposes.

Levi v. Merhav · filed 2014-08-29(a)(1)

Because a dismissal without prejudice will not require this court to reach the merits of this appeal and is not inconsistent with the primary purposes of the bankruptcy stay—to provide protection for debtors and creditors—such a dismissal will not violate the automatic bankruptcy stay.

Section 362 bars a creditor from conducting a postpetition foreclosure sale of a home that is property of the bankruptcy estate.

In re Ausburn · filed 2015-02-10

Based upon the court’s holding that the debtors’ home is property of the debtors’ estate pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 541, the court finds that FSB violated the automatic stay imposed by 11 U.S.C. § 362 in proceeding with the commissioner’s sale postpetition.

Section 362(a) bars a creditor that acquires a debt after the bankruptcy petition from sending FDCPA notices directly to the debtor while the automatic stay is in effect.

Hanson v. Antio, LLC (In re Hanson) · filed 2015-03-18(a)

In this case, therefore, the Defendants were enjoined from sending any notices under the FDCPA directly to the Debtor, because they acquired the debt after the bankruptcy petition had been filed and the automatic stay was in effect.

Section 362(a)(1) prevents prosecution of a prepetition foreclosure action during the stay but does not require the creditor to dismiss it.

Wells Fargo Bank N.A. v. United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma · filed 2015-10-22(a)(1)

The automatic stay prevents prosecution of the foreclosure action, but does not require its dismissal.

Section 362(a) stays a foreclosure sale of a debtor’s property after the debtor files a bankruptcy petition until the stay is lifted.

Alexandre v. Scribner Village Homeowners Association, Inc. · filed 2016-03-30(a)

As Appellant filed a petition for bankruptcy before the foreclosure sale, the sale should not have proceeded until the stay was lifted.

Section 362(a) permits dismissal of an appeal without prejudice during the automatic stay when the dismissal does not reach the merits and is consistent with protecting debtors and creditors.

Abdulla v. Volungis · filed 2017-02-09(a)

Because a dismissal without prejudice will not require this court to reach the merits of this appeal and is not inconsistent with the primary purposes of the bankruptcy stay—to provide protection for debtors and creditors—we further conclude that such dismissal will not violate the bankruptcy stay.

Section 362(a)(1) makes a notice of appeal filed during the automatic stay invalid and without effect.

Alt v. Alt · filed 2017-11-17(a)(1)

In this case, the husband appealed the January 23, 2017, modification judgment on February 24, 2017, while the automatic stay triggered by his February 2, 2017, bankruptcy filing was in place. Accordingly, that February 24, 2017, notice of appeal was invalid and was without effect.

Section 362(a)(1) does not bar dismissal of a stayed appeal without prejudice when the dismissal requires no merits decision and is consistent with the stay’s protection of debtors and creditors.

Bush v. Crystal · filed 2018-10-05(a)(1)

Because a dismissal without prejudice will not require this court to reach the merits of this appeal and is not inconsistent with the primary purposes of the bankruptcy stay—to provide protection for debtors and creditors—we further conclude that such dismissal will not violate the bankruptcy stay.

Section 362(a)(1) permits dismissal of a stayed appeal without prejudice when dismissal requires no decision on the merits and accords with the stay’s protective purposes.

Sfr Invs. Pool 1, LLC v. Ditech Fin. LLC · filed 2019-03-25(a)(1)

Because a dismissal without prejudice will not require this court to reach the merits of this appeal and is not inconsistent with the primary purposes of the bankruptcy stay—to provide protection for debtors and creditors—such dismissal will not violate the bankruptcy stay.

Section 362(a) stays a proposed trustee’s sale of a debtor’s home when the debtor files a bankruptcy petition.

Bauer v. Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust Inc., Asset Backed P · filed 2019-10-07(a)

Ms. Bauer’s filing of her bankruptcy petition stayed the proposed trustee’s sale of Ms. Bauer’s home. 11 U.S.C. § 362(a).

Section 362(a)(1) does not bar removal of an action to federal court or a federal court’s consideration of remand because neither step continues the underlying litigation.

