11 U.S.C. § 362

A creditor holding an unperfected security interest is not entitled to relief from the automatic stay.

In Re Omega Environmental Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Debtor v. Valley Bank Na · filed 2000-07-19

A creditor holding an unperfected security interest is not entitled to relief from an automatic stay imposed under Bankruptcy Code § 362.

Section 362(d)(2) requires relief from the automatic stay when the debtor has no equity in the property and the property is unnecessary to an effective reorganization.

Kitchen v. Boyd (In re Newpower) · filed 2000-12-07(d)(2)

The automatic stay imposed by the filing of a bankruptcy petition shall be lifted upon motion by a party in interest in cases where (1) the party can show cause, including the lack of adequate protection of an interest in property of such party in interest, or (2) where the debtor does not have an equity interest in the property and the property is not necessary to an effective reorganization. ... The Kitchens qualify under the second condition set forth in § 362(d).

The court may grant relief from the automatic stay to let a creditor proceed with a pending state court action.

Gage v. Hagen (In Re Hagen) · filed 2000-12-08

For these reasons, the court abstains, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334(c)(1) and (2), and grants Gage’s motion for relief from the automatic stay to enable him to proceed with his pending state court action in Milwaukee County (Case No. 98-SC-20005).

Section 362 permits relief from the automatic stay so a state court can resolve disputed rights to property even when the debtor’s interest remains undetermined.

Belmonte v. Belmonte (In re Belmonte) · filed 2001-01-19

Although the Bankruptcy Court erred in finding that the May 28, 1999 “verdict” was final for purposes of issue preclusion in this bankruptcy proceeding, it correctly granted relief from the automatic stay. There has been no final resolution of the question of whether Kevin has an interest in the Malvern property. Accordingly, the Bankruptcy Court’s finding that the state court “verdict” is final for the purpose of issue preclusion in this proceeding will be reversed and its order lifting the automatic stay will be affirmed.

Section 362(d)(1) allows retroactive annulment of the automatic stay for cause, considering the other party’s knowledge of the bankruptcy and the debtor’s inequitable conduct or resulting prejudice.

Gruenbaum v. Bankers Trust Co. · filed 2001-03-14(d)(1)

The bankruptcy court is obligated to grant relief from the automatic stay upon a showing of “cause.” ... We have looked primarily to two factors in considering a request to retroactively annul an automatic stay: “(1) whether the [other party] was aware of the bankruptcy petition; and (2) whether the debtor engaged in unreasonable or inequitable conduct, or prejudice would result to the [other party].”

Section 362(d) permits a party to seek relief from the automatic stay so a divorce court can determine whether an obligation is support.

Cummings v. Cummings · filed 2001-03-20(d)

Now that the case is being remanded to the bankruptcy court, Susan Cummings may seek relief from the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d) to have the issue determined by the divorce court.

Section 362(d)(2) requires both lack of equity in the property and lack of necessity for an effective reorganization before a court may grant relief from the automatic stay.

Kane v. Town of Harpswell (In Re Kane) · filed 2001-06-22(d)(2)

The bankruptcy court purported to grant relief from the automatic stay under section 362(d)(2); and that statute provides two conditions, each of which must be satisfied.

Section 362’s automatic stay may be lifted to permit parties to defend against enforcement of non-compete provisions and seek declaratory relief under nonbankruptcy law.

In Re Ardent, Inc. · filed 2001-11-16(a)

Because the executory contract is not assumable, it is appropriate to: ... (2) grant relief from the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) to permit the Movants to proceed under nonbankrupt-cy law to defend against enforcement of the non-compete agreements in accordance with their position that the non-compete provisions are unenforceable and terminated as a matter of nonbank-ruptey law, such relief to include the pursuit of any declaratory judgment action the Movants wish to pursue regarding such nonbankruptcy law defenses to the non-compete provisions.

Section 362(d)(1) permits a court to deny relief from the automatic stay when the bankruptcy court can decide the underlying claim and the movant agrees there is no reason to lift the stay.

Williams v. Aloisi · filed 2002-01-15(d)(1)

During the hearing on the Commissioner’s motion for relief from the automatic stay and objection to the exemption, the Commissioner agreed with the Bankruptcy Court that since the Bankruptcy Court could make a determination on the merits of her claim for equitable relief against Ms. Aloisi’s home, there was no reason to lift the automatic stay. ... Accordingly, the Bankruptcy Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Commissioner’s motion for relief from the automatic stay.

Section 362(d) does not permit relief from the automatic stay to compel renewal of a letter of credit when renewal would create an impermissible post-petition preference.

New England Dairies, Inc. v. Dairy Mart Convenience Stores, Inc. (In Re Dairy Mart Convenience Stores, Inc.) · filed 2002-01-25(d)

The bankruptcy court ruled that because the renewal of the letter of credit would create an impermissible post-petition preference, NED could not avail itself of § 362(d) in order to do so. Because this Court has already affirmed the Decision with respect to the voidable preference, it also affirms the denial of NED’s alternative motion.

An incurable material default that defeats the debtor’s right to assume a purchase agreement can justify lifting the automatic stay for cause under § 362(d)(1) and under § 362(d)(2) when the debtor has no equity in the property or escrow deposit and neither is needed for an effective reorganization.

In Re New Breed Realty Enterprises, Inc. · filed 2002-03-07(d)(1), (d)(2)

For all of the reasons stated above, the debtor is in material default under the Agreement, which cannot be cured, and cannot assume the Agreement. Therefore, the debtor does not have an equity in the Property or in the $300,000 deposit held in escrow, and they are not necessary to an effective reorganization. Accordingly, there is cause to lift the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)(1) and § 362(d)(2), and Van Alen’s motion is granted.

Section 362(d) permits a creditor whose deeds of trust remain valid to obtain relief from the stay when continued delay in selling the collateral prejudices it.

In Re Coleman · filed 2002-03-21(d)

In such a situation, with the properties being subject to delinquent and currently accruing real estate taxes having priority over the liens of the deeds of trust, continued delay in selling such properties results in prejudice to the Bank and without benefit to anyone other than the Colemans personally. Accordingly, the Court will confirm the Plan subject to the right of the Bank to obtain relief from the stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d) if it is determined to be entitled to retain the benefit of the deeds of trust it obtained from the Colemans in early 1995.

Section 362(d)(1) requires evidence of cause for stay relief, such as declining collateral value without adequate protection or missed plan payments; § 362(d)(2) requires the creditor to establish a lack of equity before the debtor must show the property is necessary for reorganization.

In Re Howery · filed 2002-03-28(d)(1), (d)(2)

While Provident Bank arguably established that it was owed a debt by the debtor and possessed a valid mortgage securing this debt, it did not present any evidence during its case-in-chief that the property was declining in value, that the debtor was not making the payments required under his confirmed chapter 13 plan, or that the debtor lacked equity in the property. Without such evidence, the Court is unable to grant stay relief under either § 362(d)(1) or (2).

Section 362(d) lets a creditor seek relief from the automatic stay to pursue a prepetition claim against the debtor during bankruptcy.

Essad v. Cincinnati Cas. Co., Unpublished Decision (4-16-2002) · filed 2002-04-16(d)

The only way a creditor can proceed with a cause of action during the bankruptcy proceedings is to request relief from the automatic stay.

Section 362(d)(1) allows a bankruptcy court to lift the automatic stay for cause, considering judicial economy, trial readiness, preliminary bankruptcy issues, the creditor’s chance of success, and the burden on the estate and other creditors.

Garzoni v. K-Mart Corp. · filed 2002-05-08(d)(1)

Bankruptcy Code § 362(d)(1) provides that the bankruptcy court may grant relief from the automatic stay for cause. ... The bankruptcy court considers the following factors in deciding whether to lift a stay: 1) judicial economy; 2) trial readiness; 3) the resolution of preliminary bankruptcy issues; 4) the creditor’s chance of success on the merits; and 5) the cost of defense or other potential burden to the bankruptcy estate and the impact of the litigation on other creditors. ... In short, we can find no abuse of discretion in the bankruptcy court’s decision to grant relief from the automatic stay.

Section 362(a)(3) requires a creditor to obtain an explicit order lifting the automatic stay before commencing collection proceedings against estate property, even when the bankruptcy court has ordered immediate payment.

In Re Lpm Corporation, Debtor, Kir Temecula v. Lpm Corporation Minson Corporation North County Bank Gerald H. Davis Unit · filed 2002-08-22(a)(3)

By virtue of § 362(a)(3), Kir Temecula was required to obtain the bankruptcy court’s explicit lifting of the stay before it could commence collection proceedings.

Section 362(c) allows the automatic stay to be lifted for cause when a sheriff’s-sale purchaser holds an equitable interest in real property and legal title remains with the debtor when bankruptcy is filed.

WALKER v. PNC BANK, N.A. · filed 2002-09-18(c)

When a purchaser acquires an equitable interest in real property at a sheriffs sale but legal titie remains with a debtor at the time the debtor files for bankruptcy, cause exists under 11 U.S.C. § 362(c) to lift the automatic stay.

