11 U.S.C. § 362

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

Nazareth National Bank & Trust Co. v. Trina-Dee, Inc. (In Re Trina-Dee, Inc.) · filed 1983-01-12(d)(2)

Having concluded that the debtor lacks equity in the subject property and that the property is not necessary to an effective reorganization of the debtor, we shall lift the automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2).

Section 362(d) permits relief from the automatic stay when a secured claim or right of setoff is not adequately protected.

United States v. Powers (In Re Powers) · filed 1983-01-26(d)

The Court will grant relief from the stay where a secured claim or a right of setoff is not adequately protected.

Section 362(d) allows relief from the automatic stay when a setoff interest lacks adequate protection; required full payment under a Chapter 13 plan and current payments can provide that protection.

United States v. Perry (In Re Perry) · filed 1983-02-01(d)

Considering that the I.R.S. must be paid in full and that the debtors are proceeding in good faith under Chapter 13, the Court finds that the I.R.S. will receive the “indubitable equivalent” of their interest in the refund. Because the interest is adequately protected, the Court will deny the complaint for relief from the stay and Order the I.R.S. to turnover the refund to the debtors.

Relief from the automatic stay for lack of adequate protection may be conditioned on a payment to the secured creditor and continuing monthly debt service.

Huntington National Bank v. A.K. Fiberglastics, Inc. (In re A.K. Fiberglastics, Inc.) · filed 1983-01-20(d)(1)

Consequently, it must be concluded that the necessity of adequate protection is now at a critical stage, and relief from the statutory stay of the state court foreclosure proceedings must be granted unless at least $30,000.00 is paid to Plaintiff on or before the date a plan of reorganization is filed, and then debt service charges are paid monthly to Plaintiff thereafter.

Section 362(d)(1) allows a court to deny relief from the automatic stay when an equity cushion adequately protects the secured creditor.

Central Trust Co. v. Mr. D. Realty Co. (In Re Mr. D Realty Co.) · filed 1983-02-02(d)(1)

That is, in order for us to grant plaintiff the relief which it seeks, § 362(d)(1) requires that we find that there exists a lack of adequate protection for plaintiff. ... We hold that this is a reasonable equity cushion to give plaintiff adequate protection at the present time.

Section 362(d)(1) does not permit relief from the automatic stay for lack of adequate protection merely because a creditor receives the distributions prescribed by a confirmed Chapter 13 plan.

Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Landers (In Re Landers) · filed 1983-02-10(d)(1)

While, as argued by Chrysler, “adequate protection” may be an issue “subject to continuing consideration by the court,” it is not in the sense that a creditor that is bound by the terms of a confirmed plan may claim that it is not adequately protected by virtue of receiving exactly what the plan provided for such a creditor to receive.

Section 362(d)(1) permits denial of relief from the automatic stay when an equity cushion adequately protects a secured creditor’s interest.

First Eastern Bank, N.A. v. Llewellyn (In Re Llewellyn) · filed 1983-02-14(d)(1)

The request of First Eastern Bank, N.A., for relief from the stay is denied since its security interest is adequately protected.

Section 362(d)(1) allows relief from the automatic stay when the debtor fails to prove adequate protection, without requiring the creditor also to prove a lack of equity under § 362(d)(2).

Twentieth Street Bank v. J.R. Rentals, Inc. (In re J.R. Rentals, Inc.) · filed 1983-03-25(d)(1)

Since § 362(d)(1) and § 362(d)(2) are stated in the disjunctive, all that is necessary in order that plaintiff be entitled to the relief which it seeks is that we find that defendant has not proved that plaintiff is adequately protected.

Section 362(d)(1) does not require market-rate interest on an undersecured creditor’s collateral as a condition of maintaining the automatic stay when the collateral’s value is protected.

Crocker National Bank v. American Mariner Industries, Inc. (In Re American Mariner Industries, Inc.) · filed 1983-03-15(d)(1)

All things considered, it is not possible, without engaging in strained construction, to conclude that it was the intention of Congress, where the debtor is insolvent and the collateral insufficient, that the automatic stay triggers interest, at market rate, on the value of the collateral; nor was it intended that the undersecured creditor be entitled to market rate interest from the date of bankruptcy forward, as a necessary condition for maintaining the stay.

Section 362(d)(1) requires relief from the automatic stay when the debtor fails to show that a secured creditor’s interest is adequately protected.

Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Hinton (In Re Hinton) · filed 1983-04-07(d)(1)

The debtors have not shown that the creditor Metropolitan is adequately protected, which proof is mandated by § 362(d)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code, and therefore the relief requested by Metropolitan must be granted.

