11 U.S.C. § 362

Section 362(a)(1) requires a creditor who commences or continues a postpetition lawsuit against a debtor to discontinue or stay the action.

In re Leiba · filed 2015-04-27(a)(1)

The commencement and continuation of the state court action was a violation of the stay and imposed a duty on Vickers-Baker to discontinue or stay the action, which she failed to do.

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

Talon Transaction Technologies, Inc. v. Bain Consulting · filed 2015-07-02

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

Section 362 automatically stays further action in a pending appeal when a bankruptcy petition is filed concerning the appellant.

GLM DFW, Inc. v. Oncor Electric Delivery Company, LLC · filed 2015-08-26

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

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

Quick Change Artist, LLC v. Iris T. Accessories · filed 2015-09-02

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

Section 362 automatically stays further action in a pending appeal involving a party that has filed for bankruptcy.

U.S. Energy Management, Inc. and Bradley R. Hitchcock v. JRB International, L.P., and Robert Brewer · filed 2016-06-10

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

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

Glover v. Apollo Housing, LP · filed 2016-11-04

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

Section 362(a)(1) automatically stays a pending suit against a debtor when the debtor files a bankruptcy petition.

United States v. Herman · filed 2018-03-21(a)(1)

Thus, Defendant Mark Herman’s bankruptcy filing triggers an automatic stay of the United States’ suit against him under the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 362 automatically stays the continuation of pending claims against a party in bankruptcy.

Rockwell Capital Partners v. Cd International Enterprises, Inc · filed 2018-04-27

And on February 7, 2018, CDII filed a “suggestion of bankruptcy,” thus triggering the automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 362. By operation of the automatic stay, none of Rockwell’s remaining claims may proceed against CDII.

Section 362 stays a pending appeal against debtors from the date they file a bankruptcy petition.

Edgardo Báez and the Báez Law Firm, P.C. v. Villegas · filed 2018-06-15

Accordingly, this appeal and all time periods under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure are stayed from the date the bankruptcy petition was filed in the bankruptcy court.

Section 362(a) stays a pending appeal in a proceeding to recover a prebankruptcy claim against the debtor during the bankruptcy case.

Hardy v. Ross (In re Hardy) · filed 2018-09-11(a)

Thus, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals properly stayed Ms. Hardy's appeal pending her bankruptcy proceeding.

Section 362 automatically stays further action in a pending appeal upon a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing.

in the Matter of the Estate of Joseph Abraham, Jr. A/K/A Joseph (Sib) Abraham, Jr. · filed 2018-10-23

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

Section 362(a) stays a pending appeal when a party’s Chapter 7 petition triggers the automatic bankruptcy stay.

Ephor Group, LLC v. Affiliated Solutions, LLC D/B/A Litcap and ORW Resources, LLC · filed 2019-02-12(a)

On February 6, 2019, the appellant, Ephor Group, LLC, filed a Suggestion of Bankruptcy informing this Court that it has filed a petition for relief under Chapter 7 of Title 11, United States Code, in Cause Number 19-30193 in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas. It is ordered that this appeal is stayed. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) (automatic bankruptcy stay).

Section 362 stays a pending appeal from a forcible detainer judgment beginning on the date the appellant files a bankruptcy petition.

Jones v. Ferdous · filed 2019-03-07

Accordingly, this appeal and all time periods under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure are stayed from the date the bankruptcy petition was filed in the bankruptcy court.

Section 362 stays a pending appeal when an appellee who is also a cross-appellant files for bankruptcy protection.

Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas, the Office of the Comptroller of Public Accounts of t · filed 2019-05-14

Accordingly, this appeal is stayed. See 11 U.S.C. § 362; Tex. R. App. P. 8.2.

Section 362 stays claims against a defendant who files a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition while the bankruptcy proceedings remain pending.

Rapp, Laura v. Laufers, Andrew · filed 2019-09-27

In an order entered on July 10, 2019, I stayed plaintiff’s claims against Laufers under 11 U.S.C. § 362, pending the completion of the bankruptcy proceedings. ... 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dkt. #24, is GRANTED as to the claims against defendants Holmen and Dudley and Smith and STAYED as to the claims against defendant Laufers, pending the resolution of his bankruptcy proceedings.

Section 362 stays litigation against a debtor while the automatic stay remains in effect, unless the bankruptcy court grants relief from the stay.

BMO Harris Bank N.A. v. M & N Transport, LLC · filed 2020-03-04

This case is stayed as to Michael Tomlinson until the stay is no longer in effect pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362, or relief from the automatic stay is requested and obtained from the United States Bankruptcy Court.

Section 362 automatically stays proceedings against a debtor when a bankruptcy petition is filed, until the bankruptcy is discharged.

Business Property Lending, Inc. v. Adventure 2000, LLC · filed 2020-03-10

That said, because the filing of a bankruptcy petition automatically stays actions as to the debtor until the bankruptcy is discharged (11 U.S.C. $362), all proceedings in this case are STAYED as to Carlyle in addition to Spaar.

Section 362 stays a pending mandamus proceeding after the relators file for bankruptcy protection.

in Re WC 1st and Trinity, LP WC 1st and Trinity GP, LLC WC 3rd and Congress LP And WC 3rd and Congress GP, LLC · filed 2020-10-02

Relators have notified this Court that they have filed for bankruptcy protection (United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Texas, Case Nos. 20-10885, 20-10886, 20-10887, 20-10888). See Tex. R. App. P. 8.1. Accordingly, this mandamus proceeding is stayed. See 11 U.S.C. § 362; Tex. R. App. P. 8.2.

Section 362(a) automatically stays a prepetition judicial action against a debtor upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition.

Gottschalk v. First Contact LLC · filed 2020-10-26(a)

Under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), the filing of a bankruptcy petition automatically stays “the commencement or continuation . . . of a judicial, administrative, or other action or proceeding against the debtor that was or could have been commenced before the commencement of the [bankruptcy] case.”

Section 362 stays a pending appeal when appellants file for bankruptcy protection.

James P. Foster, Randi L. Foster, and Coast Range Investments, LLC v. John Landwehr and Kristin Landwehr · filed 2021-01-13

Accordingly, this appeal is stayed. See 11 U.S.C. § 362; Tex. R. App. P. 8.2.

Section 362(a)(1) stays pending judicial proceedings when a bankruptcy petition is filed.

Lewis v. Nine Point Energy, LLC · filed 2021-03-26(a)(1)

Consequently, this matter is STAYED pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) pending resolution of the bankruptcy cases in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.

Section 362 automatically stays further action in a pending proceeding when a party files for bankruptcy.

in Re: Bridget Parson A/K/A Bridget Brown Parson · filed 2021-07-16

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

Section 362(a)(1) imposes an immediate stay when a bankruptcy petition is filed, and a ruling entered while that stay applies cannot supply a final appealable order.

Garcia v. Gonzalez · filed 2021-11-18(a)(1)

Moreover, pursuant to § 362 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, a stay created by the filing of a bankruptcy petition is automatic and immediate and precludes “the commencement or continuation . . . of a judicial, administrative, or other action or proceeding against the debtor that was or could have been commenced before the commencement of the case under this title, or to recover a claim against the debtor that arose before the commencement of the case under this title.” 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1). ... Because the trial court’s November 8, 2021 order indicates that the court “did not dispose of any claims or parties,” and that a bankruptcy stay was in place at the time of its March 25, 2020 ruling, no final order was entered.

Section 362(a) binds a court in a stayed case until the party seeking action moves to lift the stay and provides satisfactory proof that it is no longer in effect.

Tooker v. Guererra · filed 2023-03-22(a)

Even if action upon the Compel Motion were warranted, unless and until Plaintiff moves to lift the stay, providing satisfactory proof that the bankruptcy stay is no longer in effect, the Court remains bound by said stay.