A sheriff’s sale purchaser’s equitable interest supplies cause to lift the automatic stay under § 362(c) when legal title remains with the debtor at bankruptcy filing.

In Re Joan Walker · filed 2002-09-18(c)

When a purchaser acquires an equitable interest in real property at a sheriff’s sale but legal title remains with a debtor at the time the debtor files for bankruptcy, cause exists under 11 U.S.C. § 362(c) to lift the automatic stay.

Section 362(d) permits relief from the automatic stay so a foreclosure purchaser may evict a debtor and seek use and occupancy payments when the debtor retains only a possessory interest after the foreclosure sale.

In Re Mizuno · filed 2002-11-18(d)

For all these reasons, the Court grants Wightman’s motion in all respects: the automatic stay is lifted, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d) and 1301(c), to allow him, his successors and assigns to exercise all ownership rights that he has in the Property, including, without limitation, any action which is necessary to dispossess the Debtor and all other occupants from the Property and to obtain an order of a court of competent jurisdiction for a money judgment for “use and occupancy” for the period of the Debtor’s unlawful possession of the Property.

Section 362(d) permits a later stay-relief order to cure an action filed during the automatic stay when equity and judicial economy support allowing the action to proceed.

Maertin v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc. · filed 2002-12-11(d)

Courts have authority to cure these acts, that otherwise would be void for violating the automatic stay, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d). ... If this complaint was premature when filed, that prematurity was cured upon Judge Farnan’s entry of the memorandum order on December 10, 2001.

Relief from the automatic stay must be sought by motion in bankruptcy court.

Burnam v. Patterson · filed 2003-01-30(e)

Relief from the automatic “stay” can only be granted by the bankruptcy court pursuant to § 362(e) when it is sought by motion.

Section 362(d)(2) requires consideration of relief from the automatic stay when the debtor has no equity in the property and the property is unnecessary to an effective reorganization.

Bartucci v. O'Neil · filed 2003-04-29(d)(2)

In this case, the Bankruptcy Court failed to consider whether relief was proper under the second ground for relief (11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2)). ... O’Neil’s concessions standing alone would appear to make relief from the automatic stay proper under the second ground for relief.

Section 362(d) permits a bankruptcy court to condition relief from the automatic stay even when the condition affects proceedings in another bankruptcy court.

In Re Shared Technologies Cellular, Inc. · filed 2003-05-19(d)

Appellant cites nothing in the Bankruptcy Code, nor to any legal authority, and this Court is aware of no such authority, that strips a bankruptcy court of its broad powers under § 362 to modify a stay or to condition any modifications to a stay as the court deems appropriate, even if the modification or condition will impact proceedings in another bankruptcy court.

Section 362(a) permits an in rem order preventing the automatic stay from attaching to specific property in future bankruptcy cases for six months when repeated abusive filings make ordinary relief from stay ineffective.

In Re Roeben · filed 2003-06-23(a)

The Court will enter an Order providing that the filing of a future bankruptcy petition by any individual or entity will not extend the protection of the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) to the Heber Springs Property for a period of six (6) months from the date of entry of this Order.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when a Chapter 7 debtor fails to perform a required election concerning secured collateral under § 521(2), even after attempting to reaffirm in good faith.

In Re Amoakohene · filed 2003-07-23(d)(1)

Modification of the automatic stay for “cause” under § 362(d)(1) has been consistently found to be the most appropriate form of relief for “garden variety” violations of § 521(2). ... Relief from the automatic stay is appropriate, and, in fact, the secured creditor herein has made such a request (albeit on § 362(d)(2) grounds, not on a § 362(d)(1) “for cause” basis).

Section 362(d)(1) does not entitle a creditor to relief from the automatic stay for lack of adequate protection when the creditor has no interest in the debtor’s property.

New England Dairies, Inc. v. Dairy Mart Convenience Stores · filed 2003-11-20(d)(1)

The only enumerated circumstance that could possibly apply here is section 362(d)(1), which allows the court to lift a stay "for cause, including the lack of adequate protection of an interest in property of such party in interest." 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) (emphasis added). For the reason stated above, however, NED has no interest in Dairy Mart's property. It cannot show that it is entitled to adequate protection. As a result, NED is not entitled to relief from the automatic stay.

Prospective relief from the automatic stay is appropriate when serial bankruptcy filings prevent foreclosure without an intention or ability to complete the bankruptcy process.

In Re Feldman · filed 2004-04-06

Prospective relief from the automatic stay is appropriate where “serial filers” have abused the bankruptcy process by using the stay to prevent foreclosure without any intention or ability to complete the bankruptcy process.

A court may grant in rem relief from the automatic stay that binds subsequent transferees of property for a limited time to prevent abuse through serial bankruptcy filings.

County of Fresno v. Golden State Capital Corp. (In Re Golden State Capital Corp.) · filed 2004-11-16

To prevent further certain abuse by Mendrin, the County’s motion for in rem relief from the automatic stay will be GRANTED. A separate order will be entered that will both modify the automatic stay for the County and bind all subsequent transferees of the Property for a limited time.

Section 362(d)(4) limits prospective stay relief to creditors secured by the real property, but does not preclude courts from using § 105(a) to prevent stays arising from abusive bankruptcy filings.

In Re McCray · filed 2006-02-15(d)(4)

However, § 362(d)(4) is limited to a stay of an act against real property and to “a creditor whose claim is secured by an interest in such real property.” ... Nevertheless, Congress gave no indication in enacting § 362(d)(4) that it intended to prevent bankruptcy courts from employing 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) (which authorizes the court to “issue any order ... that is necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this title”) to enter orders, when necessary or appropriate, to prevent the harm arising from abusive filings.

A bankruptcy court may grant retroactive approval of unauthorized post-petition secured financing with concurrent relief from the automatic stay against creating liens on estate property.

Sherman v. Harbin · filed 2007-04-25(a)(4)

Nunc pro tunc authorization with concurrent relief from the automatic stay is one such available remedy.

A bankruptcy filing does not stay a foreclosure sale when a prior bankruptcy court order provides that filings within 180 days will not operate as an automatic stay and the debtor does not separately apply for a stay.

Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. v. Foy · filed 2007-09-18(a)

Here, the Bankruptcy Court’s order dated April 21, 2004, afforded the plaintiff relief from the automatic stay which became effective upon Lawrence B. Foy’s third bankruptcy filing, and provided that any future filings by him or co-mortgagor Jeirlynn Foy, within 180 days of entry of the order, would not operate as an automatic stay against the plaintiff, except upon separate and proper application to the Bankruptcy Court. Since the bankruptcy petition filed by Jeirlynn Foy on September 14, 2004 was filed within 180 days of the entry of the Bankruptcy Court order, and it is undisputed that she did not apply to the Bankruptcy Court for a stay barring the plaintiff from proceeding in this action, the foreclosure sale conducted on September 16, 2004, was valid.

Relief from the automatic stay may be limited to the extent necessary to resolve a pending adversarial proceeding.

Ward v. INVISTA S.A.R.L., LLC · filed 2008-03-10

This Court hereby grants relief from the automatic stay so far as it is necessary to resolve this adversarial proceeding.

Section 362(d) permits retroactive relief from the automatic stay when the equities support relief, including a creditor’s lack of knowledge of the bankruptcy and a debtor’s bad-faith filing.

Olson v. Bay Area Foreclosure Investments, LLC · filed 2008-05-01(d)

The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in granting retroactive relief under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d), based on factual findings that appellees were not aware of the bankruptcy petition when they filed for judgment in state court and that Olson filed his bankruptcy petition in bad faith.

A creditor with a colorable claim may obtain relief from the automatic stay when payment defaults establish cause and the property has no equity and is unnecessary to an effective reorganization.

In Re Almeida · filed 2009-07-24(d)

Because neither the Debtor nor the Chapter 7 trustee contested the facts as represented in Deutsche Bank’s Motion for Relief from Stay and Dessin’s only challenge to allowance of the Motion was Deutsche Bank’s standing, the Court finds that Deutsche Bank has advanced a colorable claim to relief under the standard articulated by the Court in Grella v. Salem Five Cent Sav. Bank, 42 F.3d 26, 33 (1st Cir.1994). Deutsche Bank has established not only “cause” for relief from the automatic stay, but the absence of equity in the property, which is unnecessary for an effective reorganization where the Debtor is a Chapter 7 debtor who has elected to surrender the property.

Section 362(d)(2) allows relief from the automatic stay when the debtor has no equity in the property and has not shown that an effective reorganization is within reasonable prospect.

In Re the Estates of Lake Blalock, LLC · filed 2010-02-16(d)(2)

Section 362(d)(2) allows relief to be granted where “the debtor does not have an equity in such property” and “such property is not necessary to an effective reorganization.” ... For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Debtor has failed to demonstrate that reorganization is within reasonable prospect. Therefore, the automatic stay should be lifted as to the Property pursuant to 11 U.S.C § 362(d)(2).

Section 362(d)(1) does not require relief from the automatic stay for lack of adequate protection when equity in the property and proposed plan payments adequately protect the creditor’s interest.