Section 362(d)(1) allows relief from the automatic stay for lack of adequate protection, but a debtor’s equity cushion can adequately protect a secured creditor’s interest.

Commonwealth National Bank v. Grant (In Re Grant) · filed 1983-05-06(d)(1)

Modification of the automatic stay is relief which can be afforded in order to provide a secured creditor with adequate protection. ... Bankruptcy case law has established that if the debtor’s equity in the property exceeds the interest of the secured creditor then that interest is adequately protected by the debtors’ so-called “equity cushion,” because sufficient collateral exists to satisfy that secured claim. ... We conclude that the debtors’ equity assures the plaintiff of the indubitable equivalent of its interest in the debtors’ property, and thus the plaintiff is adequately protected.

Under § 362(d)(1), a debtor’s equity in property bears on whether a secured creditor’s interest is adequately protected.

Federal Land Bank of Baltimore v. Toto (In Re Toto) · filed 1983-05-19(d)(1)

We note that equity is not only relevant to subsection (d)(2) of § 362, it is also relevant to subsection (d)(1) on the issue of adequate protection.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when a creditor’s interest is not adequately protected.

Wyandotte Bank v. Carson (In Re Carson) · filed 1983-06-02(d)(1)

The Court therefore finds that Wyan-dotte Bank’s interest is not adequately protected, and that there is sufficient cause to grant Wyandotte Bank relief from the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1).

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when missed mortgage and chapter 13 plan payments leave a mortgagee’s interest inadequately protected.

Federal National Mortgage Ass'n v. Wilson (In re Wilson) · filed 1983-06-07(d)(1)

We conclude that the mortgagee and the buyer are entitled to such relief because we find that the mortgagee’s interest in the subject property is not adequately protected because the debtors have not made any payments to the mortgagee since May 1, 1980, and because the debtors have failed to make the necessary payments under their chapter 13 plan.

Section 362(d)(1) permits a court to condition the automatic stay on measures that adequately protect a secured creditor during reorganization.

Fairchild v. Lebanon Production Credit Ass'n (In Re Fairchild) · filed 1983-07-01(d)(1)

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Defendant’s claim will be temporarily ADEQUATELY PROTECTED for purposes of proceeding with reorganization IF, pursuant to the Court’s power to condition the automatic stay in 11 U.S.C. § 362(d), Debtors maintain their herd of breeder hogs at a minimum of 225 head, and also, within forty-five days of the date that this decision is journalized, pay all accrued postpetition interest on the senior lien and keep such interest current thereafter, and also submit proof of a binding contract of sale of the subject real estate within the same forty-five day period.

Under § 362(d)(1), an equity cushion can provide adequate protection against relief from the automatic stay, though the creditor may seek relief later if that protection becomes insufficient.

Pisula v. Zimmerman (In re Zimmerman) · filed 1983-07-06(d)(1)

We think this is a correct holding and feel that the equity cushion in this case of approximately sixty five thousand ($65,000) dollars is sufficient to provide adequate protection for plaintiff. This of course would not preclude plaintiff from seeking relief at a later time upon the showing that the equity cushion does not afford adequate protection.

Section 362(d)(1) allows relief from the automatic stay when a secured creditor’s interest is not adequately protected.

Commercial Credit Business Loans, Inc. v. Philadelphia Consumer Discount Co. (In re Philadelphia Consumer Discount Co.) · filed 1983-08-16(d)(1)

We conclude, therefore, that CCBL is entitled to relief from the automatic stay pursuant to section 362(d)(1) of the Code.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay when the debtor fails to provide adequate protection of a creditor’s interest in the property.

Marble Savings Bank v. Johnson (In Re Johnston) · filed 1983-08-25(d)(1)

As such the Court must conclude that the lack of adequate protection is sufficient cause to grant relief from the stay pursuant to § 362(d)(1) in the case herein.

Section 362(d)(1) does not provide relief based on inadequate protection to a creditor with no lien or other interest in the property.

Miller v. Hodges (In Re Hodges) · filed 1983-09-13(d)(1)

The plaintiffs do not allege that they have, and, indeed, do not have, any other type of lien against the liquor license. Therefore, the plaintiffs have no “interest in property” vis-a-vis the liquor license within the meaning of § 362(d)(1).

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay when the creditor lacks adequate protection and the debtor’s equity in the collateral is small and diminishing.