Worldview Entertainment Holdings Inc v. Woodrow · filed 2019-12-23(a)(1)

Therefore, removal of an action from state court does not, in and of itself, qualify as the “commencement or continuation” of a judicial proceeding, and is not subject to the automatic stay. For similar reasons, any actions by this Court to exercise its power of remand or abstention do not fall within the scope of the stay because those actions do not constitute a “continuation” of the action but would simply “restore[] the action to the status quo as it existed upon commencement of the bankruptcy case prior to removal.” Cashco, 599 B.R. at 147.

Section 362(a)(4) requires a creditor that initiated a foreclosure to stop it after learning the automatic stay applies, even if a sheriff carries out the enforcement acts.

Steed v. GSRAN-Z LLC · filed 2020-04-01(a)(4)

Numerous cases confirm that the automatic stay imposes an affirmative duty on creditors to stop collection actions they have initiated, even if third parties carry out the violative acts.

Section 362(a) stays motions against a debtor during its bankruptcy proceeding.

Kyle, et al. v. Linden Care, LLC, and Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc. · filed 2020-04-13(a)

RDC’s motions to dismiss (Doc. Nos. 21, 22, 38) are stayed during its bankruptcy proceeding (Doc. No. 45), pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a).

A foreclosure sale that enforces a lien and transfers control of estate property during the automatic stay violates § 362(a)(3) and (4) and is void.

Hoover v. PHH Mortgage Corporation · filed 2021-02-08(a)(3), (a)(4)

The Sale clearly constitutes an act to both enforce a lien and to take possession and control of property of the estate in violation of § 362(a)(3) and (4). Accordingly, based on the undisputed facts in this case, the Sale is void.

The automatic stay does not prevent a district court from dismissing a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Pugh v. Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc. · filed 2021-03-23(a)(1)

The automatic stay does not, however, operate to deprive a district court of the power to dismiss a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as Judge DeArcy Hall did with the first amended complaint and I do now with the SAC.

Section 362(a) does not prohibit a creditor from sending a debtor the periodic account information required by TILA § 1637, even if the property securing the debt remains in the bankruptcy estate.

Polonowski v. PNC Bank, National Association · filed 2021-09-30(a)

Sending the information required by TILA in § 1637 does not constitute a prohibited act under § 362(a).

Section 362(a)(1) does not prevent a party from removing a case to federal court because removal does not commence or continue an action against the debtor.

Roman v. U.S. Bank National Association as Trustee for GSAA Home Equity Trust 2006-12, Asset-Backed Certificates Series · filed 2022-02-25(a)(1)

For these reasons, 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) does not prevent a party from removing a case to federal court.

Section 362(a)(4) stays attempts to perfect a lien against estate property, and a lien recorded in violation of the stay is void.

Echo River Sanctuary, LLC f/k/a TSE Plantation, LLC v. 21st Mortgage Corp., Meri L. Harrell Curtis R. Harrell · filed 2022-09-14(a)(4)

Thus, the lien reflected on the mobile home’s title certificates is a nullity because 21st Mortgage recorded that lien in violation of the automatic stay.

Section 362 stays pending foreclosure enforcement actions when a bankruptcy case begins.

Hazelton Trust · filed 2022-10-13

The commencement of this Bankruptcy Case grinds those enforcement actions to a screaming halt, as a result of the automatic stay under § 362.

Section 362(a)(1) does not bar a district court from deciding whether to remand an action during the debtor’s automatic stay.

McNamara, James v. Hess Corporation · filed 2022-12-12(a)(1)

The Court finds that it is permitted to address the issue of remand notwithstanding the automatic stay as applied to HONX.

Section 362(a)(1) permits a court to decide whether to remand an improperly removed action during the automatic stay because remand is not a prohibited continuation of the action.

Sargeant v. Hess Corporation · filed 2023-03-28(a)(1)

Thus, the Court finds that it may adjudicate the remand issue without violating the automatic stay triggered by the bankruptcy proceedings.

Section 362(a) can prevent discovery from a nondebtor when the requests concern only the bankrupt debtor’s operations and proceedings against the debtor are stayed.

Funding Holding, LLC d/b/a LawCash v. Blue Ocean Partners LLC · filed 2023-03-30(a)

...the proceedings against Blue Ocean Partners are now stayed, the Cou: not order Plaintiff's requested discovery.