In Re Brown · filed 2010-03-02(d)(1)

The parties do not dispute that there is significant equity in the Prop-erty and that the Property, as Debtor’s residence, is necessary for reorganization. It appears that Financial Freedom’s inter-est is adequately protected by the equity in the Property and the proposed pay-ments. Accordingly, the Court finds no cause for relief from the automatic stay.

Section 362 permits lifting the automatic stay so the IRS can offset a debtor’s income tax overpayment against outstanding federal income tax liabilities.

Gould v. United States · filed 2010-04-19

The central issue in this case is whether or not the Bank- ruptcy Court erred in denying the government’s motion to lift the automatic stay to allow the Internal Revenue Service “IRS” to offset the debtor’s income tax overpayment against his outstanding federal income tax liabilities pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 553 and 26 U.S.C. § 6402(a). For the reasons given by our Bankruptcy Appellate Panel in In re Gould, 401 B.R. 415 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2009), we reverse the decision of the Bankruptcy Court, In re Gould, 389 B.R. 105 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2008), and remand for further proceedings.

Section 362(d) permits relief from the automatic stay when the debtor’s proposed plan can offer no resolution for outstanding tax liabilities.

In Re Johnson · filed 2010-04-21(d)

Also, because the proposed plan can offer no resolution for outstanding tax liabilities, the motion of the City of Buffalo for stay relief is granted.

Section 362(d) requires an order granting stay relief before a creditor may continue litigation covered by the automatic stay.

In Re Thompson · filed 2010-05-06(d)

Relief from the automatic stay may only be obtained pursuant to the entry of an order granting stay relief. 11 U.S.C. § 362(d). Hefferan, as established by his filing of a stay relief motion in Valarie’s case, knew the automatic stay arose upon Cecil’s and Valarie’s bankruptcy filings and he could not pursue the fee litigation against them without obtaining stay relief. No order was entered granting stay relief and Hefferan did not obtain stay relief pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 362(d).

Section 362(d)(1) requires a party seeking stay relief to foreclose on asserted collateral to make a prima facie showing of a perfected security interest entitling it to foreclose.

In Re DBSI, Inc. · filed 2010-05-12(d)(1)

Here, the Bank has requested relief from the automatic stay to foreclose on the Master Leases, which it has asserted are its collateral. As its prima facie case, the Bank must show that it has a perfected security interest in the Master Leases that entitles it to foreclose on the Master Leases if the stay is lifted.

A lender’s standing to seek relief from the automatic stay depends on whether the allonge carrying its claimed indorsement was affixed to the mortgage note.

In Re Shapoval · filed 2010-11-19(d)

Since the Debtor’s mortgage was executed on March 24, 2004, well after the adoption of the 1998 amendments, the Court simply rules today that Wells Fargo’s standing to prosecute the instant Motion for Relief is dependent on whether the purported allonge which contains the in-dorsement on which Wells Fargo relies was affixed to the mortgage note.

Section 362(d)(2) permits relief from the stay when the debtor has no equity in property and no reasonable possibility of a successful reorganization, even if the property is necessary to its proposed reorganization.

In Re Mayslake Village-Plainfield Campus, Inc. · filed 2010-12-07(d)(2)

It is undisputed that the requirement of § 362(d)(2)(A) is met as the parties stipulated that the Debtor has no equity in the Property. Moreover, the Property is obviously necessary to the Debtor’s reorganization. Nevertheless, the Plan cannot be confirmed for the reasons previously articulated. Thus, there is no reasonable possibility of a successful reorganization. Accordingly, stay relief is warranted under § 362(d)(2).

Section 362(d) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause, assessed through prejudice to the estate, hardship to the movant, and the movant’s probability of success on the merits.

In Re Nortel Networks Corp. · filed 2011-01-21(d)

Therefore, the Court will not lift the automatic stay. 11 U.S.C. § 362(d) allows the Court to lift the automatic stay “for cause.” Factors courts consider in determining if cause exists are (a) prejudice to the debtor’s estate, (b) hardship to the moving party and (c) probability of success on the merits.

Relief from the automatic stay for cause can turn on whether the movant is likely to prevail in the underlying litigation.

Chizzali v. Gindi (In Re Gindi) · filed 2011-02-14(d)(1)

But we do identify one factor that can be dispositive in determining whether a party can successfully move for relief from the automatic stay under § 362(d)(1)—namely, the likelihood that the movant would prevail in the litigation if the stay were lifted.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause, including to let claims proceed in state court when that forum is more efficient.

Fireman's Fund Insurance v. Brady · filed 2011-03-08(d)(1)

Furthermore, because a desire to permit a state action to proceed in a state tribunal has been recognized as a proper cause to grant relief from the automatic stay, see Piombo Corp. v. Castlerock Props. (In re Castlerock Props.), 781 F.2d 159, 163 (9th Cir. 1986), the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion when it granted relief for this reason.

A motion for relief from the automatic stay under § 362 must be brought by the real party in interest whose rights the stay affects.

U.S. Bank National Ass'n v. Deamicis (In Re Deamicis) · filed 2011-07-26

A motion for relief from the automatic stay must be prosecuted by the real party in interest.

Section 362(d) permits a court to lift the automatic stay when a creditor presents a colorable claim and doing so will not impair effective reorganization.

Alexander v. Kondaur Capital · filed 2011-08-16(d)

Given the summary nature of automatic-stay proceedings, the bankruptcy court may lift the stay if it is satisfied that a creditor has presented a colorable claim that will not impair effective reorganization.

Section 362(d) allows the bankruptcy court to lift the automatic stay when a creditor presents a colorable claim and relief will not impair effective reorganization.

Alexander v. Prime Asset Fund II · filed 2011-08-16(d)

Given the summary nature of automatic-stay proceedings, the bankruptcy court may lift the stay if it is satisfied that a creditor has presented a colorable claim that will not impair effective reorganization.

Section 362(d)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to grant a creditor relief from the automatic stay to pursue litigation against the debtor in another court, subject to review for abuse of discretion.

In Re:susan M Boltz-Rubinstein V. · filed 2011-11-03(d)(1)

In this appeal, we must determine whether the Bankruptcy Court erred in granting Appellee-Creditor Hagens Law firm relief from the automatic stay provisions of the Bankruptcy Code in order to pursue its litigation against Appellant-Debtor Susan Boltz-Rubinstein in Washington district court. ... Thus, we review the bankruptcy court’s decision to grant Creditor-appellee relief from the automatic stay for abuse of discretion. ... Because Judge Robreno’s District Court opinion so accurately details the law governing § 362(d)(1) of the Code, and so thoroughly discusses the proceedings in the Bankruptcy Court and the logic applied in making its decision, we see little to add here. ... We thus affirm the District Court’s decision for the reasons set forth in that court’s opinion.

Section 362(d) allows a valid assignee of a secured claim to seek relief from the automatic stay when the requirements for stay relief are met.

In re Rice · filed 2011-12-05(d)

An assignee may also have standing to pursue relief from the stay as long as the assignment is valid and the requisite elements of a § 362(d) claim are present.

Relief from the automatic stay permits litigation to proceed when the bankruptcy court’s order covers the litigating debtor and its related entities.

BroadStar Wind Systems Group Ltd. Liability Co. v. Stephens · filed 2012-01-23(d)

A party may, however, be granted relief from the automatic stay in order to continue litigation. 11 U.S.C. § 362(d). ... In those orders, the bankruptcy court granted relief from the stay to Systems, the “BroadStar Debtors,” and Systems’ “related entities” collectively. In light of the relief granted by the bankruptcy court, the district court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the declaratory judgment action to proceed.

Section 362 permits relief from the automatic stay when a creditor establishes the debtor lacks equity in the property and the debtor fails to establish that the property is necessary to an effective reorganization.

In Re All Land Investments, LLC · filed 2012-03-09(d)(1), (d)(2), (g)(1), (g)(2)

Based upon the record made at the confirmation hearing, I conclude that Citizens has met its burden of proof under § 362(g)(1) and the Debtor has failed to meet its burden of proof under § 362(g)(2). Citizens is entitled to relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)(1) and § 362(d)(2).

Section 362(d) limits a stay relief determination to whether a creditor has a colorable claim against estate property; it does not decide the underlying validity of the creditor’s interest.

Malin v. JPMorgan · filed 2012-03-12(d)

In sum, the Court agrees with the reasoning of Grella and Lebbos that “any determination under § 362(d) is narrowly limited to whether a creditor has a color-able claim against property of the estate ... [and a]ny decision would be made solely on the statutory grounds expressed in § 362(d).” Lebbos, 455 B.R. at 615; see also Grella, 42 F.3d at 32.

Section 362(d)(4) permits in rem relief from the automatic stay when a creditor proves a scheme to delay, hinder, or defraud creditors involving an unauthorized property transfer or multiple bankruptcy filings.

In Re Lee · filed 2012-04-18(d)(4)

Under § 362(d)(4), a creditor must prove that (1) the debtor engaged in a scheme, (2) to delay, hinder or defraud the creditor, and (3) which involved either the transfer of property without the creditor’s consent or court approval or multiple filings.