Section 362 automatically stays pending proceedings against a debtor when the debtor files for bankruptcy.

Perryman v. Premier Cajun King, LLC · filed 2023-04-10

The filing of bankruptcy by Premier operates as a stay of these proceedings against Premier pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362.

Section 362(a)(1) automatically stays claims against a defendant that files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and the court holds that defendant’s pending motion in abeyance while the stay remains in effect.

National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Surgalign Spine Technologies, Inc. · filed 2024-02-07(a)(1)

However, Surgalign filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on January 19, 2023, triggering an automatic stay of National Union’s claims against it under this action. See ECF No. 51; see also 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1). Because Surgalign’s bankruptcy proceedings remain pending, the stay as to Surgalign remains in effect and the Court holds Surgalign’s motion to dismiss in abeyance.

Section 362(a)(1) makes motions seeking to continue a proceeding against a debtor during the automatic stay void from the outset.

Alvarez v. Bechtel Corporation · filed 2024-04-05(a)(1)

Alvarez’s persistent motions seeking to continue this proceeding and seeking relief from, among other parties, the debtor, were, and are, “void ab initio.”

Section 362(a) automatically stays claims against a debtor upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition.

Rock Island Auction Company v. Dean, Jr. · filed 2024-06-07(a)

Because the claims against Dean in this case are subject to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)’s automatic stay protections, the Court wishes to obtain their views on the effect of this bankruptcy filing on Plaintiffs’ claims against Heritage Auctions, Inc., in light of the automatic stay provisions of Section 362.

Section 362 stays a pending civil action against a defendant during the pendency of that defendant’s bankruptcy case.

LUSTIG v. DANIEL MARKUS, INC. · filed 2025-01-14

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C, § 362, this matter is ADMINISTRATIVELY STAYED during the pendency of Defendant Risis’s bankruptcy action; 2, Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) and District of New Jersey Standing Order of Reference 12-1, Plaintiff's request for relief from the administrative stay is hereby REFERRED to the bankruptcy court.

Section 362(a) automatically stays a pending case against a defendant that has filed for bankruptcy.

Delacruz v. WW International, Inc. · filed 2025-05-07(a)

As a result, this case is automatically STAYED.

Section 362(a)(1) stays claims against a Chapter 11 debtor, so a court does not decide a motion for default judgment against that debtor while the stay applies.

1199 SEIU Regional Pension Fund, by Todd Hobler and Daniel Farberman as Trustees and fiduciaries of the Fund v. Weinberg · filed 2025-07-11(a)(1)

Because the plaintiffs’ claims against Weinberg are subject to the automatic stay imposed by 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1), see supra, this Court does not address the plaintiffs’ motion for a default judgment as against Weinberg here.

Section 362 automatically stays further action in a pending state appellate proceeding when the defendants file for bankruptcy.

In Re Kimberly Anne Northup and David P. Northup v. the State of Texas · filed 2025-08-21

Accordingly, further action in this proceeding has been automatically stayed.

Section 362(a)(1), as incorporated into PROMESA, automatically stays civil actions begun or pending against the protected debtor before its bankruptcy petition.

Daniel Rivera Colón v. Superintendente Pedro Santos Y Otros · filed 2025-09-04(a)(1)

Es decir, de acuerdo con la sección 362 (a) de la Ley de Quiebras, supra sec. 362 (a)(1) una vez se presenta la petición de quiebra se activa una paralización sobre todas las acciones civiles, administrativas o de otra índole que se intenten iniciar o se hayan iniciado contra la entidad protegida con anterioridad a la fecha de la aludida petición.

Section 362 automatically stays a receiver from enforcing a contempt order against the debtor and proceeding to fix the rental value of the debtor’s premises after a Chapter 11 filing.

In Re CCN Realty Corp. · filed 1982-04-16

As a result of the filing of the debt- or’s Chapter 11 petition, the receiver was automatically stayed under 11 U.S.C. § 362 from proceeding with the enforcement of the contempt order against the debtor and from proceeding to fix the rental value of the premises.

Section 362(h) permits sanctions and damages for violating the automatic stay, including by seeking to withdraw a reference before the stay is lifted.

Security Farms v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters · filed 1997-08-22(h)

The International could not remove the state court proceeding until the bankruptcy court officially lifted the automatic stay. As a practical matter, there may not have been a basis for withdrawal prior to the removal. Furthermore, any action taken by the International to withdraw the reference prior to the lifting of the automatic stay would have risked sanctions and damages for violation of the stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(h).

Section 362(a) requires a court to defer a ruling concerning defendants with pending Chapter 11 reorganization petitions while the automatic stay applies.

Cozzi v. Johns-Manville Corp. · filed 1983-04-29(a)

Our ruling is deferred with respect to defendants Amatex Corporation, Johns-Manville Corporation and UNARCO in view of the several petitions for reorganization presently pending before the Bankruptcy Court and the automatic stay imposed by 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), without prejudice to the right of any party to praecipe for further consideration by this court when timely and appropriate in accordance with said bankruptcy proceedings.

Section 362's automatic stay does not bar enforcing a clear pre-bankruptcy order through contempt proceedings when the motion punishes defiance rather than collects a money judgment.

International Distribution Centers, Inc. v. Walsh Trucking Co. · filed 1986-01-08(a)

Consequently, § 362 does not enjoin the Court from proceeding to enforce its order issued on August 20, 1984, a full ten months prior to the date upon which defendants filed in Chapter 11.

Section 362(a)(1) treats a state agency’s enforcement of credit restrictions arising from unpaid prepetition debts as an action or proceeding subject to the automatic stay.

Elsinore Shore Associates v. New Jersey Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control (In Re Elsinore Shore Associates) · filed 1986-04-02(a)(1)

This court rejects the defendants’ contention that the operation of N.J.Admin. Code tit. 13, § 2-24.4 (1984) is not subject to the automatic stay because it does not constitute an “action or proceeding” within 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1).

Section 362(a) stays pending arbitration to collect a debt when a bankruptcy petition is filed, and proceedings conducted in violation of the stay are void.

THE GREENSPAN COMPANY/ADJUSTERS INTERNATIONAL v. NESTOR · filed 2025-06-24(a)

Some Circuit Courts have held that acts that take place in violation of the automatic stay are merely voidable and are not void, but the rule in this Circuit (and the rule in the Ninth Circuit, where the arbitration occurred) is that any proceedings that continue and rulings that are entered in violation of the automatic stay are void and of no effect.

Section 362’s automatic stay does not protect property conveyed to a Chapter 7 debtor after filing when the property does not enter the bankruptcy estate and the debtor had no pre-petition interest in it.

Matter of Brannan · filed 1984-03-23(a)

The automatic stay, therefore, affords no protection to the property conveyed. The foreclosure sale, which occurred on February 3, 1984, is fully authorized with regard to any property interest in which the debtor lacked a pre-petition interest.

Section 362(a) does not prevent a court from considering a debtor’s motion to open a judgment entered before the bankruptcy petition when the debtor is pursuing the motion and the opposing party is merely responding.

Lopez v. Livingston · filed 1999-06-01(a)

The automatic stay provision of 11 U.S.C. § 362, therefore, did not act to prevent the trial court from considering the defendants’ motion in this case.

Section 362(a)(2) does not stay a debtor’s motion to vacate a prepetition judgment because the motion seeks to defeat the judgment rather than enforce it.

Lin · filed 2026-03-23(a)(2)

Among other things, the filing of a bankruptcy petition operates as a stay to “the enforcement, against the debtor. . .of a judgment obtained before the [bankruptcy filing].” 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(2). That provision does not apply here because the motion to vacate does not seek to advance the enforcement of the plaintiff’s judgment against the defendant, but rather seeks to defeat it.