Section 362(a)(4) bars recording HOA foreclosure notices against estate property during the bankruptcy stay; under Nevada law, a later foreclosure sale based on those notices is void.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Springs at Centennial Ranch · filed 2023-10-19(a)(4)

Because our decision in CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Corte Madera Homeowners Ass’n, 962 F.3d 1103, 1109-11 (9th Cir. 2020), rests on the premise that recording these notices during the stay violates the stay and because the plain language of the bankruptcy statute strongly supports this conclusion, we hold that the foreclosure sale is void.

Section 362(a) prevents discovery against a defendant whose case is subject to a bankruptcy stay.

HERBERT v. CRISP COUNTY REGIONAL · filed 2024-12-06(a)

The Court cannot order that Defendant Cowens participate in discovery because the case against him is subject a bankruptcy stay.

Section 362(a)(1) stays judicial proceedings against a defendant who has filed a bankruptcy petition, preventing a court from granting a pending default judgment motion during the stay.

Berkshire Bank v. Red Skys LLC · filed 2025-01-13(a)(1)

Due to the Doaks’ bankruptcy filing, the Court does not have the authority to rule affirmatively on Berkshire’s motion for default judgment. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) (providing for automatic stay of judicial proceedings against a defendant that has filed bankruptcy petition).

Section 362’s stay does not prohibit a property inspection absent evidence that it was conducted to harass the debtor or coerce payment of a debt.

Carter-Washington v. Wilmington Trust, National Association · filed 2025-03-14(a)

However, a property inspection does not violate a bankruptcy stay absent evidence the inspection was conducted to harass the debtor or coerce her to pay the debt owed.

Section 362 permits voluntary dismissal of claims against a debtor during the automatic stay when dismissal is consistent with the stay.

Clanton · filed 2026-01-08

Under Fifth Circuit precedent, a § 362 stay does not absolutely prevent a district court from granting a plaintiff’s motion to voluntarily dismiss a debtor defendant pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a), so long as the orders are “not inconsistent with the terms of the stay.”

Section 362’s automatic stay protects only the debtor’s rights in an insurance policy as they existed when the bankruptcy petition was filed; the debtor must take affirmative action to prevent the policy from expiring under its own terms.

Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Gamel · filed 1984-12-28

However, only her rights in the policy as of the date of filing became part of the estate and subject to the automatic stay. ... She had to take affirmative action to prevent the policy from terminating under its own terms.

Section 362(a)'s automatic stay prevents mortgagees from foreclosing while the debtor's bankruptcy case is pending.

In Re Heatley · filed 1985-08-07(a)

In the present case, the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) prevents the two mortgagees from foreclosing upon their mortgages.

Section 362’s automatic stay prevents removal of a state court proceeding until the bankruptcy court lifts the stay.

Security Farms v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffers, Warehousemen & Helpers · filed 1997-08-22

The International could not remove the state court proceeding until the bankruptcy court officially lifted the automatic stay.

Section 362(a)(7) stays a creditor’s exercise of setoff rights until the automatic stay is lifted.

United States v. Krause (In Re Krause) · filed 2001-04-19(a)(7)

We hold that the Government has the secured right to setoff and can exercise its setoff right when the automatic stay is lifted.

Section 362(a)(7) prevents a creditor from exercising a setoff right until the automatic stay is lifted.

United States v. Krause · filed 2001-04-19(a)(7)

We hold that the Government has the secured right to setoff and can exercise its setoff right when the automatic stay is lifted. See 11 U.S.C. § 362 (a)(7).

Section 362's automatic stay bars a mortgagee from initiating a civil foreclosure action during the debtor's bankruptcy.

LBM Financial, LLC v. 201 Forest Street, LLC (In Re 201 Forest Street, LLC) · filed 2010-02-02(a)

Section 108(c) applies here because LBM was prohibited by the automatic stay from initiating a civil foreclosure action.

Section 362(a) prevents a mortgagee from enforcing its right to rents through foreclosure while the automatic stay is in effect; rents collected during that period may still be payable to the mortgagee.

First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Toledo v. Hunter (In Re Sam A. Tisci, Inc.) · filed 1991-11-20(a)

First Federal was clearly entitled to the rental income from the mortgaged properties and could have enforced this right in state court. It was prevented from doing so by the automatic stay imposed when Tisci filed for bankruptcy. This Court agrees with the rationale of Pfleiderer and concludes that First Federal is entitled to the rental income collected by Hunter.