Section 362(d) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when years of missed mortgage payments leave a creditor undersecured, and also when the debtor has no equity and the property is unnecessary to reorganization.

In RE McFADDEN · filed 2012-05-09(d)(1), (d)(2)

This Court has also found that a debtor’s continuous failure to make both pre-petition and post-petition payments to an undersecured creditor constitutes cause. ... Cause clearly exists in this case. Uncontested testimony established that Debt- or has not made a mortgage payment in over three years, and BONYM is owed for additional months beyond that time period. The payoff amount on the loan is significantly greater than the value of the property. The Court finds that Saxon has established cause for relief from stay under section 362(d)(1). ... As noted above, there is no equity in the property, and in fact there is a substantial lack of equity. This is a chapter 7 case, and therefore the property is not necessary for reorganization. Both elements of section 362(d)(2) are satisfied.

Section 362(d)(4) requires affirmative findings of all three statutory elements before a court grants two years of prospective in rem relief from the automatic stay.

In re: First Yorkshire Holdings, Inc. · filed 2012-05-10(d)(4)

For the court to grant relief under § 362(d)(4), and thus trigger two years of prospective relief as to the subject real property, it must affirmatively find that the three elements above are present.

Section 362(d)(1) authorizes relief from the automatic stay when a secured creditor lacks adequate protection, and § 362(d)(2) authorizes relief when the debtor has no equity in the property and no reasonable possibility of a successful reorganization within a reasonable time.

In re Ellis · filed 2012-07-03(d)(1), (d)(2)

Having already concluded that Debtor is without sufficient monies to fund a plan, the court also determines that NBT Bank’s security interest in the Property is not adequately protected, and that NBT Bank is entitled to stay relief pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). ... Debtor has no equity in the Property. ... Because there is no reasonable possibility for Debtor’s successful reorganization within a reasonable time, NBT Bank is also entitled to stay relief pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2).

Section 362 allows a bankruptcy court to lift the automatic stay so litigation involving the debtor can continue in another forum.

Murrin v. Hanson (In re Murrin) · filed 2012-08-20

The bankruptcy court can lift the automatic stay to allow litigation involving the debtor to continue in another forum.

Section 362 permits modification of the automatic stay to allow a creditor to pursue a state court action on a debt determined to be nondischargeable.

Chriswell v. Alomari (In re Alomari) · filed 2013-02-14

The automatic bankruptcy stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362 is modified to allow ... Plaintiff to proceed in state court to pursue her claims in the foregoing action.

Section 362(d)(2) requires relief from the automatic stay when the debtor has no equity in the property and the property is unnecessary to an effective reorganization.

In re GAC Storage El Monte, LLC · filed 2013-03-19(d)(2)

The Court finds that pursuant to Sections 362(d)(2)(A) and (B), the Debtor does not have equity in the Property and that such Property is not necessary to an effective and timely reorganization.

Section 362(d)(2) permits relief from the automatic stay when the debtor lacks equity in property and fails to show that the property is necessary to an effective reorganization.

In re Vegt · filed 2013-04-30(d)(2)

Debtors proposed to begin an organic farming operation on the New York property, but they did not meet their burden of showing that this property is “necessary to an effective reorganization.” Therefore, First Security Bank is entitled to relief from the stay on the New York property.

Section 362(d)(1) permits limited relief from the automatic stay so a state court can decide whether a debtor owes a creditor costs, expenses, and attorney’s fees incurred because of the bankruptcy filing.

In re Mattick · filed 2013-07-25(d)(1)

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1), Ms. Bryan is granted relief from the automatic stay for the limited and sole purpose of obtaining from the Mecklenburg County District Court a ruling regarding whether the Debtor is responsible for payment of Ms. Bryan’s costs and expenses, including a reasonable attorney’s fee, incurred due to the Debtor’s bankruptcy filing.

Section 362(d) permits a court to deny relief from the automatic stay without prejudice when the parties have not addressed relevant provisions of an approved disclosure statement.

In re Holt · filed 2013-09-12(d)

Neither First Citizens nor the Holts have addressed the impact of these provisions in the Disclosure Statement, which this Court finally approved and which is referenced in the Confirmed Plan, on the motion for relief from stay before the Court. Therefore, First Citizens’ motion for relief from stay is denied without prejudice at this time.

Relief from the automatic stay may allow a creditor to obtain a deficiency judgment while requiring a further court order before the creditor can enforce it.

In re Friedberg · filed 2013-11-21(d)

Thus, although P & O were not prohibited from seeking and obtaining a deficiency judgment, they were barred from enforcing any such deficiency judgment without the further order of this court, which they neither sought nor received.

Section 362(d)(1) permits a court to deny retroactive annulment of the automatic stay after balancing the equities, including the creditor’s knowledge of the bankruptcy and the effect of relief on reorganization.

In re Reisbeck · filed 2014-02-13(d)(1)

Having considered the factors from Gasprom and Fjeldsted and having balanced the equities, this Court concludes that nunc pro tunc relief from the stay as requested by the IRS is not an appropriate exercise of the Court’s discretion, and that Debtor’s motion for turnover of the $25,050.56 should be granted and the IRS’s motion for nunc pro tunc relief from the stay should be denied so that the Debtor may proceed to propose a repayment plan.

A creditor’s failure to turn over estate property does not bar relief from the automatic stay or relieve the debtor of its burden under § 362(g).

In re Flatbush Square, Inc. · filed 2014-04-09(g)

Although it appears that CBO did not comply with this requirement, in that CBO remains in possession of the Properties, the Debtor has cited no authority to support the proposition that this prevents CBO from seeking relief from the automatic stay, or relieves the Debtor of its burden under § 362(g). A review of the ease law uncovers no support for the Debtor’s proposition that a party who has violated the automatic stay may not seek stay relief, while multiple cases have found stay relief appropriate notwithstanding those circumstances.

Section 362(d)(1) does not provide cause to lift the automatic stay to exercise a purchase option invalid under § 541(c)(1)(B).

In re Denman · filed 2014-07-24(d)(1)

Dr. Rack, naked of his asserted option to purchase, cannot establish sufficient cause under a totality of the existing facts and circumstances to warrant a termination of the automatic stay under § 362(d)(1).

Section 362(d)(2) does not require stay relief merely because a creditor asserts that a quitclaim deed makes real property unnecessary for a Chapter 13 reorganization.

In re Primes · filed 2014-09-26(d)(2)

Alpine Bank seeks relief under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2) for certain real estate located in Rockford, Illinois, arguing that the Debtor is not entitled to possession by virtue of a Quit Claim deed given to the bank in connection with a forbearance agreement. Alpine Bank contends that the plan’s proposed treatment of the property as remaining vested in the Debtor in her proposed Chapter 13 plan is invalid and, therefore, the property is not necessary for her effective reorganization. For the reasons discussed herein, the motion is denied.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when the hardship to a party seeking relief considerably outweighs the hardship to the debtor from lifting the stay.

OneBeacon Insurance v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee (In re Archdiocese of Milwaukee) · filed 2014-11-05(d)(1)

The bankruptcy court abused its discretion because the hardship to One-Beacon through maintenance of the stay considerably outweighs any hardship to the Debtor caused by lifting the stay.

Section 362(d)(2) requires relief from the automatic stay when the debtor has no equity in the property and a successful reorganization is not reasonably possible within a reasonable time; a pending appeal alone does not keep reorganization in prospect years after the petition.

Village Green I, GP v. Federal National Mortgage Ass'n · filed 2014-12-01(d)(2)

The Court finds no error in the Bankruptcy Court’s decision to lift the automatic stay. Village Green filed its bankruptcy petition in April 2010, and the Bankruptcy Court finally dismissed the case in 2014. Village Green has cited no case law to support its contention that reorganization remains “in prospect” so long after the initial filing of a petition but as long as the debtor has the right to appellate review of a bankruptcy decision. Therefore, the Bankruptcy Court’s order lifting the automatic stay is AFFIRMED.

Section 362(d) permits retroactive relief from the automatic stay when the equities favor annulment of the stay.

Rushmore Loan Management Services, LLC v. Kohar (In re Kohar) · filed 2015-01-07(d)

All of the relevant factors thus support a grant of the Motion insofar as it seeks retroactive relief from the automatic stay.

Section 362(d) allows a property owner whose property could be affected by a bankruptcy proceeding to seek relief from the automatic stay as a party in interest.

Ly v. Che (In re Ly) · filed 2015-04-20(d)

Because Che owns a property that could be affected by the bankruptcy proceeding, she is a “party in interest” within the meaning of § 362(d).

An order authorizing payment of secured claims from sale proceeds can implicitly grant limited relief from the automatic stay, even without expressly granting stay relief.

Woodard v. City of Philadelphia (In re Woodard) · filed 2015-06-18(d)

I conclude that, although the Sale Order did not expressly grant relief from the automatic stay to permit the City to collect its secured claims that were not included in its proof of claim, the Sale Order effectively operated as an order granting limited relief from the automatic stay.