Walker v. Pliss (In re Pliss) · filed 1983-09-13(d)(1)

It is apparent that any equity Ms. Pliss has in the property is at best small and diminishing rapidly. In the absence of additional adequate protection the plaintiff cannot be expected to wait until her obligation exceeds the value of the collateral. Accordingly, plaintiff is granted relief from the automatic stay to foreclose its interest.

Section 362(d)(1) requires relief from the automatic stay if the debtor fails to adequately protect a creditor’s interest in property.

Town of Westport v. Inn at Longshore, Inc. (In Re Inn at Longshore, Inc.) · filed 1983-09-15(d)(1)

Under Code sections 362(d)(1) the bankruptcy court is required to grant a creditor relief from the automatic stay if the debtor does not provide adequate protection for that creditor’s interest in property.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay when a creditor substantiates that an insufficient equity cushion leaves its security interest inadequately protected and the debtor does not rebut that showing.

American Bank & Trust Co. of Pa. v. Ram Manufacturing, Inc. (In Re Ram Manufacturing, Inc.) · filed 1983-09-16(d)(1)

In addressing § 362(d)(1) the bank asserts that relief can be granted “for cause” due to the lack of a sufficient equity cushion protecting its security interest. A creditor’s substantiated averments on this basis, if not refuted or undercut by the debtor, are sufficient for granting relief under § 362(d)(1).

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay when an equity cushion alone does not adequately protect the secured creditor.

Margell v. Bouquet Investments (In Re Bouquet Investments) · filed 1983-09-21(d)(1)

On the facts of this case, I find that an equity cushion alone is insufficient to support the stay and, accordingly, I grant relief.

Section 362(d)(1) treats a mortgagee that pays the debtor’s property taxes without reimbursement as lacking adequate protection of its interest.

Ridgewood Savings Bank v. Houston (In Re Houston) · filed 1983-09-28(d)(1)

Instead the reverse is true: a mortgagee who pays the taxes owed by the mortgagor and is not reimbursed therefor is not adequately protected.

Section 362(d) requires a creditor seeking adequate protection or possession of its collateral to request relief from the bankruptcy court.

Lahman Manufacturing Co. v. First National Bank of Aberdeen (In Re Lahman Manufacturing Co.) · filed 1983-10-07(d)

The creditor, however, has the obligation to ask the Court to provide adequate protection or, if none is forthcoming, possession of the creditor’s collateral. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(d).

Section 362 permits adequate protection through monthly payments on the secured portion of a creditor’s claim while the stay remains in place.

Bank of Virginia v. Lindamood (In Re Lindamood) · filed 1983-11-09

Adequate protection of BVA under § 362 may be provided pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 361 by monthly payments upon the secured portion of its debt determined by 11 U.S.C. § 506(a).

Section 362 permits the automatic stay to continue for a secured creditor if the debtor provides adequate protection through monthly mortgage interest payments and an escrow for accruing property taxes.

Matter of Kensington Manor Joint Venture · filed 1983-11-25(d)

ORDERED that the stay imposed in this case by 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) be and hereby is modified as to the First Bank (N.A.) to be continued to June 1, 1983, and thereafter for so long as the debtor shall pay on or before June 1, 1983, and each month thereafter, a sum equal to the interest accrued on the mortgage of the First Bank during the prior month ... or until further order of this court.

Section 362(d)(1) allows an equity cushion to adequately protect a secured creditor against stay relief, although erosion of the cushion can eventually defeat that protection.

Federal Land Bank v. Carson (In Re Carson) · filed 1983-10-27(d)(1)

This Court agrees with the emerging view of bankruptcy courts, that an erosion of the equity cushion may negate the inherent protection of such cushion. But in the case at bar, the cushion has not yet eroded sufficiently enough to negate the protection a cushion otherwise would afford. Thus, the Court will deny relief from stay at this time.

Section 362(d)(1) protects a creditor’s allowed secured claim when deciding stay relief for lack of adequate protection; recourse rights against third parties are excluded from that protected interest.

General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Radden (In Re Radden) · filed 1983-11-30(d)(1)

GMAC’s allowed secured claim cannot be based on an interest in property in which the estate has no interest and since adequate protection here is limited to the amount of GMAC’s allowed secured claim, the Court need not consider the third-party recourse rights in determining GMAC’s “interest in property” for purposes of § 362(d) adequate protection.

Section 362 permits relief from the automatic stay when the debtor cannot adequately protect the secured creditor’s interest in collateral.