Section 362 does not automatically stay shareholders’ personal securities claims against nondebtor parties when those claims are not property of the debtor’s estate.

Reliance Acceptance Group, Inc. v. Levin (In Re Reliance Acceptance Group, Inc.) · filed 1999-06-02(a)(3)

The court agrees with the analysis and decision in Phar-Mor and finds that the Shareholders’ securities claims are personal and not subject to the automatic stay in section 326. As the Debtors have failed to identify any cases or law to the contrary, the Bankruptcy Court should have granted the Shareholders’ motion to dismiss the Estate’s First Cause of Action to the extent is sought a declaration that these claims are subject to the automatic stay in section 362.

Section 362(a) does not stay a shareholder’s independent claim against a third party when the claim is separate from the debtor’s claim.

In Re Enron Corp. · filed 2002-10-22(a)

Because their claims are separate and independent from Enron’s claims, they should not have been stayed under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a).

Section 362(a)(1) permits a creditor to postpone a sheriff's sale under state law procedure while the automatic stay is in effect.

Taylor v. Thomas McCune Slick, Individually and as of the Estate of Dorothy M. Ballantine, Deceased · filed 1999-06-02(a)(1)

We are persuaded by a consistent line of cases from other courts, however, and hold that the continuance of a sheriffs sale in accordance with state law procedure during the pendency of an automatic stay does not violate § 362(a)(1).

Section 362(a)(1) does not prohibit continuing a sheriff’s sale by public announcement in accordance with state law while the automatic stay is in effect.

Davis v. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. (In Re Davis ) · filed 2002-08-09(a)(1)

In the matter before us the February 5 sale was announced at the sale on January 2. The continuance comported with Pa.R.Civ.P. 3129.3(b). Under Taylor v. Slick, there was no violation of the stay.

Section 362(a)(1) permits a creditor to seek postponement of a scheduled sheriff’s sale through a state court motion when the motion merely maintains the status quo and does not advance the creditor’s position.

Billings v. Portnoff Law Associates, Ltd. (In re Billings) · filed 2016-02-05(a)(1)

Portnoffs motions to continue the sale were acts to maintain the status quo and therefore, did not violate the stay.

Section 362(a)(1) allows a creditor to seek a judicial continuance of a sheriff’s sale during the automatic stay when the continuance preserves the status quo.

Billings v. Portnoff Law Associates, Ltd. · filed 2017-04-26(a)(1)

Accordingly, allowing a judicial motion for a continuance is fully compatible with the underlying aim of the automatic stay provision.

Section 362 does not bar a postpetition transfer of a security deed in which the debtor has no interest.

Drake v. Citizens Bank (In Re Corley) · filed 2011-02-07

Any post-petition transfer of the Security Deed did not violate the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362. Because Debtors’ only interests in the Property were the right of possession and the right to have the Security Deed reconveyed upon repayment, they had no interest in the Security Deed itself at the time of any post-petition transfer.

Section 362(c)(2) terminates the automatic stay when the bankruptcy case is dismissed, and later reinstatement does not retroactively restore the stay during the period of dismissal.

Bolus, Sr. v. SMS Financial CH LLC · filed 2022-08-29(c)(2)

The stay continues until the earlier of when the case is closed or dismissed. See §362(c)(2). Upon dismissal of the bankruptcy case, the automatic stay terminates. Generally, if the bankruptcy case is then reinstated, the stay is not retroactively reimposed and actions taken by creditors during the gap period are valid.

The automatic stay terminates when a Chapter 13 case is dismissed and resumes only prospectively when the dismissal is vacated; conduct during the gap does not violate the stay.

Holloway v. Valley Auto Sales (In re Holloway) · filed 2017-01-17(c)(2)(B)

This reinstated the case and reimposed the automatic stay, effective upon entry of the order. As the automatic stay is not retroactively reimposed, Valley Auto did not violate the automatic stay when it repossessed the vehicle during the gap period between dismissal and reinstatement of the case.

The automatic stay is reinstated when an order dismissing a Chapter 11 case is vacated before plan confirmation and the stay was in effect at dismissal.

In Re Hakim · filed 1999-08-12(c)

Hakim’s Chapter 11 case was dismissed and the order of dismissal was vacated before a plan of reorganization was confirmed. In vacating the dismissal order, the Court returned the case to the status quo before entry of the order of dismissal. The automatic stay was in place at the time of dismissal, and should remain in effect. To fail to restore the stay would undermine the orderly administration of the case, leaving the estate without a mechanism to control creditor conduct. Because the automatic stay was reinstated, the United States remains subject to the stay until it is terminated by court order or operation of law.

Dismissal terminates the automatic stay, and reinstatement of the bankruptcy case restores the stay prospectively without retroactively protecting against creditor conduct during the dismissal period.

In Re Searcy · filed 2004-08-23(c)(1), (c)(2)

Therefore, when this case was dismissed, the automatic stay was terminated. When a case is reinstated, the automatic stay is also reinstated. However, reinstating the case does not retroactively reinstate the automatic stay during the period of time the case was dismissed with respect to creditor conduct that occurred between the dismissal and the reinstatement.

Section 362(c)(2)(B) terminates the automatic stay immediately upon dismissal, and reversal of a dismissal entered without notice does not retroactively restore the stay where debtors knew of the dismissal and foreclosure and obtained no stay pending appeal.

Lomagno v. Salomon Bros. Realty Corp. (Lomagno) · filed 2005-02-09(c)(2)(B)

Unlike what occurred in Krueger, Johnson and Acosta, the Debtors in the present case were aware of the dismissal and the foreclosure in time to protect their rights. ... We conclude that when the bankruptcy court entered its order of dismissal on March 10, 2003, the automatic stay was immediately terminated, irrespective of the Debtors’ right of appeal. Salomon’s foreclosure did not violate the automatic stay because the stay was not in effect at the time the foreclosure took place. We decline to give retroactive effect to the automatic stay.

Dismissal ends the automatic stay, and reinstatement reimposes it without protecting against repossession during the intervening period.

In Re Johnson · filed 2005-07-19(a)

Upon reinstatement, the automatic stay was reimposed pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). ... The automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362 was not in effect at the time the 2002 Buick Rendezvous and the 2003 Chevrolet G2500 were repossessed.

Dismissal terminates the automatic stay, and reversal does not retroactively reinstate it where debtors knew of the dismissal and scheduled foreclosure but failed without explanation to diligently pursue a stay pending appeal.

Lomagno v. Salomon Bros. Realty Corp. (In Re Lomagno) · filed 2005-11-14(c)(1)

Thus, when the petition giving rise to the stay is dismissed, the stay terminates immediately, and creditors may proceed with foreclosure. ... In sum, even if the court were to recognize the Ninth Circuit BAP’s exception for due process violations in cases such as Krueger, facts such as these at hand, including the Debtors’ unexplained failure to diligently pursue a stay pending appeal, do not warrant the drastic remedy of voidance of the stay termination.

Dismissal terminates the automatic stay, and reinstating the case does not retroactively restore the stay to invalidate a foreclosure completed during dismissal.

Singleton v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (In Re Singleton) · filed 2006-10-27(c)(2)

There was no violation of the automatic stay because the foreclosure sale took place after the Bankruptcy Court’s dismissal order and before the Bankruptcy Court vacated the dismissal order. For the reasons as discussed above, the reinstatement of the case cannot give retroactive effect to the automatic stay and thereby cause the foreclosure sale to be a violation of the automatic stay.

Dismissal terminates the automatic stay, and reinstatement does not retroactively restore it to invalidate a sheriff’s sale conducted while the case was dismissed.