Relief from the automatic stay under § 362(d) requires a written court order.

In re Alan · filed 2015-06-23(d)

The Court speaks through its orders; thus, to grant a request for relief from the stay under § 362(d), the Court must enter a written order.

Section 362(d)(2) permits relief from the automatic stay when the debtor has no equity in the property and the property is not necessary for an effective reorganization.

Shefa, LLC v. Oakland County Treasurer (In re Shefa, LLC) · filed 2015-07-22(d)(2)

In order to lift the stay under subsection (2), the bankruptcy court had to find that Debtor did not have any equity in the Hotel and that the Hotel is not necessary to an effective reorganization.

An order granting limited relief from the automatic stay permits only the proceedings it specifies; relief to determine a lien’s extent, validity, and priority does not authorize foreclosure.

Astoria Federal Mortgage Corp. v. Genesis Holdings, LLC · filed 2015-08-04(d)(1)

As noted previously, orders releasing cases, wholly or partially, from bankruptcy proceedings are to be construed nar- rowly, and there was no permission to allow any party to foreclose its security interest. The order clearly con- templated the Superior Court’s deciding only the specif- ically referred issues; further disposition was to occur in the Bankruptcy Court. Because no party, nor the court, had the authority to proceed with foreclosure in these circumstances, the defendant could not lawfully have proceeded to foreclose its lien in any event.

Section 362(d)(1) permits retroactive annulment of the automatic stay for cause when a creditor lacked actual knowledge of the stay and would be unfairly prejudiced if the stay could be raised against it.

In re Wilson · filed 2015-08-28(d)(1)

Principles of equity support the granting of retroactive relief from the automatic stay whenever a creditor without actual knowledge of the stay would be unfairly prejudiced if the debtor could raise the stay as a defense.

Compelling circumstances can justify holding the final relief-from-stay hearing more than thirty days after the preliminary hearing without automatically terminating the stay under § 362(e)(1).

San Bernardino City Professional Firefighters Local 891 v. City of San Bernardino (In re City of San Bernardino) · filed 2016-01-12(e)(1)

This series of events constitutes the “compelling circumstances” required to hold the final hearing more than thirty days after the preliminary hearing. Accordingly, the stay did not automatically terminate under § 362(e)(1).

Section 362 does not bar creditors from pursuing state law fraudulent conveyance claims once the bankruptcy court has lifted the automatic stay covering those claims.

In Re: Tribune Company Fraudulent Conveyance Litigation · filed 2016-03-24(a)(1)

For the foregoing reasons, we hold that appellants’ claims are not barred by Section 362.

Section 362’s automatic stay no longer bars creditors from asserting state law constructive fraudulent conveyance claims after stay relief orders and a confirmed reorganization plan permit those claims.

In Re: Tribune Company Fraudulent Conveyance Litigation · filed 2016-03-29(a)(1)

Thus, under both the bankruptcy court’s orders and the confirmed reorganization plan, if appellants had actionable state law, constructive fraudulent conveyance claims, assertion of those claims was no longer subject to Section 362’s automatic stay.

Section 362’s automatic stay no longer bars creditors’ state-law fraudulent conveyance claims after the bankruptcy court lifts the stay and a confirmed reorganization plan permits those claims.

Note Holders, Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas v. Large Private Beneficial Owners · filed 2016-03-29(a)(1)

Thus, under both the bankruptcy court’s orders and the confirmed reorganization plan, if appellants had actionable state law, constructive fraudulent conveyance claims, assertion of those claims was no . longer subject to Section 362’s automatic stay.

Section 362(d)(1) allows a court to deny relief from the automatic stay when the proposed underlying claim is not viable.

In re Flintkote Co. · filed 2016-07-26(d)(1)

And because the claim was not viable, the Court did not abuse its discretion ... in denying Frederick’s request to lift the automatic stay.

Section 362 does not entitle an unsecured creditor to relief from the automatic stay to pursue property of the bankruptcy estate.

In re Hooper · filed 2016-08-15(d)

However, an unsecured creditor is not entitled to relief from the automatic stay to pursue property of the bankruptcy estate.

Section 362 requires notice and a hearing before the court grants relief from the automatic stay; a debtor cannot bypass that requirement through Bankruptcy Rule 6009.

In re Ace Track Co. · filed 2016-09-13

Section 362 makes clear that the automatic stay remains in effect until, among other things, an order otherwise is entered by the court. 11 U.S.C. § 362(c). It further makes clear that such an order may only be obtained after notice and a hearing. 11 U.S.C. § 362(d). The express requirements of the statute may not be impliedly abrogated by the Bankruptcy Rules.

Under § 362(d)(1), relief from the automatic stay for cause may be denied when litigating a creditor’s claim would substantially disrupt the bankruptcy case and prejudice other creditors.

In re Sunedison, Inc. · filed 2016-09-13(d)(1)

Applying the relevant Sonnax factors, the Court concludes that the Motion should be denied. Prosecution of the Merger Litigation at this time will interfere substantially with the progress of the bankruptcy case,'(Factor #2), and prejudice the interests of the other creditors, (Factor #7), by diverting the Debtors’ resources and personnel at a critical time in the case.

Section 362(d)(2) permits relief from the automatic stay when the debtor has no equity in property and the property is unnecessary for a reasonably possible reorganization.

In re Hueramo · filed 2017-02-09(d)(2)

Section 362 states that the automatic stay may be modified for property when the debtor does not have any equity in the property and the property is not necessary for reorganization. ... In this case, Debtor has not satisfied his burden. The only method of potential reorganization presented to the court was by modifying Byline Bank’s secured claim. As discussed above, Debtor is not permitted to avoid the anti-modification provisions of Section 1822(b)(2). The court remains unconvinced that there is a reasonable possibility that Debtor can successfully reorganize. As a result, Byline Bank’s motion to modify the stay is granted.

Section 362(d) permits relief from the automatic stay when the debtor fails to show that the creditor is adequately protected and that the property is necessary for an effective Chapter 13 reorganization.

Spencer v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. · filed 2017-03-30(d)

In particular, the court agrees with Judge Furay that relief from the stay is warranted under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d) because Spencer failed to demonstrate that (1) PNC Bank is adequately protected; and (2) the property is necessary for effective reorganization as a Chapter 13 debtor.

An in rem stay relief order binds the property in a bankruptcy filed within two years, including when a subsequent owner files the bankruptcy.

Dials v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. (In re Dials) · filed 2017-09-30(b)(20), (d)(4)

Pursuant to sections 362(b)(20) and (d)(4), the in rem order is binding on the subject property inasmuch as this bankruptcy was filed within the two-year limitation. ... Here, the order is binding on Mr. Dials because he is the subsequent owner of the subject property.

Section 362(d)(1) permits retroactive relief from the automatic stay for cause when the balance of equities, including prejudice and irreparable injury, supports it.

Howell v. Law Offices of Andrew S Bisom · filed 2017-10-05(d)(1)

The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in granting appellees retroactive relief from the automatic stay because it properly balanced the equities and concluded that appellees would suffer prejudice and irreparable injury.

Section 362(a)'s automatic stay, as applied in PROMESA Title III proceedings, may be lifted to allow litigation through final judgment while leaving execution and enforcement stayed.

Asociación de Salud Primaria de P.R., Inc. v. Commonwealth (In re Fin. Oversight & Mgmt. Bd. for P.R.) · filed 2018-07-10(a)

The automatic stay imposed by 11 U.S.C. Section 362(a) as made applicable to these PROMESA Title III proceedings by Section 301 of PROMESA is lifted to the extent necessary to permit the State Court Action and related appeals to proceed through the entry, but not the execution or enforcement, of final judgment.

Section 362(b)(24) excludes from the automatic stay an authorized postpetition transfer of estate property that is not avoidable under §§ 544 or 549.

In re Stiletto Mfg., Inc. · filed 2018-07-19(b)(24)

Therefore, pursuant to § 362(b)(24), the transfer of title to the Boat is not subject to the automatic stay, and relief from stay is unnecessary.

Section 362(d)(1) requires a relevant interest in property to obtain relief from the automatic stay based on lack of adequate protection.

Peaje Investments LLC v. PR Highways and Transportation · filed 2018-08-08(d)(1)

With the only asserted lien (a statutory lien) found not to exist, for purposes of this appeal Peaje claims no relevant property interest necessary to compel relief from the automatic stay. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) (requiring the bankruptcy court - 23 - to grant relief from the automatic stay "for cause, including the lack of adequate protection of an interest in property of [a] party in interest" (emphasis added)); id. § 922(b) (incorporating section 362(d) into section 922).

Section 362(d)(1) requires a party seeking relief from the automatic stay for lack of adequate protection to have a relevant interest in property.

Peaje Invs. LLC v. Fin. Oversight & Mgmt. Bd. for P.R. (In re Fin. Oversight & Mgmt. Bd. for P.R.) · filed 2018-08-08(d)(1)

With the only asserted lien (a statutory lien) found not to exist, for purposes of this appeal Peaje claims no relevant property interest necessary to compel relief from the automatic stay.