Brookfield Production Credit Ass'n v. Borron · filed 1983-12-14(d)(1)

This Court cannot say with respect to either the determination that the costs debtors seek to offset did not confer any actual benefit on plaintiff or the conclusion that debtors lacked the means to adequately protect plaintiff’s interest, that the findings of the Bankruptcy Court are clearly erroneous. This Court, therefore, will not disturb its decision, based on these findings, to grant plaintiff relief from the automatic stay.

Section 362(d)(1) does not authorize relief from the stay for lack of adequate protection when the creditor is adequately protected.

In Re London Tiles, Inc. · filed 1983-12-21(d)(1)

As has already been shown, the Bank is adequately protected, thereby precluding relief from stay based on 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1).

Under § 362(d)(1), a third-party guaranty whose scope the guarantor disputes does not adequately protect a secured creditor’s interest in collateral.

LaSalle National Bank v. Harrow Leasing Corp. (In Re Harrow Leasing Corp.) · filed 1983-12-21(d)(1)

The critical difficulty with the Fokker guaranty is that it is a disputed “guaranty” over which the possibility of litigation prevails. And while the guaranty obviously speaks for itself, we find it dis-positive, for purposes of determining whether the secured lenders’ interests are adequately protected, that a controversy over the interpretation of said guaranty exists. Consequently, we conclude that the instant guaranty does not constitute adequate protection of the secured lenders’ interest in the aircraft.

Section 362(d)(1) requires protection against a decline in the value of a secured creditor’s lien even when the property has enough equity to pay the debt in full.

In Re Hagendorfer · filed 1984-01-03(d)(1)

If the value of the lien has decreased following the filing of the petition in bankruptcy, the secured creditor is entitled to protection, even if there is sufficient equity to pay the indebtedness in full on foreclosure or liquidation.

Section 362(d)(1) permits a stay to remain in effect when a debtor adequately protects a mortgagee against erosion of a small equity cushion by interest and taxes.

In Re Jenkins · filed 1984-01-27(d)(1)

Accordingly, the Court finds a small, but eroding, equity cushion. Thusly, the Court is satisfied that the stay should remain in effect with the proviso that the BUSSE’s interest in the property is adequately protected by the Debtor to prevent the complete erosion of said equity cushion by the accrual of interest and taxes, including the issuance of tax certificates.

Section 362(d)(1) allows relief from the automatic stay when the debtor fails to give a secured creditor reasonable assurance that the value of its interest in property is and will remain protected.

Smith v. Cooley (In Re Cooley) · filed 1984-03-15(d)(1)

The plaintiffs are entitled to relief from the stay pursuant to § 362(d)(1) because the defendants have failed to provide adequate protection of the plaintiffs’ interest in the subject mobile home. The term “adequate protection” is not defined in the Bankruptcy Code. At the least, however, it means that a secured creditor must be given reasonable assurance that the value of its secured interest in an item of property is, and will continue to be, protected by the debtor.

Section 362(d)(1) does not always require compensation for the lost time value of an undersecured creditor’s collateral as adequate protection.

In Re Rowe · filed 1984-05-16(d)(1)

After reviewing these and other authorities and for the reasons stated in those cases, the Court adopts the position of the latter-cited authorities that the concept of adequate protection does not in all instances require protection of or compensation solely for the time value of an undersecured creditor’s collateral.

Section 362(d)(1) permits a brief continuation of the automatic stay when granting the secured creditor rental income reasonably protects its interest in the collateral.

In Re Francis · filed 1984-05-31(d)(1)

Movant would probably be forced to rent the property and would receive as its only income the rental payments. Thus, a brief delay in Movant being allowed access to its collateral together with the granting to Movant of the income from property is reasonable in the circumstance.

Under § 362(d)(1), junior liens cannot be counted against the equity cushion protecting a senior lienholder when deciding whether to lift the automatic stay for lack of adequate protection.

In Re Eli Kenneth Mellor and Lisa Mellor, Debtors. Raymond G. Pistole and Raymond R. Bragg v. Eli Kenneth Mellor and Lis · filed 1984-06-12(d)(1)

Although the existence of a junior lien may be relevant in determining “equity” under § 362(d)(2), it cannot be considered in determining whether the interest of a senior lienholder is adequately protected.

Section 362(d)(1) entitles a secured creditor to adequate protection against a decline in collateral value after the debtor files for bankruptcy.