Gargani v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (In Re Gargani) · filed 2009-01-05(c)(2)(B)

In clear and unambiguous language, Congress has stated its intent for the automatic stay to terminate upon the dismissal of the case. ... In this case, the debtor’s motion to reinstate the bankruptcy case was filed after the Sheriffs Sale. As a result, the July 7, 2008 Sheriffs Sale is not avoidable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a).

Section 362(c)(2)(B) terminates the automatic stay upon dismissal, and reversal of a dismissal order that was not void reinstates the stay only prospectively.

Webb Mtn, LLC v. Executive Realty Partnership (In Re Webb Mtn, LLC) · filed 2009-02-11(c)(2)(B)

Here, the District Court did not find the Dismissal Order was void for lack of due process or any other reason; it was reversed on other grounds, thus causing reinstatement of the bankruptcy case on February 8, 2008, the date the District Court issued its Order of reversal and remand. The automatic stay was terminated as a result of the September 17, 2007 Dismissal Order and reinstated prospectively on February 8, 2008, when the case was reinstated.

Section 362’s stay may be reinstated when later events render the dispute over its termination moot.

Hadley v. Victory Construction Co. (In Re Victory Construction Co.) · filed 1984-02-15

We hold that events and circumstances occurring subsequent to entry of the order on appeal are consistent with reinstating the temporary stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362.

Section 362(a)(3) automatically stays a creditor’s fraudulent transfer claims that belong to the bankruptcy estate because pursuing them exercises control over estate property.

BMO Harris Bank N.A. v. Kuskie · filed 2023-05-12(a)(3)

Not only do creditors lack standing to pursue claims that belong to a bankruptcy trustee, Ritchie, 48 F.4th at 899, those claims are also subject to the automatic stay, which applies to “any act to . . . exercise control over property of the estate.” 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3). Accordingly, the fraudulent transfer claims are subject to the automatic stay.

Section 362(a)(3) protects a debtor’s possession of real property while the bankruptcy case remains pending, even if another party owns the property and has the right to possession under state law.

In re Basrah Custom Design, Inc. · filed 2019-05-21(a)(3)

While this bankruptcy case remains pending, under either Chapter 11 or Chapter 7, the automatic stay will prevent MJCC from taking any action to wrest away possession of the Nocha Property from the Debtor, even after MJCC becomes the owner of the Nocha Property.

Section 362(a)(1) requires an action against the debtor, while § 362(a)(3) requires a property interest of the debtor or estate; neither stays action directed at third-party lessees when the debtor has only an expectancy of a lease interest.

Riverwood Gas and Oil, LLC v. Bureau of Land Mgmt. (In re Riverwood Gas & Oil, LLC) · filed 2019-04-03(a)(1), (a)(3)

But Debtor was not named in any proceeding by BLM, so there was no action "against the debtor" as required by § 362(a)(1). ... But they all require that some "property" interest of the debtor or estate be at issue.

Sections 362(a)(3) and (a)(4) do not stay a postpetition creditor’s collection from property that revests in a Chapter 13 debtor upon plan confirmation.

In Re Jones · filed 2011-09-14(a)(3), (a)(4)

When the bankruptcy court confirmed the Joneses’ Chapter 13 plan, the estate property revested in Jones and became Jones’s property, thus lifting the applicable stay provisions. See id. §§ 362(a)(3), 362(a)(4). Since this revesting occurred before the tax debt came due, no stay precluded the FTB from collecting on the debt under § 362.

Section 362(a)(3) and (a)(4) stay postpetition creditors from collecting against estate property, but do not stay collection against property of the debtor.

California Franchise Tax Board v. Kendall · filed 2011-09-14(a)(3), (a)(4)

Section 362(a) does not stay collection activities by post-petition creditors against property of the debtor.

Section 362(a) stays actions against a debtor, but does not stay lawsuits brought by the debtor or toll the limitations period for those claims.

Phillips v. KIRO-TV, Inc. · filed 2011-10-05(a)

Plaintiffs argument that the article was a continuing tort is without merit, as is his contention that the statute of limitations was tolled by the automatic stay imposed by 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) during his bankruptcy proceedings. Such stay applies only to actions against the debtor, not to lawsuits such as this one brought by the debtor.

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

Phillips v. Seattle Times Co. · filed 2011-10-05(a)

Such stay applies only to actions against the debtor, not to lawsuits such as this one brought by the debtor.

Section 362(a)(3) stays a creditor’s sale of a nondebtor lessor’s property when the sale extinguishes the debtor’s leasehold interest.

Theokary v. Abbatiello (In Re Theokary) · filed 2011-02-14(a)(3)

As explained below, I conclude that the stableman’s lien sales terminated the Debtor’s leasehold interests in the Horses and therefore, Shay and Abbatiello violated the automatic stay, 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3), by conducting the sales.

Section 362(a)(3) protects a debtor’s contractual interest in a car from repossession after bankruptcy filing, even when financing needed to complete the sale has not yet been obtained.

Skinner v. Cumberland Auto Center (In Re Skinner) · filed 1999-08-20(a)(3)

The debtor’s rights under the purchase order came into the bankruptcy estate. The automatic stay protected the car from seizure by Cumberland in order to protect the debtor’s contract rights that came into the bankruptcy estate.

Section 362’s automatic stay protects the bankruptcy debtor, but does not stay proceedings against a nondebtor merely because the debtor acquired an interest in the property.

First Union Mortgage Corp. v. Frempong · filed 1999-12-31

Only the bankruptcy debtor, here F.A. Management Group, Inc., receives the benefit of an automatic stay of all proceedings in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

Section 362(a) stays a foreclosure sale of property in which the debtor holds a possessory interest, whether legal or equitable, from the filing of the bankruptcy petition unless the stay is lifted.

Bunch v. Hopkins Savings Bank (In Re Bunch) · filed 2000-05-30(a)

At least insofar as.the debtor had some pos-sessory interest in the property, whether legal or equitable, the automatic stay took effect on the date the bankruptcy petition was filed and remained in effect at the time the sale of the debtor’s residence occurred, without the prior lifting of the stay by this Court.

Section 362(a) stays proceedings against a bankruptcy debtor or the debtor’s estate, but does not protect the debtor’s creditors from proceedings against them.

GE Capital Hawai'i, Inc. v. Yonenaka · filed 2001-05-22(a)

The automatic stay provisions of 11 U.S.C.S. § 362(a) (Supp.1998) prohibit actions or proceedings “against the debtor or against property of the estate” of the debtor. In this case, they applied in favor of Jodi and Jodi’s bankruptcy estate. They did not apply in favor of the bankruptcy debtcm’s (Jodi’s) creditors (Yonenaka, Trustee Yonenaka) as debtors of the plaintiff (GECH).

Section 362’s automatic stay does not apply to post-petition acts involving estate property acquired after the petition.

In Re Plexus Enterprise, Inc. · filed 2002-11-27

This Court is satisfied that this is not a distinguishable fact because the automatic stay is inapplicable to acts done post-petition with post-petition property of the estate.

Section 362(a)(3) does not impose an established duty on a creditor to return a debtor’s personal property inadvertently left on real estate the creditor lawfully takes possession of after stay relief.

Swanson v. Swindall · filed 2003-04-18(a)(3)

Furthermore, Swanson cites no authority for the proposition that a creditor has an affirmative duty to return a debtor’s personal property, subject to an automatic stay, that is discovered on real estate of which the creditor has lawfully taken possession pursuant to a post-petition court order.

Section 362(a) does not bar a creditor from obtaining a certificate of title for property in which the debtor had no ownership interest at filing.

In re Longmire · filed 2003-07-16(a)

Because the debtor has no ownership interest in the 1996 Peterbilt, FYDA’s actions to obtain an Ohio certificate of title did not violate the automatic stay imposed by 11 U.S.C. § 362(a).