Section 362(d)(4) permits an in rem stay relief order to bind a later debtor even if that debtor did not participate in the scheme to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors.

In re Greenstein · filed 2018-08-14(d)(4)

A debtor does not have to be part of the scheme to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors for section 362(d)(4) to apply to the debtor's bankruptcy.

Section 362(d) stay relief to litigate a claim in state court may be denied when it would delay bankruptcy administration, prejudice the debtor and other creditors, and no cause or other ground for relief is shown.

In re Devey · filed 2018-08-17(d)

The Court also finds that considering § 362 relief to allow the adjudication of the Claim in state court at such a late stage would cause significant delay and be prejudicial to case administration and to the interests of Debtor and other creditors. Finally, the Petersons made no showing of "cause" or other grounds for the stay to be lifted under § 362(d).

Section 362(d) permits denial of stay relief while rent payments adequately protect a landlord and the debtor shows a commitment to effective reorganization.

In re Bos. Language Inst., Inc. · filed 2018-11-13(d)

Because the Debtor is providing RREF with adequate protection and has demonstrated a commitment to an effective reorganization, the Court denies RREF's Stay Relief Motion without prejudice to renewal in the event the Debtor fails to file a plan of reorganization and disclosure statement on or before February 15, 2019.

Section 362(d)(4) requires affirmative findings on all three elements of the statutory scheme before a court grants two years of in rem relief from the automatic stay.

In re: Benzeen Inc. · filed 2018-12-18(d)(4)

Correspondingly, for “the court to grant relief under § 362(d)(4), and thus trigger two years of prospective relief as to the subject real property, it must affirmatively find that the three elements above are present.” Id. at 870–71. Here, the bankruptcy court did not set out separate findings of fact and conclusions of law, nor did it affirmatively find the three elements required for § 362(d)(4) relief.

Section 362 permits lifting the automatic stay, to the extent it applies, so related proceedings can be completed.

Oetting v. Sosne (In Re Green Jacobson, P.C.) · filed 2018-12-28(a), (d)

We construe Part I of the bankruptcy court’s Order dated November 29, 2016, as lifting the automatic stay in bankruptcy to the extent it might otherwise apply to the completion of the proceedings in the MDL Action mandated by our decision in the Cy Pres Case. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), (d); see generally In re Blan, 237 B.R. 737, 739-40 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 1999). We affirm that ruling. It is now law of the case in this Chapter 7 proceeding.

Section 362(d) permits bankruptcy courts to grant retroactive relief from the automatic stay after weighing the equities of the particular case.

In re: Ronald Bruce Staton · filed 2019-02-27(d)

But the bankruptcy court had considerable discretion to fashion relief, including making relief retroactive.

Section 362 permits modification of the automatic stay to allow a claimant to litigate against a debtor and recover a judgment or settlement solely from available insurance coverage.

Furmanite America, Inc., Furmanite Corporation, Furmanite Louisiana, LLC F/K/A Furmanite US Gsg LLC, Southcross Energy P · filed 2019-06-10

The Stipulation attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is approved. ... The Automatic Stay is hereby modified in Furmanite America, Inc. et al. v. Lisa Bueno Martinez, No. 18-0957 (Tex.), pending in the Supreme Court of Texas, solely to the limited extent necessary to enable (a) the Supreme Court of Texas to determine all pending Petitions for Review, (b) the Claimant to proceed against all defendants in a fully adversarial trial and judgment, (c) the Claimant to proceed with settlement demands, negotiations, and a settlement agreement, and (d) the Claimant to recover any liquidated final judgment or settlement on the Claims solely from Available Coverage.

Section 362’s automatic stay no longer bars creditors’ state law constructive fraudulent conveyance claims after stay relief and a confirmed reorganization plan permit the claims to proceed.

In Re: Tribune Company Fraudulent Conveyance Litigation · filed 2019-12-19

Thus, under both the bankruptcy court’s orders and the confirmed reorganization plan, if appellants had actionable state law, constructive fraudulent conveyance claims, assertion of those claims was no longer subject to Section 362’s automatic stay.

Relief from the automatic stay under § 362(d)(2) requires both a lack of debtor equity in the property and that the property be unnecessary to an effective reorganization.

Great Southern Golf Club, Inc. · filed 2020-01-23(d)(2)

Section 362(d)(2) is written in the conjunctive; both (A) and (B) must be satisfied before a court may grant relief from the automatic stay under this subsection.

Section 362(d)(1) does not warrant relief from the automatic stay when maintaining it causes the creditor no hardship because its claim would remain time-barred even if the stay were lifted.

EAGLE ONE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION v. CAMPANILE · filed 2020-01-27(d)(1)

Therefore, as the Bankruptcy Court concluded, relief from the stay is not appropriate here because Eagle One suffers no hardship as a result of the stay being maintained.

Relief from the automatic stay extends only to the actions authorized by the order; excess foreclosure proceeds outside that relief remain subject to the stay.

Louis Michael Goldberg · filed 2020-03-27(a)(3)

If a change outside of the confines of the order lifting stay occurs, such as the creation of proceeds in excess of the foreclosing creditor’s security interest, those assets remain subject to the automatic stay.

A secured creditor granted relief from the automatic stay may foreclose on the property during the debtor’s Chapter 13 case.

Dirdala v. Wells Fargo Bank · filed 2020-04-29

In sum, Wells Fargo was granted the right to foreclose its Deed of Trust on Dirdala’s Property on June 20, 2019 and thus, when the Trustee sold the Property to a third party at the Trustee Sale on December 6, 2019, Wells Fargo was permitted to do so.

A state court foreclosure judgment gives its holder standing to seek relief from the automatic stay under § 362(d).

IN RE: AMY CHRISTINE DONAGHY · filed 2020-05-28(d)

As found by the bankruptcy court, the Consent Judgment, as a matter of law, confers standing to seek relief from the stay.

Relief from the automatic stay for the limited purpose of obtaining a judgment permits the nonbankruptcy court to enter judgment against the debtor.

Tratt Industries, LLC v. Patterson · filed 2020-07-21

However, the Automatic Stay associated with Shepard’s filing of bankruptcy has been lifted. On June 1, 2020, the Pattersons obtained an order from the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Kansas granting them relief from the Automatic Stay “for the limited purpose of obtaining an entry of judgment” against Mr. Shepard in the instant lawsuit. Doc. 81-1. Based on that Order, the Court may now—and hereby does—adopt Judge Yarbrough’s findings and recommendations regarding Plaintiff Shepard, dismissing all of his claims with prejudice and in addition, entering default judgment against him on the claims asserted by the Pattersons in their Counterclaim for Damages and Accounting.

Section 362(a)(1) automatically stays an action against a debtor; when the bankruptcy court grants relief to pursue that action, the district court may lift its stay of the litigation.

Bell v. Koss · filed 2020-08-07(a)(1)

This action was stayed as against EEC automatically under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1), and against the remaining Defendants because there was no way to litigate the claims against those Defendants without implicating EEC. See ECF No 84. Because the Bankruptcy Court has now lifted the stay in order to permit Plaintiff to proceed with this litigation, there is no reason for the action to remain stayed as against any of the Defendants. Accordingly, the stay is LIFTED.

Section 362(d) does not entitle a creditor with no interest in debtor-owned property to relief from the automatic stay.

Patterson Dental Supply, Inc. v. Aesthetic Dentistry of Charlottesville, PC · filed 2020-09-24(d)

Having found Patterson to lack an interest in the Equipment and ADC to own the Equipment, the court finds Patterson ineligible for relief from the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d).

A bankruptcy court may consider waiver when deciding whether a creditor has a colorable interest in property for relief from the automatic stay.

Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Schleicher & Stebbins Hotels · filed 2020-10-01(d)(2)

Waiver is a potential defense that the bankruptcy court may consider in deciding whether the creditor has a colorable interest in the property that is the subject of a stay relief motion.

Relief from the automatic stay is construed strictly; an order allowing an assignor to pursue its claim does not authorize a preexisting assignee to pursue the assigned portion of that claim.

IAG Engine Center Corp. v. Cagney Global Logistics, Inc. · filed 2020-11-17(a)

Strict construction of the Agreed Order’s terms compels the conclusion that the involvement of Underwriters in this suit was not contemplated by the Agreed Order and therefore violates the automatic stay.

Section 362(d)(4) permits in rem stay relief when the timing of a property transfer and bankruptcy filings, together with related litigation conduct, supports an inference of intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors.

Buczek v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC · filed 2021-02-17(d)(4)

After reviewing the record, this Court concludes that the in rem relief provided in Judge Bucki’s order on October 1, 2019 was within the scope of 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(4) and, thus, was not an abuse of discretion. The timing of the transfer of the property and the bankruptcy filings; the record of appeals, objections, and other filings in this case, and Judge Bucki’s familiarity with the facts of both Buczek’s and his mother’s bankruptcy cases permitted Judge Bucki’s inference of an intent to hinder, delay, and defraud creditors.

Section 362(d) lets a court tailor relief from the automatic stay even when the movant has a colorable claim and meets the statutory conditions; it need not allow litigation in another forum.