Section 362(b)(3) permits lien perfection during bankruptcy when nonbankruptcy law gives timely perfection priority over intervening creditors.

Durkan Patterned Carpet, Inc. v. Premier Hotel Development Group (In Re Premier Hotel Development Group) · filed 2001-10-11(b)(3)

Sections 362(b)(3) and 546(b) construed together indicate that the filing of a bankruptcy does not stay and the bankruptcy trustee may not avoid the perfection of certain interests in property whereby under nonbankruptcy law the perfection relates back and is effective over intervening lien creditors if it occurs prior to the expiration of a grace period.

Section 362(a)(1)'s automatic stay does not prevent a debtor from removing a state court action to federal court.

J.W. McClenahan Co. v. Mechanical Technologies Corp. · filed 2020-04-21(a)(1)

The parties dispute whether MTech itself can remove an action after the issuance of a ... bankruptcy stay. The Court finds as a technical matter that a debtor can.

Section 362(a)(1) bars a court from entering judgment against a debtor after a bankruptcy petition is filed, even if the judgment is made effective nunc pro tunc to an earlier date.

Constitution Bank v. Tubbs · filed 1995-10-13(a)(1)

Since the very act of entering the February 26 order was in violation of the stay, the fact that the order itself specified that it was to be effective nunc pro tunc could not save it.

Section 362(a)(4) makes a foreclosure sale that violates the automatic stay invalid even without notice of the bankruptcy, and § 549(c) provides no exception for a good faith purchaser.

In re Cueva · filed 2004-06-14(a)(4)

Such actions are invalid, whether or not a creditor acts with knowledge of the stay. ... In short, § 549(c) is not an exception to the automatic stay imposed by § 362, and there is no authority to support Bustamante's position to the contrary.

Section 362's automatic stay prevents foreclosure against property while it remains in the bankruptcy estate.

Bisbee v. Decatur State Bank · filed 2010-06-02

At that time, it could not proceed against tract 8 because of the automatic stay; that remedy was simply not available. 11 U.S.C. § 362 (2006).

Section 362(a)'s automatic stay suspends a foreclosure action commenced after a bankruptcy filing; lifting the stay allows the action to proceed when no prejudice is shown.

Baker v. Bloom · filed 1989-01-05(a)

Accordingly, the dormant action was revived by the lifting of the stay and properly proceeded to judgment thereafter.

Section 362 prevents a party from terminating an agreement after the bankruptcy petition, even for a postpetition breach, unless the party first obtains relief from the automatic stay.

In Re Valley Media, Inc. · filed 2002-04-25

The automatic stay prevented the Objecting Vendors from terminating the agreements post-petition, despite any post-petition breach, without first seeking relief from the stay.

Section 362(h) does not provide automatic stay damages merely because a debtor’s counterparty breaches a contract.

Brown v. Death Row Records, Inc. (In Re Brown) · filed 1998-04-28(h)

In rendering our decision, we expressly decline the Debtor’s request that we characterize the Defendants’ contractual breaches as violations of the automatic stay, subject to 11 U.S.C. § 362(h).

Section 362(a) does not stay an action concerning property the debtor sold before the bankruptcy filing, because that property is not part of the bankruptcy estate.

Hohenberg Bros. v. Anderson Logistics Service Corp. · filed 1998-05-08(a)

The Court agrees that the cotton involved in the present cases is not property of the estate of the debtor in the bankruptcy proceeding because the property at issue was sold by the debtor prepetition. These cases are therefore not subject to the automatic stay provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a).

Section 362(a)(3) does not prohibit a creditor from passively retaining estate property seized before the bankruptcy petition, even if the seizure was unlawful.

In Re Bernstein · filed 2000-09-20(a)(3)

The inapplicability of § 362(a)(3) to the passive act of maintaining the status quo through continued retention of property seized prepetition is not altered by 11 U.S.C. § 542(a).

Section 362 does not stay acts concerning property in which debtors lost all interest at a foreclosure sale before filing for bankruptcy.

In re Cook · filed 2012-10-05(a)(3), (a)(5)

Since the Debtors had no interest in the property at the time of filing, it never became property of the estate under Code § 541, and, therefore, the property was not under the protection of the automatic stay, nor is there any stay to enforce with regard thereto.