Section 362(a) protects a debtor’s viable claim that disputed property belongs to the bankruptcy estate, so a creditor with notice of that claim may not foreclose without relief from the stay.

Chesnut v. Brown (In Re Chesnut) · filed 2003-11-06(a)

Once Defendants were on notice of Debtor’s claim that the Property was community owned, Defendants should have recognized that the automatic stay prevented them from foreclosing on the Property. It was not Defendants’ place to assume that a court would later determine Debtor’s claim invalid. The automatic stay was meant to protect Debtor’s claim of estate ownership of the Property. The automatic stay, therefore, prevented Defendants from extinguishing that claim by foreclosure.

Section 362(a) protects property legally titled to an LLC when the debtors hold an equitable interest arising independently of their ownership of the LLC.

In Re Ealy · filed 2004-02-24(a)

The Debtors’ equitable title to the Property flows not from their ownership interest in the LLC that owns the Property, but from the facts and circumstances leading up to the LLC’s acquisition of the Property. ... ORDERED that the automatic stay provided by 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) protects the Property from any action by Creditor to recover such Property.

Section 362 protects property subject to a non-frivolous dispute over the debtor’s interest, requiring a creditor to obtain stay relief before foreclosure even if the property is later determined not to belong to the estate.

In the Matter of Vance Cole Chesnut, Debtor. Mark T. Brown, Templeton Mortgage Corp. v. Chesnut · filed 2005-08-19(a)(3)

Instead, he must first seek relief from the bankruptcy court. Where seized property is arguable property, it is no answer for the creditor to defend the foreclosure by claiming that the property was not properly covered by the stay. ... Not every bankruptcy petition, with an attendant claim of a right in property, will transform what is obviously not property of the estate into arguable property that is subject to process requirements.

A creditor with notice of the stay and the debtor’s non-frivolous claim to property whose estate status is uncertain must obtain stay relief before foreclosure; a later determination that the property is outside the estate does not excuse the willful violation.

Chesnut v. Brown · filed 2005-10-18(a)(3), (d), (h)

Where seized property is arguable property, it is no answer for the creditor to defend the foreclosure by claiming that the property was not properly covered by the stay. ... The district court erred in absolving Brown’s willful violation of the automatic stay with a post-seizure determination of the property’s characterization.

Section 362(a)(3) does not stay foreclosure of property owned solely by a debtor’s spouse when the debtor merely resides there by permission and has no legal, equitable, or possessory interest in the property.

In Re Lawson · filed 2005-10-28(a)(3)

The debtor had no rights in the Property rising to the level of a legal or equitable interest accorded protection by the law: he fares no better than would a luncheon guest who happened to be on the premises at the time of the foreclosure sale. ... Because the debtor has no possessory interest in the Property, the foreclosure of the Property does not affect property of the estate in any way. The debtor’s motion will be denied.

A debtor’s automatic stay does not protect corporate property in which the debtor has no legal or equitable interest, even if the debtor is the corporation’s sole shareholder and has obligations under the mortgage.

In Re: Herbert Locki · filed 2008-11-05(a)

As the District Court explained, the record reflects that Lockings did not possess a legal or equitable interest in the Property. Therefore, Fundex Capital did not violate the automatic stay in Lockings’s Chapter 13 case when it sold the Property.

Section 362(a)(3) does not stay actions concerning property when the debtor lacks a colorable legal or equitable claim to it, even if the debtor possesses it.

In Re Johnson · filed 2010-05-06(a)(3)

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the Debtor has not presented sufficient evidence to establish a colorable basis or claim to legal or equitable title of the Truck and that therefore, the Court finds that the Truck is not property of the Debtor or her Estate. As a result, the Truck is not subject to the automatic stay imposed by § 362, and Fairville’s Motion is granted to the extent it requests a finding that the automatic stay does not apply to the Truck.

Sections 362(a)(3) and (a)(4) cease to stay collection from estate property when that property revests in a Chapter 13 debtor upon plan confirmation.

California Franchise Tax Board v. Kendall (In Re Jones) · filed 2011-07-12(a)(3), (a)(4)

When the bankruptcy court confirmed the Joneses’ Chapter 13 plan, the estate property revested in Jones and became Jones’s property, thus lifting the applicable stay provisions. See id. §§ 362(a)(3), 362(a)(4).

Section 362(a)'s automatic stay does not prohibit a postpetition payment of funds that became the recipient's property before the petition and thus were property of neither the debtor nor the estate.

Shearer v. Buschmeier (In Re G & G Investments, Inc.) · filed 2011-09-27(a)

The Trustee also contends that the automatic stay imposed by 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) was violated by the District Court’s transfers of the Cashiers Checks to Buschmeier in January 2008. Such is not the case, however, because, as just set forth in the text immediately preceding the instant footnote, the District Court Decisions essentially operated to vest in Buschmeier complete ownership of the es-crowed funds that were so transferred to her.

Section 362(a)(3) protects property in the estate when the petition is filed even if the debtor has no legal interest in it.

In re McBride · filed 2012-05-22(a)(3)

The automatic stay prevents a creditor from taking any action “to obtain possession of property from the estate.” 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3). This protects property that is in the estate at the time the petition is filed even if the debtor has no legal interest in the property.

Section 362(a)(3) stays an action to obtain possession of property from a debtor’s estate even if the property is not itself part of the estate, unless an exception applies.

York v. State · filed 2012-06-29(a)(3)

The automatic stay applies to an action to obtain possession of property both of and from a debtor’s estate.

The automatic stay has no effect on an eviction from property in which the debtor has no possessory interest and that is outside the bankruptcy estate.

In Re: Florence Mason v. · filed 2013-06-05(a)

However, we agree with the Bankruptcy Court and District Court that because Mason was not a party to the lease for that property, she had no possessory interest, and...the lease and property were not part of her bankruptcy estate. Thus, the automatic stay had no effect.

Section 362(a) does not protect property from postpetition acts when a valid prepetition foreclosure extinguished the debtor’s interest in that property.

In re Suburban West Properties, LLC · filed 2013-11-26(a)

A debtor can only bring into her estate that property for which she holds title, 11 U.S.C. § 541, and as the automatic stay provided by 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) protects only property of the bankruptcy estate, the Debtor here has no grounds to claim a violation of the stay relating to the Property.

The automatic stay does not cover an insurer’s actions concerning a life insurance policy owned by someone other than the debtor and outside the debtor’s bankruptcy estate.

Maifeld v. West Coast Life Insurance · filed 2014-09-05(a)(3), (a)(6)

Upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition, federal law effects an automatic stay of all actions against the debtor or that involve the debtor’s property. ... Therefore, as a matter of law, Vant’s life insurance policy was not part of Maifeld’s bankruptcy estate and the bankruptcy court correctly found that West Coast’s actions did not violate the automatic stay.

Section 362(a)(3) protects a debtor’s possessory interest in collateral held when bankruptcy is filed, even if the debtor lacks legal title.

In re Jones · filed 2016-01-12(a)(3)

Jones’s possession of the vehicle gives her bankruptcy estate a possessory right to it that is protected by the automatic stay.

Section 362(a)(1) stays proceedings against the bankruptcy debtor, but generally does not protect a codefendant who is not the debtor.

Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Karlis · filed 2016-04-20(a)(1)

However, this contention is without merit, as the automatic stay provided for in 11 USC § 362 (a) (1) only acts to stay, among other things, “the commencement or continuation, including the issuance or employment of process, of a judicial, administrative, or other action or proceeding against the debtor” in the bankruptcy proceeding (11 USC § 362 [a] [1] [emphasis added]; see International Fid. Ins. Co. v European Am. Bank, 129 AD2d 679 [1987]; see also Buchakian v Kuriga, 138 AD3d 711 [2d Dept 2016]).