Assured Guaranty Corp. v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico · filed 2021-03-03(d)

Therefore, even assuming the Monolines did have a colorable claim and the conditions of § 362(d) were met, they would not be entitled to the exact relief they seek. The Title III court retains discretion to institute other forms of appropriate stay relief.

Section 362(d)(1) requires a party seeking relief from the automatic stay to make an initial showing of cause for that relief.

Treasures London Limited v. Keswani · filed 2021-05-13(d)(1)

Plaintiffs have failed to submit any argument establishing “cause” for the requested relief from the stay in either the Amended Complaint or Motion. ... Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ request for a default judgment on their requests for relief from the automatic stay.

Section 362(d) permits relief from the automatic stay when a creditor lacks adequate protection or when the debtor has no equity in property unnecessary to an effective reorganization.

Richard Archibald McGrath and Jane McGrath · filed 2021-06-02(d)(1), (d)(2)

Here, the Bank’s claims standing alone exceed the value of the Commercial Property. Further, given that Debtors have no rights in the revenue generated by the Commercial Property, they have failed to show that they can provide adequate protection in the absence of an equity cushion and that the Commercial Property is necessary to an effective reorganization. As a result, relief from the automatic stay is warranted under § 362(d)(1) and § 362(d)(2).

Section 362(d)(1) and (d)(2) permit relief from the automatic stay when the creditor lacks adequate protection, the debtor has no equity in the property, and the property is unnecessary to an effective reorganization.

Richard Archibald McGrath and Jane McGrath · filed 2021-06-10(d)(1), (d)(2)

Further, given that Debtors have no rights in the revenue generated by the Commercial Property, they have failed to show that they can provide adequate protection in the absence of an equity cushion and that the Commercial Property is necessary to an effective reorganization. As a result, relief from the automatic stay is warranted under § 362(d)(1) and § 362(d)(2).

Section 362(d) permits a bankruptcy court to grant retroactive relief from the automatic stay by modifying or annulling it with conditions, validating an action filed during the stay.

RAVOTTI v. ONEJET, INC. · filed 2021-07-01(d)

Thus, the Court concludes that the Bankruptcy Court’s order, considered in its entirety, in effect modified or annulled the automatic stay with certain specific conditions, as permitted by Section 362(d) of the Bankruptcy Code, validating the earlier filing of Plaintiff’s Complaint so that the case could continue and limiting the source of any judgment that may be obtained in the case.

Section 362(d)(1) requires a proper request for relief from the automatic stay after notice and a hearing; a request made in an objection to recognition of a foreign proceeding is insufficient.

Culligan Ltd. and Michael Morrison · filed 2021-07-02(d)(1)

As pointed out by the Foreign Representatives, the New York Plaintiffs have not properly moved for stay relief and cannot make such a request in the context of an objection to the Recognition Motion. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) (stating that stay relief is available “[o]n request of a party in interest and after notice and a hearing”).

Section 362(d) permits a bankruptcy court to lift a stay retroactively when the order as a whole conveys that effect, even if it uses the word “terminated” rather than “annulled.”

RAVOTTI v. ONEJET, INC. · filed 2021-09-24(d)

Rather, the Court held that Plaintiff’s claim is not barred by the statute of limitations because the Bankruptcy Court’s order, when considered in its entirety, effectively modified or annulled the automatic stay with certain specific conditions as permitted by 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)2 and despite using the word “terminated” instead of “annulled.”

A recorded in rem order granting relief from the automatic stay under § 362(d)(4) binds a later bankruptcy case affecting the same property, even if the later debtor was not a party to the earlier case.

Fitzhugh v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A · filed 2022-03-29(d)(4)

It matters not that Fitzhugh was not a party to her husband’s bankruptcy proceeding. ... The Court finds, based on the in rem order, that Fitzhugh’s bankruptcy petition does not give rise to an automatic stay.

When a bankruptcy court lifts the automatic stay for all actions necessary to modify a domestic support obligation, § 362 does not bar opening the dissolution judgment or awarding retroactive alimony.

Simms v. Zucco · filed 2022-08-23(a)

Contrary to the defendant’s argu- ment, the order of the Bankruptcy Court expressly per- mitted the plaintiff to take ‘‘all actions necessary’’ to modify the defendant’s alimony obligation, and there is no limitation that such modification be accomplished without opening the judgment that fixed the defendant’s alimony payments. Likewise, there is nothing in the Bankruptcy Court’s order prohibiting the plaintiff from seeking, and the court from ordering, that the defendant pay retroactive alimony.

Section 362(d)(1) permits a creditor to ask the bankruptcy court to lift the automatic stay for cause so the creditor can establish the debtor’s liability as a predicate to recovery from an insurer.

Doorage, Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company · filed 2022-11-01(d)(1)

Although the Underlying Action was automatically stayed under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), Doorage can move the bankruptcy court to “grant relief from the stay . . . for cause,” solely to establish Blue Crates’s liability for copyright infringement.

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

Tihi Restaurant Corp. · filed 2023-02-03(d)(1)

Therefore, based on the above analysis, Landlord is not adequately protected, and cause exists to lift the stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1).

Section 362(d)(2) requires a court considering relief from the automatic stay to determine the debtor’s equity in the property, which requires valuing the property.

ATX Debt Fund 1, LLC v. Paul · filed 2023-03-21(d)(2)

Under Section 362(d), before lifting an automatic stay, the bankruptcy court must establish the extent of a debtor’s “equity” in the property. The equity determination, as a definitional matter, necessarily includes establishing an asset’s valuation.

Section 362(d)(4) permits two-year in rem stay relief when a creditor secured by real estate proves that multiple bankruptcy filings were part of a scheme to frustrate foreclosure.

Zeyad Awadallah · filed 2023-07-19(d)(4)

However, Bauer’s request for “in rem” relief under §362(d)(4) is denied without prejudice. Section 362(d)(4) permits a court to enter an order terminating the bankruptcy stay in future cases for two years where such relief 1s requested by a creditor whose claim is secured by real estate and who can prove that a debtor’s “multiple filings” were part of a “scheme” to frustrate foreclosure. 11 U.S.C. §362(d)(4). This is only the Debtor’s second bankruptcy case and for that reason there is not a sufficient basis upon which to make such a finding.

Section 362(d)(2) permits relief from the automatic stay for property in which the debtor has no equity and that is unnecessary to reorganization; a Chapter 7 case involves no reorganization.

Kirby v. Mohamed · filed 2023-08-18(d)(2)

Section 362(d)(2) permits the Bankruptcy Court to lift the stay with respect to property if the debtor doesn’t have equity in it, and the property isn’t necessary to reorganization. Because Mr. Kirby rented the property from Mr. Mohamed, Mr. Kirby did not have equity in it. And because Mr. Kirby filed for Chapter 7, there is no reorganization at stake.

Only the bankruptcy court may grant relief from the automatic stay under § 362(d).

Joseph v. Stryker Corp. · filed 2023-10-11(d)

This matter is stayed pending resolution of that proceeding, (ECF No. 74,) and only the bankruptcy court may grant relief from the stay.

Section 362(d)(1) provides relief from the automatic stay as to property, without lifting the stay on personal claims against the debtor.

Farms, LLC v. Isom · filed 2023-10-26(d)(1)

Section 362(d)(1) thus provides for stay relief against property, not the debtors individually.

Section 362(d) requires a demonstrated basis for relief from the automatic stay, such as lack of adequate protection or the debtor’s lack of equity in the property.

Angela Renae Smith · filed 2024-01-18(d)

Here, the City has not demonstrated any basis for granting relief from the stay under section 362(d) such as a lack of adequate protection of its interest in the Property or that the Debtor does not have equity in the Property.

Section 362(d)(4) permits in rem relief from the automatic stay when a creditor establishes that the bankruptcy filing was part of a scheme to delay, hinder, or defraud creditors involving an unauthorized transfer of an interest in the property or multiple bankruptcy filings affecting it.

In Re: Jose Galvan v. Phh Mortgage Corporation · filed 2024-02-06(d)(4)

To obtain relief under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(4), the creditor must establish that (1) the “debtor’s bankruptcy filing [was] part of a scheme”; (2) “the object of the scheme [was] to delay, hinder, or defraud creditors”; and (3) “the scheme . . . involve[d] either (a) the transfer of some interest in the real property without the secured creditor’s consent or court approval, or (b) multiple bankruptcy filings affecting the property.” In re First Yorkshire Holdings, Inc., 470 B.R. at 870.

Section 362(d)(4) permits in rem relief from the automatic stay when multiple bankruptcy filings affecting real property are part of a scheme to delay, hinder, or defraud a secured creditor.

PACIFIC PANORAMA, LLC · filed 2024-02-20(d)(4)

Second, the court concludes that the three bankruptcy cases filed between 2021 and 2023 by Debtor and 17K West Sunset affect the South Land and easily satisfy the requirement for multiple bankruptcy filings under § 362(d)(4). ... The subsequent actions on the heels of that relief from stay convincingly demonstrate that what the court charitably construed as the aggressive use of bankruptcy is now revealed to be a scheme to delay, hinder, or defraud Kwala. ... For these reasons, the court concludes that the elements for relief under § 362(d)(4) have been abundantly satisfied.