Section 362(a)(3) does not prohibit continued retention of property seized before the bankruptcy petition; a stay violation requires an affirmative act to change control of estate property.

In re Hall · filed 2014-01-03(a)(3)

In short, § 362(a)(3) does not bar continued retention of property seized prepetition.

Section 362’s automatic stay does not cover property when a prepetition foreclosure sale extinguished the debtor’s equitable interest, even though the deed had not yet been recorded.

RBS, Inc. v. Bell (In re Bell) · filed 2014-03-26

Thus, applying the reasoning of Bardell and Harper, the Court finds that the Debtor’s equitable interest in the subject Property was severed when the “hammer was struck down” at the foreclosure sale before the filing of Debtor’s bankruptcy petition. That, coupled with the fact that the Trustee, as opposed to the Debtors, was vested ... with legal title, results in the conclusion that the subject Property should not have been included as part of the Debtors’ bankruptcy estate, subject to the automatic stay.

Section 362(a)(3) does not make continued possession of a vehicle lawfully repossessed before bankruptcy a stay violation unless the debtor produces an insurance policy naming the creditor as loss payee.

Denby-Peterson v. NU2U Auto World · filed 2018-11-01(a)(3)

This Court will apply the minority position. Specifically, in this case, the Court finds a creditor has not violated an automatic stay for retaining a vehicle lawfully seized pre-petition as long as the debtor has not produced an insurance policy denoting the creditor as the loss payee.

Section 362(a)(6) prohibits a creditor from exercising a contractual call option during bankruptcy when it would recover a prepetition claim and alter the debtor’s obligations.

In Re Dandridge · filed 1998-06-23(a)(6)

The attempted exercise of the call option was an act to recover a claim against the Debtor that arose before the commencement of the case, an act which is prohibited by 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(6). It was not the mere giving of a notice, but the exercise of a substantive right that would have affected the debtor-creditor relationship and altered the obligations of the Debtor under the Note.

Section 362 does not stay parole revocation proceedings based on rehabilitation and making amends to a victim rather than solely on debt collection.

Kimberlin v. Dewalt · filed 1998-06-30(b)

The revocation proceedings were based upon petitioner’s lack of rehabilitation through his acceptance of responsibility for his crimes and sincere attempts to make amends to his victim. It was not undertaken solely as a collection action to benefit the DeLong family. Petitioner’s reliance on the automatic stay as a ground for habeas corpus relief is misplaced.

The automatic stay does not bar fees and costs incurred from a debtor’s voluntary post-petition attempt to remove a pre-petition lawsuit.

Garrett v. Cook · filed 2011-07-14(a)(1)

Although the Garrett Trust initiated this case by filing its complaint pre-petition against Cook, the attorney’s fees and costs at issue here are entirely due to voluntary, post-petition litigation Cook undertook in an unfounded attempt to remove the case to federal court. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the automatic stay does not prevent Cook from being held liable for the attorney’s fees and costs.

Section 362 does not bar a Chapter 7 debtor’s attorney from collecting a good-faith estimate of fees for post-petition services when the attorney had no reason to know a court would later find part of the fees excessive.

In Re: Martha Sanchez, Debtor. Martha Sanchez v. Robert L. Gordon, Dba Gordon and Associates · filed 2001-03-05

The question before us in this bankruptcy appeal is whether a Chapter 7 debtor’s attorney violated the automatic stay provision of 11 U.S.C. § 362 by collecting legal fees for post-petition services in an amount greater than the bankruptcy court later determined to be reasonable. We hold that where, as here, the attorney had no reason to know that the court would later hold that part of his fees were excessive, there was no violation.

Section 362(a)(6) does not stay collection of fees for legal services an attorney actually provides to a Chapter 7 debtor after the petition, even when the fee agreement was made before filing.

In Re: Brenda F. Hines, Debtor. Robert L. Gordon v. Hines · filed 1998-07-16(a)(6)

In our view the required recognition of such a right, essentially a doctrine of necessity, is best implemented by a holding that all claims for lawyers' compensation stemming from such postpetition services actually provided to the debtor really do not fall within the automatic stay provisions of Section 362(a)(6) or the discharge provisions of Section 727.