Section 362 prevents a creditor from collecting a judgment against a nonfiling spouse from the filing debtor’s marital property during bankruptcy proceedings.

Smith v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. · filed 2016-12-22

The automatic stay prevented appellees from asserting a “right to payment” from any of appellant’s marital property during the bankruptcy proceedings, so Smith had no “liability on a claim” in the first place.

Section 362(a)(4) stays lien enforcement against property of the estate when the debtor had a legal or equitable interest in the property when the bankruptcy petition was filed.

Goguette v. U.S. Bank National Association · filed 2017-11-09(a)(4)

Property constitutes “property of the estate” -- and, thus, is protected under the automatic stay -- if the debtor has some legal or equitable interest in the property when the bankruptcy petition is filed.

Section 362(a)(3) protects property in the debtor’s possession from postpetition seizure regardless of the debtor’s interest in that property.

Arrowsmith v. United States (In re Health Diagnostic Laboratory, Inc.) · filed 2017-12-06(a)(3)

Section 362(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code serves to protect the debtor postpetition against the seizure of any property in its possession without regard to the interest of the debtor in the property.

Section 362(a)(3) stays enforcement against a nondebtor’s interest in jointly owned property when the debtor has a contingent interest in the entire property and enforcement would affect the estate’s rights.

Pac. W. Bank v. Ehrenberg (In re Levine) · filed 2018-01-08(a)(3)

Because Levine has a contingent interest in the entirety of the Real Properties, including whatever separate interest Goldstein currently has in them, Bank cannot take enforcement actions against the Real Properties without also affecting the bankruptcy estate's property rights. Accordingly, the Real Properties fall entirely within the scope of the automatic stay.

Section 362(a) stays proceedings against the debtor, but a corporate debtor’s bankruptcy does not stay proceedings against a nondebtor individual.

Agrawal v. Ogden · filed 2018-11-28(a)(1)

But § “362(a) automatically stays proceedings against the debtor only and not co-debtors,” ... Thus, GEO’s bankruptcy filing did not stay any proceedings against Agrawal.

Section 362 generally stays claims against a bankruptcy debtor but does not extend the stay to the debtor’s co-defendants.

West v. ABC Oil Company Inc · filed 2019-05-31

While section 362 of title 11 of the United States Code extends the stay provisions of the Bankruptcy Code to the “debtor,” the rule followed in the Tenth Circuit and by the majority of other circuit courts is that the stay provision does not extend to the debtor’s co-defendants.

Section 362(a) stays action against property in which a debtor has an equitable interest as an heir when that interest becomes property of the bankruptcy estate.

Dwain W. Tate - Adversary Proceeding · filed 2019-07-08(a)

As explained above, under District of Columbia law, if Tate is Ms. Tate’s heir, then he currently has an equitable interest in the Property, which became the property of the estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1) and subject to the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362 when Tate filed his petition.

Section 362(a) does not protect property in which the debtor had no legal interest when the bankruptcy petition was filed.

Taylor v. Deutsche Bank National Trust · filed 2020-01-22(a)

The record is crystal clear that Taylor had no legal interest in the property at the time he filed for bankruptcy on September 28, 2018. Therefore, the property did not belong to the bankruptcy estate and was not protected by the automatic stay. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a).

Section 362’s automatic stay does not cover property in which a state court divested the debtor of any interest before the bankruptcy petition was filed.

Sussman v. Estate of John J. Gaffney · filed 2020-07-07

We agree with both lower courts in this action that the automatic stay did not apply to the Property because the state court divested Debtor of any interest in the Property before Debtor filed her bankruptcy petition.

Section 362(a) protects property interests in a debtor’s personal bankruptcy estate, as determined by state law; it does not protect property the debtor previously transferred to an LLC.

Williams v. Prk Funding Services, Inc. · filed 2020-08-24(a)

Because Williams transferred all his ownership interest in the property to Williams Family Holding, LLC in 2005, the property was not part of his personal estate and the stay effected by his personal bankruptcy filing did not protect the property.

Section 362 does not stay action against a vehicle in which the debtor had no interest when the bankruptcy case was filed.

Gregory Mayo · filed 2021-09-30

As of the filing of the 2021 Case, TitleMax ... retained absolute ownership of the Automobile, and Debtor did not have any interest in the Automobile that was subject to the automatic stay under § 362.

The automatic stay does not protect property that is not part of the bankruptcy estate.

In Re: Anzelmo · filed 2022-09-23(a)

Accordingly, the Bankruptcy Court did not ultimately err in granting Appellee relief from the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d) because since “the [P]roperty was not property of the [bankruptcy] estate, the protections afforded by the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § (a) do not apply to the [P]roperty.” Jn re Haynes, 2019 WL 7945834, at *2.

The automatic stay does not protect a debtor’s remaining interest in property after a state court has confirmed its foreclosure sale, conveyed the property to the purchaser, and issued a writ of possession.

Felipe Uloi Mailei · filed 2022-11-28

The automatic stay did not protect whatever interest the debtor still had in the property.

Section 362 bars a creditor from exercising control over property of the bankruptcy estate while the automatic stay is in place.

McCormick 106, LLC v. Capra · filed 2022-11-23(a)(4)

... McCormick 106 was constrained by that stay from exercising control over the properties as it was not a bankruptcy trustee.

Section 362(a)(3) protects a debtor’s right to receive a commission from a secured creditor’s collection efforts when an assignment of that commission was a secured loan rather than a true sale.

In re: Jill Suzann Medley · filed 2023-02-13(a)(3)

Based on these factors, the bankruptcy court did not err when it found that the agreement was not a true sale, but rather a secured loan, and that the right to receive the commission was property of the bankruptcy estate protected by the automatic stay.

Section 362(a) automatically stays litigation against debtors, but does not extend the stay to nonbankrupt co-defendants.

Local No. 171 Pension Fund v. Biehl Cleaners, Inc. · filed 2023-05-22(a)

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), this action is automatically stayed only against the debtors, Defendants Biehl Cleaners and Stone Brothers LLC, and not the other co-defendants in this action.

The automatic stay does not extend to property that was foreclosed before bankruptcy and is therefore outside the bankruptcy estate.

Dunn v. Moll · filed 2024-01-22

The property therefore cannot be part of Appellant’s bankruptcy estate, and the stay cannot extend to it.

Section 362(a)(3) does not bar the release of derivative claims belonging to a trust rather than the bankruptcy estate.

Oldner · filed 2025-12-05(a)(3)

Finally, the Trustee cannot state a claim for relief against the MTD Defendants under section 362(a)(3) in support of Count III, because as a matter of law, Orly’s derivative claims are not property of the estate. The Releases do not violate the automatic stay as a matter of law.

Section 362(a)(3) stays acts to obtain possession or exercise control over property in which the debtor held a possessory interest when the bankruptcy petition was filed, even if the debtor lacked title.

In re Ashley Selman Farms Partnership · filed 2026-02-18(a)(3)

Accordingly, because the Debtor held at least a possessory interest in the Rogator as of the petition date, that interest became property of the estate under § 541(a)(1), and the automatic stay applies to acts to obtain possession or exercise control over the Rogator.

Section 362’s automatic stay covers the filing spouse’s personal property and marital community property in the bankruptcy estate, but leaves the non-filing spouse’s separate property available to pay her personal obligations.

In Re Lopez Melendez · filed 1992-09-16

The personal property of the filing spouse and the property of the conjugal partnership are part of the bankrupt estate, and so subject to the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362. The personal property of the non-filing spouse, however, is not part of the bankrupt estate and remains available to pay her personal obligations.