Section 362(d) requires an initial showing of cause to lift the automatic stay, assessed under the applicable Sonnax factors.

In Re: Christopher Mongiello · filed 2024-02-22(d)

A movant for relief from the automatic stay in a bankruptcy court proceeding is required to make an initial showing of ‘cause’ for relief from the stay. A number of factors [called the Sonnax factors] are relevant in determining whether cause to lift the automatic stay exists. ... The record reflects that the Bankruptcy Court identified the proper legal standard in 11 U.S.C. § 362(d) and considered the applicable Sonnax factors.

Section 362(a) requires relief from the automatic stay before a party may seek sanctions against a debtor in a pending bankruptcy case.

Odonata Ltd. · filed 2024-02-22(a)

Odonata itself remains in bankruptcy as a chapter 7 debtor to which the automatic stay applies. 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). Mr. Nieves also is a debtor in a pending case. If Baja were to seek sanctions against Odonata or Mr. Nieves it would need first to obtain relief from the automatic stays in their bankruptcy cases.

Section 362(d)(4) in rem relief from the automatic stay permits a foreclosure sale during a later bankruptcy filing while the relief order remains effective.

Dates v. HBSC · filed 2024-02-29(d)(4)

Similarly, despite Plaintiffs’ continued insistence to the contrary, (Doc. 9, #51–52), no violation of the bankruptcy court stay could have occurred when HSBC initiated a Sheriff’s sale of the Hazelhurst property in late 2018. The bankruptcy court rejected this spurious argument that Plaintiffs now rehash and offered the following observation: no automatic stay barred the sale as “HSBC had previously obtained in rem relief from the automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(4) in Case Number 18-13150 by order entered on October 9, 2018 and the relief granted was valid for a period of two years [Case Number 18-13150, Docket Number 26].” Dates XVII, 2024 WL 120028, at *7 n.7.

Section 362(d)(4) permits relief from the automatic stay when the creditor has standing to seek it and the debtor acted with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors.

In Re: Vien-Phuong Ho v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. · filed 2024-11-26(d)(4)

The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by granting HSBC’s motion for relief from the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(4) because HSBC established its standing to seek relief from the automatic stay, and the bankruptcy court’s determination that Ho had acted with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors was not clearly erroneous.

Relief from a bankruptcy court’s automatic stay must be sought from the bankruptcy court.

DAY v. HARRY · filed 2025-01-22

But any request for relief from the stay must be made to the Bankruptcy Court.

A motion for relief from the automatic stay under § 362 must be filed in the bankruptcy court handling the bankruptcy case.

Richardson v. Gardner · filed 2025-01-27

If Plaintiff or a non-debtor defendant wishes to file a motion for relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362, the motion must be filed with the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, 515 Rusk Street, Houston, Texas 77002 in the bankruptcy case (In re Wellpath Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-90533).

Section 362(d) requires a request for relief from the automatic stay to identify a statutory basis for that relief.

Law Office of Brandon A. Rotbart, P.A. v. Seraphin · filed 2025-05-21(d)

But it fails to cite, let alone address, 11 U.S.C. § 362(d) or any basis thereunder for stay relief.

Voluntary dismissal can moot a request to annul the automatic stay, and a lengthy bar to refiling can make prospective stay relief unnecessary.

Gregory Brian Myers · filed 2025-06-11

However, because the Debtor voluntarily dismissed this chapter 13 case, the question of annulment of the stay is moot. Furthermore, given the ten (10) year bar to refiling, the Court finds that prospective relief from the stay is unnecessary and may be duplicative.

Section 362(d) supports relief from the automatic stay when unpaid mortgage obligations leave a creditor without adequate protection or when the debtor has no equity in property that is unnecessary to an effective reorganization.

Jeffrey Mike Mazzone and Lynn Marie Mazzone · filed 2025-08-01(d)(1)–(2)

As such, cause exists to grant MTGLQ relief from the automatic stay. ... Therefore, the Debtors do not have any equity in the property and could not utilize same for an effective reorganization. This prong of the Bankruptcy Code also supports granting relief from the automatic stay.

Section 362(d)(4)(B) permits an in rem order preventing the automatic stay from applying to later petitions affecting real property for two years when multiple bankruptcy filings were part of a scheme to delay or hinder foreclosure.

Robert Todd Houle · filed 2025-08-21(d)(4)(B)

Second, the Court finds that the filing of multiple bankruptcy petitions by Mr. Houle was part of a scheme to delay and hinder Wells Fargo from foreclosing its mortgage against the Property, justifying the imposition of an in rem injunction. Under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(4)(B), it is ORDERED that the automatic stay under § 362(a) will not be in effect as to any other bankruptcy petition, filed within 2 years of this Order, purporting to affect the property located at 1108 Cheese Factory Road, Town of Mendon, New York.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause to allow state-court litigation to determine liability when that litigation helps resolve the dispute without interfering with the bankruptcy case or other creditors’ rights.

Manchanda · filed 2025-09-24(d)(1)

The Court concludes that the Bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in reaching this decision. ... And relief is unlikely to interfere with the work of the Bankruptcy Court or the rights of other creditors (as the relief would be limited to determination of liability between the two Parties).

Section 362(d) permits a bankruptcy court to annul the automatic stay retroactively to validate a foreclosure sale when the circumstances justify relief.

In re Sharrmaine V'Nell Lucille Curtis · filed 2025-10-22(d)

For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the Motion, will annul the automatic stay, and grant retroactive relief to Wells Fargo to validate the August 6, 2024, foreclosure sale of the Property.

Section 362(d)(1) allows relief from the automatic stay for cause, while § 362(d)(4)(B) allows relief against real property when repeated bankruptcy filings form a scheme to hinder or delay a creditor.

Gloria Faye Johnson · filed 2025-12-10(d)(1), (d)(4)(B)

The Court finds that sufficient and good ‘cause’ exists under Section 362(d)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code, as well as evidence of a scheme by the Debtor to hinder and delay under Section 362(d)(4)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code, to grant U.S. Bank relief from the stay with respect to the Property.

Section 362(d)(1) does not treat pending prepetition litigation alone as cause to lift the automatic stay; stay relief depends on the applicable factors and the bankruptcy court’s discretion.

Rathbun · filed 2026-03-23(d)(1)

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

Section 362's automatic stay may be lifted to permit a secured creditor to pursue its remedies when the debtor cannot avoid the creditor's lien.

Southern Discount Co. v. Howison (In re Howison) · filed 1981-04-24

The debtor therefore will not be permitted to avoid the lien of plaintiff Southern Discount Company in the principal amount of $421.15 plus interest from the last payment, and the stay imposed under 11 U.S.C. § 362 will be lifted to permit plaintiff to pursue its remedies.

Section 362 requires relief from the automatic stay before a claim against a debtor’s property may be pursued.

Ohio Ex Rel. Star Supply, Division of Star Industries, Inc. v. City of Greenfield · filed 1981-12-22

Because the claim of the United States is against the property of Rural Water, and because Rural Water is a debtor in bankruptcy, the claim of the United States can only be pursued if relief is granted from the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362.

Relief from the automatic stay to pursue a state court action is moot when the bankruptcy court has tried the claims and no further state court trial is needed.

Johnston Memorial Hospital v. Hess (In Re Hess) · filed 1982-04-15

Counsel for Plaintiffs announced before the trial commenced that all matters were being submitted to this Court, thus foregoing the need for the request for leave to proceed in state court. This Court heard evidence on the merits of each claim, thereby precluding any further trial in state court. The plaintiffs’ prayers for relief from the stay to pursue the matter in state court are, therefore, moot.

Section 362 allows the automatic stay to remain in place when the creditor is adequately protected and the debtors propose a good-faith Chapter 13 plan with a realistic possibility of completion.

Tinley Park Bank v. Phelps (In Re Kokkinis) · filed 1982-08-09

In order to determine whether the appropriate circumstances exist in the case at bar, the court should consider (1) whether or not the plaintiff is adequately protected and (2) whether or not the debtors have proposed a plan in good faith and with a realistic possibility of completion. ... Thus, this court feels that the plaintiff has adequate protection based upon the debtors equity in their home to protect the plaintiff should the debtors later fail to complete their proposed plan. ... Second, this court finds that the aforementioned plan is offered in good faith. ... Accordingly, this court denies plaintiff’s motion to modify the automatic stay provisions of § 362.

Section 362’s automatic stay remains in force against a landlord seeking to terminate a debtor’s lease when the asserted defaults do not warrant forfeiture under applicable state law.

Irving Byelas Irrevocable Trust v. KDT Industries, Inc. (In Re KDT Industries, Inc.) · filed 1983-09-07

The automatic stay provided by Bankruptcy Code § 362 will not be lifted and the Landlord is stayed from terminating the lease for Store No. 403 on the grounds of the asserted defaults.