Section 362(a)(6) bars collection of attorney fees owed under a prepetition retention contract, including fees for postpetition redemption services, and requires refunding fees collected while the stay is in effect.

In Re Griffin · filed 2004-08-26(a)(6)

Thus, the claim resulting from the motion to redeem is a pre-petition contract-based claim. If the debtors receive a discharge, the discharge will seamlessly replace the automatic stay. In the meantime, the collection of any sums during bankruptcy is a violation of the automatic stay, and as such, the sums so collected must be refunded.

Section 362(k) permits recovery of attorney fees incurred to stop a stay violation, but not fees incurred to prosecute the damages motion.

In Re Jha · filed 2011-10-05(k)

... Debtor’s attorneys fees for prosecuting this motion for violation of the automatic stay are not compensable as actual damages under Bankruptcy Code § 362(k), except to the extent Debtor incurred attorneys fees to have the nine Notices of Levy lifted.

Section 362(k) allows recovery of reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred prosecuting an automatic-stay violation, including on appeal.

In Re: Latasha Mitchell v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. · filed 2023-04-04(k)

Richardson is, however, entitled to attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred in prosecuting the stay under § 362(k), including on appeal.

Section 362(h) allows a claim for punitive damages for a stay violation to survive the debtor’s death.

Wills v. Heritage Bank (In Re Wills) · filed 1998-07-22(h)

Likewise, we find plaintiffs § 362(h) punitive damages claim does not abate under the “penal”-“remedial” dichotomy.

Section 362(a)(6) stays collection of fees for legal services rendered before the bankruptcy petition, including collection by presenting post-dated checks after filing.

In Re Jastrem · filed 1998-08-25(a)(6)

The debt owed to the respondent by the debtor for services performed pre-petition arose pre-petition. Any act to collect it, such as by presenting the post-dated checks for payment, is stayed by section 362(a).

The automatic stay prevents a debtor’s attorney from billing or collecting fees for prepetition services after the bankruptcy petition is filed.

In Re Anderson · filed 2000-09-01(a)

At that point, the automatic stay would prevent the debtor’s attorney from billing or collecting for such services. 11 U.S.C. § 362(a).

Section 362 stays collection of an obligation for pre-petition legal services in a Chapter 7 case even when the debtor pays the filing fee in installments under Rule 1006(b).

In Re: Jerry B. Jastrem, Debtor. American Law Center Pc v. Stanley · filed 2001-06-07

Accordingly, we hold that in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy filed pursuant to Rule 1006(b), an obligation for pre-petition legal services is subject to automatic stay and discharge.

Negotiating a post-dated check for prepetition attorney’s fees after a Chapter 7 petition is filed but before discharge violates the automatic stay.

In Re Shell · filed 2004-07-30(a)

Negotiating a post-dated check after the petition in bankruptcy is filed, but before entry of discharge, violates the automatic stay.

A creditor with notice of bankruptcy willfully violates Section 362(a) by demanding undisclosed pre-confirmation attorney fees in a payoff letter and conditioning a Chapter 13 debtor's property closing on payment of those fees.

In Re Sullivan · filed 2007-04-02(a)

This Court finds that the inclusion of the “Bankruptcy Attorney Fees” in the Payoff Letter, especially when viewed in light of Shapiro’s subsequent refusal to allow Debtor’s closing to proceed absent payment of those fees, was a willful violation of the automatic stay.

Section 362 prohibits a mortgage lender from applying Chapter 13 trustee payments to disallowed pre-petition fees and attempting to collect those fees through payoff letters.

Payne v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (In Re Payne) · filed 2008-05-06

Everhome violated the stay. Everhome applied the Trustee’s payments to disallowed pre-petition late fees instead of to the allowed pre-petition claim. Ever-home refused to remove disallowed fees, and even at trial testified the fees would remain until paid. Everhome communicated to Debtors an attempt to collect the disallowed fees in payoff letters.

Section 362(a)(6) bars a debtor’s attorney from collecting fees for petition preparation and routine case services after filing, so a check paying for those services must be deposited and clear before filing.

In Re Burton · filed 2009-01-23(a)(6)

Due to the automatic stay, if a debtor’s check is to be taken by counsel in payment for such services, that check must be deposited and must clear before the case is filed.