Section 362(a)(4) does not bar liens against funds belonging to nondebtors merely because the bankruptcy estate has an unresolved claim to them.

In the Matter of Carousel International Corporation, Debtor. Appeal of Lincoln Office Supply Company, Incorporated · filed 1996-07-10(a)(4)

Accordingly, the bankruptcy court upheld the liens against $240,-000 of the $250,000 in dispute, and ruled that 11 U.S.C. § 362 is inapplicable. The district court affirmed. So do we.

Sections 362(a)(3) and (4) provide no basis for contempt over a sale of collateral when the debtor had no rights in it on the petition date.

In Re Alcom America Corp. · filed 1993-07-26(a)(3)–(4)

But this presupposes that the debtor had rights in the collateral on the petition date for only then would ABC’s acts in selling the ethanol be contemptuous of the automatic stay.

Section 362(a) stays creditors from taking property in the debtor’s physical possession when the bankruptcy petition is filed.

Gambogi v. Capodalupo (In Re Gambogi) · filed 1982-06-04(a)

Under § 362(a), the Debtor’s mere physical possession of the property is sufficient to protect that interest from actions by creditors.

Section 362(a)'s automatic stay does not cover a fee taken from a Chapter 13 debtor's wages that are not property of the bankruptcy estate.

Fleetwood Homes of Georgia v. Morrison · filed 2000-11-17(a)

The automatic stay, however, only applies if the fee is property of the estate.

Section 362(a)(3) stays acts to obtain possession of, or exercise control over, property of the bankruptcy estate.

Youngstown Osteopathic Hospital Ass'n v. Ventresco (In Re Youngstown Osteopathic Hospital Ass'n) · filed 2002-01-04(a)(3)

Any payments OHIC makes to Defendants pursuant to their claim under the D & O Policy is not in violation of the automatic stay.

Section 362 protects a debtor’s possessory interest in estate property from repossession and sale during bankruptcy.

Davis v. Matt Gay Chevrolet, Inc. (In Re Davis) · filed 2006-11-01(a)(3)

I conclude that the Defendants are liable for violating the provisions of Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 362(a)'s automatic stay applies to property in which the debtor retains an interest when the bankruptcy petition is filed.

In re Lopez · filed 2019-02-06(a)

Here, there was no delivery of the trustee's deed prior to the filing of the bankruptcy petition, meaning there was no pre-petition conveyance of the property. As such, Mr. Lopez still had an interest in his home at the time he filed his bankruptcy petition. The Bankruptcy Code, in 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), provides the automatic stay is in effect if the debtor still has an interest in the property.

Section 362(a)'s automatic stay protects property in which the debtor has a possessory interest, even when another person holds the lease purchase agreement.

Burns v. Home Zone Sales & Lease Purchase, LLC (In re Burns) · filed 2013-12-19(a)

For these reasons, the Court finds that the Debtor had a posses-sory interest in the Refrigerator, and as a result, it is included within the scope of the automatic stay.

Section 362 protects property through the automatic stay only if the property belongs to the bankruptcy estate.

TD Bank, N.A. v. LaPointe · filed 2014-02-24(c)(1)

For property to be protected by the automatic stay, it must be property of the bankruptcy estate. ... As the Debtor was divested of all equitable interests in the property as of the petition date, the property was not property of the estate, and he had no ability to cure his defaults under § 1322(c)(1).

Section 362’s automatic stay does not cover property owned by a third party rather than the debtor.

Goldenberg v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (In Re Papazov) · filed 2015-07-29

That property was owned by the Goldenberg Family Trust both before and after the filing of Papazov’s bankruptcy petition. It was not owned by Papazov. His bankruptcy should have had no impact on that property or any other rights of Appellant. Specifically, the order granting the motion for relief from the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362 (“Order”) never affected Appellant because there was no automatic stay in place from which relief was required.

Section 362's automatic stay does not cover real estate owned by an LLC merely because the debtor's membership interest in the LLC is property of the bankruptcy estate.

Thomas G. Gialamas · filed 2019-09-03

As such, Mr. Hallick has failed to show that the automatic stay applies to the strip mall.

Section 362 stays execution or collection of a monetary judgment against a corporation that filed for bankruptcy, requiring the creditor to seek relief through bankruptcy procedures.

United States v. Federal Resources Corp. · filed 2015-01-12(a), (b)(4)

Pending further order of this Court, the Court hereby STAYS any attempts by the United States to execute or collect upon the monetary judgments herein entered as against only Federal Resources Corporation and Camp Bird Colorado, Inc. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), (b)(4) (2012). Because these corporations filed for bankruptcy prior to entry of this judgment, the United States must seek relief to pursue execution or collection, of these monetary claims — as against only these debtor corporations— through the appropriate bankruptcy procedures in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Utah.

Section 362 stays execution of a judgment until the bankruptcy stay is terminated or modified to permit execution.

Southern Industrial Realty, Inc. v. Noe · filed 1986-01-29

(d) execution of said judgment shall be stayed until the stay afforded by Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 362, shall be terminated or modified to permit such action.

Section 362 does not stay entry of a judgment on debts incurred after a bankruptcy petition when the creditor seeks only a judgment.

My Favorite Muffin Too, Inc. v. DK Holdings, Inc. · filed 1999-08-20(a)(3)

Because this case involves post-bankruptcy petition debts and because My Favorite Muffin asks only for a judgment, § 362 does not operate to stay this action.

Section 362(d) relief to annul the automatic stay is moot when no act occurred while the stay was in force for the court to validate.

Ung v. Boni (In Re Boni) · filed 1999-09-30(d)

Since nothing occurred during this period, there was nothing for the bankruptcy court to validate by annulling the stay, nor were any damages incurred by the Creditors that the court could have ordered compensated.

Section 362(a) permits a district court to dismiss a debtor from pending litigation on the plaintiffs’ motions when dismissal is consistent with the stay.

Volkmann v. ACands Inc · filed 2002-04-10(a)

The district courts in the instant cases were similarly entitled to dismiss the debtor on the plaintiffs’ motions as a matter consistent with the terms of § 362(a) and the effective management of their dockets.

Section 362(a) permits a district court to dismiss a debtor from litigation on the plaintiff’s motion when the dismissal is consistent with the automatic stay.

Webb v. AC&S Inc · filed 2002-04-10(a)

The district courts in the instant cases were similarly entitled to dismiss the debtor on the plaintiffs’ motions as a matter consistent with the terms of § 362(a) and the effective management of their dockets.

Section 362(a)(3) bars dismissal of a claim belonging to the bankruptcy estate without the trustee’s permission when dismissal may impair the claim’s value.

Compton v. Chatanika Gold Camp Properties · filed 1999-10-01(a)(3)

Therefore dismissal with prejudice potentially impaired the value of an estate asset and prejudiced creditors. After April 10 dismissing the lawsuit without the trustee’s permission violated subsection 362(a)(3).

Section 362(a)(3) bars creditors from asserting claims that belong to the estate and duplicate the trustee’s claims, even when the creditors give those claims different legal labels.

Fox v. Picard · filed 2012-03-26(a)(3)

In substance, the claims asserted in the Florida Actions are duplicative of those asserted in the Trustee’s New York Action, and they are therefore the property of the estate, and cannot be asserted by the Appellants because of the automatic stay notwithstanding the Appellants’ renaming of the causes of action asserted.

Section 362(a)(3) bars a debtor from prosecuting prepetition claims that remain property of the bankruptcy estate and have not been abandoned by the trustee.

Michigan First Credit Union v. Smith (In re Smith) · filed 2013-04-10(a)(3)

Therefore, only the Chapter 7 Trustee may prosecute the claims, and Defendant’s continuing prosecution of these claims would violate the automatic stay, under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3).

Section 362(a)(3) bars someone other than the estate representative from filing suit to adjudicate rights in property of the bankruptcy estate.

Patrick L. McConathy and Patricia Chapman McConathy · filed 2022-05-20(a)(3)

When someone other than the estate’s sole representative files a suit to adjudicate the rights of parties with respect to an asset of the estate, such action violates the automatic stay provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3).

Section 362(a)(6) bars acts to collect a prepetition claim but does not govern contact with debtors represented by counsel, so state consumer protection rules requiring contact through counsel do not impede the automatic stay.

Sturm Ex Rel. Sturm v. Providian National Bank · filed 1999-12-23(a)(6)

Although the automatic stay prohibits "any act to collect, assess, or recover a claim against the debtor that arose before the commencement of the case under this title,” 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(6), it has no provision concerning contact with debtors represented by counsel. Thus, enforcement of state consumer protection law in no way impedes administration of the bankruptcy case.

Section 362(k) provides the exclusive damages remedy for automatic-stay violations and preempts state-law claims seeking damages for the same violation.

Johnston v. Telecheck Services, Inc. (In Re Johnston) · filed 2007-03-02(k)

The court finds the reasoning of the Second, Sixth, and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals compelling, and holds that, to recover damages for an alleged violation of the automatic stay of the Bankruptcy Code, the Debtor is limited to the private right of action in 11 U.S.C. § 362(k).

Section 362(a)(4) prevents a prepetition judgment lien from attaching by operation of law to estate property acquired after the bankruptcy filing.

Rodriguez v. Gelman (In re Local Service Corp.) · filed 2013-09-28(a)(4)

The rehef granted to the Trustee in this Order is a declaration that the Bank’s judgment hen never attached to the BME Lots by operation of § 362(a).

Section 362(a)(5) stays attachment of a lien securing a prepetition claim even when the lien attaches automatically by operation of law.

Birney v. Smith (In Re Birney) · filed 1999-12-29(a)(5)

Even though Smith's lien arose by operation of law upon Mrs. Birney's death, attachment of the lien is still an "act" that is prohibited by the automatic stay under § 362(a)(5).

Section 362(a) bars a judgment from attaching to a debtor’s property when the bankruptcy filing severs a joint tenancy.

Greenfeld v. Estate of Jeung Soon Kim (In re Yun Chin Kim) · filed 2002-12-18(a)

In this case, the joint tenancy was not severed until the debtor filed bankruptcy. However at that same instant the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) arose, thus barring Windsong’s judgment from attaching to the Property.

Section 362(a)(4) bars affirmative acts to create, perfect, or enforce liens against estate property, but a lien arising solely by operation of law does not violate the automatic stay.

Davis v. Tyson Prepared Foods · filed 2018-10-17(a)(4)

Accordingly, when construing the text of § 362(a)(4) at issue in this case—which proscribes “any act to create, perfect, or enforce any lien”—we, too, must read the statutory term “act” to encompass only affirmative conduct on the part of the lienholder. As it is undisputed that Tyson’s subrogation lien arose solely by operation of law, the logic and the holding of Cowen compel our conclusion that the lien is valid and enforceable, and that no violation of the automatic stay has occurred.

Section 362(a)(3) does not stay a post-petition suit to enjoin unlawful conduct when the suit does not seek to control estate property.

Larami Ltd. v. Yes! Entertainment Corp. · filed 2000-02-03(a)(3)

Section 362(a)(3) was intended to prevent interference with a bankruptcy court’s orderly disposition of the property of the estate, it was not intended to preclude post-petition suits to enjoin unlawful conduct.

Section 362(a)(3) stays a suit seeking to enjoin a municipal debtor’s employee from carrying out job duties in a way that would control the debtor’s property.

Newberry v. City of San Bernardino (In re City of San Bernardino) · filed 2016-09-19(a)(3)

Nevertheless, the Court concludes that Newberry’s requested injunction still falls under § 362(a)(3). First, the money that the City uses to pay its employees’ salaries is undeniably the City’s “property,” and thus an order enjoining an employee from carrying out their job duties in a particular manner effectively exercises control over that money.

Section 362(a) does not require a court to halt discovery on claims involving non-debtors merely because the information obtained could affect a debtor.

Meridian PO Finance LLC v. OTR Tire Group Incorporated · filed 2020-12-16(a)

Nonetheless, the Court also does not find that discovery on the negligent bailment and conversion claims needs to be halted at this time.

Section 362(a)(1) and (3) requires a party seeking a debtor’s information or documents for outside litigation to request relief from the automatic stay in the bankruptcy court.

In Re Commercial Financial Services, Inc. · filed 2000-02-18(a)(1) and (3)

To the extent a party to the District Court Litigation or any other outside litigation seeks information and documents from CFS, the party must request, in this Court, relief from the automatic stay.

Section 362(a)(1) does not bar a subpoena to a debtor for discovery concerning unstayed claims against a nondebtor.

Groner v. Miller (In Re Miller) · filed 2001-05-29(a)(1)

In conclusion, section 362(a)(1) is inapplicable to Appellants’ subpoenas to Debtor where those subpoenas were part of Appellants’ discovery regarding claims that were not stayed.

Section 362(a)(6) bars discovery in another court aimed at reducing a claim against the bankruptcy estate to increase the discovering creditor’s share of estate assets.

In Re Indian Motocycle Co., Inc. · filed 2001-08-03(a)(6)

In light of the foregoing, this Court finds that the Receiver’s attempt on and after April 26, 2001 (the date of the BAP Decision) to conduct discovery in the District Court relative to the claim of the United States in the bankruptcy cases was and continues to be a violation of the automatic stay under § 362(a)(6).

Section 362(a)(1) does not automatically stay discovery from a debtor in an action against a third party.

In re Residential Capital, LLC · filed 2012-10-12(a)(1)

The Court accepts FHFA’s argument that section 362(a) does not, standing alone, protect the Debtors from discovery in third-party actions.

Section 362 renders requests for admissions served on a debtor during the automatic stay void, preventing a failure to respond from creating deemed admissions.

Yacoub v. Suretec Insurance Company · filed 2015-04-28

The only differences between this case and Paine are that SureTec’s motion for summary judgment was filed before dismissal of the bankruptcy, and Yacoub served a response to the requests for admissions after dismissal of the bankruptcy. Neither fact would require a different conclusion: SureTec’s requests for admissions were void.

Section 362(a)(7) binds state Medicaid agencies to the automatic stay’s prohibition on prepetition setoffs.

In Re Sun Healthcare Group, Inc. · filed 2000-02-25(a)(7)

The Final DIP Order which merely reiterates the constraints imposed on the Movants by section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code, as interpreted by the Third Circuit in University Medical Center, is binding on the states.

Section 362(d)(1) permits a court to lift the automatic stay for cause so another court can decide a motion to dismiss pending litigation against a debtor.

In re F-Squared Investment Management, LLC · filed 2016-03-18(d)(1)

The Court finds that the most appropriate action is to lift the automatic stay solely to permit the Debtors to file a motion to dismiss in the Youngers Litigation, and for briefing to ensue so that the District Court can rule on the motion.

Section 362(b)(10) does not except a terminated license from the automatic stay, but § 362(d)(1) allows relief for cause when a debtor seeks to retain possession under that expired agreement.

In Re Greenfield Dry Cleaning & Laundry, Inc. · filed 2000-06-14(b)(10), (d)(1)

However, we have also held that the Agreement is not a “lease of non residential real property,” in determining whether the same phrase in §§ 365(d)(3, 4) applies, but a “license.” ... Therefore, § 362(b)(10) does not apply here. ... In these circumstances, we conclude that Rite Aid has proven “cause” for relief from the automatic stay generally, under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1).