Mid-South Bank & Trust Co. v. Cabe, Inc. (In Re Cabe, Inc.) · filed 1984-06-19(d)(1)

Under § 362(d)(1) a creditor is entitled to protection from a decrease in the value of its collateral as of the date of the filing of the debtor’s bankruptcy petition.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay when a small equity cushion fails to adequately protect a secured creditor and the debtor provides no additional protection.

In Re Kertennis · filed 1984-07-13(d)(1)

There are several factors in the instant proceeding which indicate that the minimal equity cushion (less than 4% of the market value of the property) fails to provide adequate protection to the SBA’s interest. ... The debtor having failed to meet her burden of proof regarding adequate protection, the SBA’s motion for relief from the automatic stay is granted pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1).

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay when the debtor offers only an inadequate, rapidly eroding equity cushion to protect a secured creditor.

Hagendorfer v. Marlette · filed 1984-07-31(d)(1)

This court is not inclined to follow the reasoning of the Bankruptcy Court in its entirety. There may be cases in which an equity cushion would provide the creditor adequate protection. In the present case, however, as will be shown more fully below, the equity cushion offered is plainly inadequate, and continues to deteriorate rapidly. For this reason, this court affirms the conclusions of the Bankruptcy Court. This court at this time neither accepts nor rejects the “equity cushion” theory as a possible analysis for the determination of adequate protection.

Under § 362(d)(1), adequate protection for a secured creditor may be measured by the rental value of collateral the debtor uses during the stay.

In re Rolanco, Inc. · filed 1984-08-02(d)(1)

As stated in its May 16, 1984 opinion, this Court believes that Movant is entitled to compensation equal to the rental value of the land in question.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay when a small equity cushion, unpaid property taxes, and declining property values leave a secured creditor without adequate protection.

In Re Pond · filed 1984-08-08(d)(1)

In the present instance, the equity cushion protecting the interest of the Federal Land Bank is a mere 5.7 percent. Property taxes remain unpaid, and land values in the area continue to decrease. The Court cannot find under these circumstances that the creditor’s interest remains protected.

Section 362(g) places the burden on the debtor to establish that a secured creditor’s interest in property is adequately protected.

In re Davenport · filed 1984-10-09(g)

The burden of establishing that a secured creditor’s interest in property is adequately protected is on the debtor. 11 U.S.C. § 362(g).

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when the debtor offers no adequate protection for a secured creditor’s interest in property.

In Re Irving A. Horns Farms Inc. · filed 1984-08-31(d)(1)

Since the Debtor-in-Possession has not provided any offer of adequate protection for Thorp’s interest in the real estate this Court has no choice but to lift the stay on the real estate for cause as provided in 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1).

Section 362(d)(1) requires adequate protection for an undersecured creditor against collateral value lost since the bankruptcy filing and foreseeable future depreciation while the stay continues.

In Re Wolsky · filed 1984-09-07(d)(1)

Thus, debtors must propose payments which will adequately compensate the un-dersecured creditor from prior decreases in the value of its collateral incurred since the commencement of the bankruptcy proceeding. Absent evidence of an imminent dismissal of the case or confirmation of a plan, the debtors must also provide as adequate protection compensation for any decline in value which the property is likely to suffer in the foreseeable future.

Section 362(d)(2) permits relief from the automatic stay when the debtor has no equity in the property and fails to show a reasonable possibility of successful reorganization within a reasonable time.

In re Smith · filed 1984-09-10(d)(2)

Therefore, we find that the debtors have no equity in the property. ... As to the “effective reorganization” issue, the debtors, of course, have the burden of proof. 11 U.S.C. § 362(g). While we sympathize with their plight, the debtors have presented no evidence “that there is a reasonable possibility of a successful reorganization within a reasonable time.” ... For the foregoing reasons, American Bank shall be granted relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 362(d)(1) permits an equity cushion to provide adequate protection for a secured creditor and prevent relief from the automatic stay.

Matter of Melson · filed 1984-11-01(d)(1)

The Bank and Mrs. Dillon are not entitled to relief under (d)(1) because their interest in the collateral is adequately protected by the substantial equity cushion that exists.

Under § 362(d)(1), proof of an anticipated decline in collateral value makes a prima facie case for relief from the automatic stay and shifts the burden to the debtor to show adequate protection.

In Re Borchers · filed 1984-11-02(d)(1)

Given Travelers’ proof of the anticipated future decline in real estate prices Travelers has established a prima facie case for relief from the stay. Since Travelers has established a prima facie case that the stay should be lifted, the burden of proof with respect to the adequate protection is shifted to the Debtors-in-Possession.

A debtor may provide adequate protection to a lessor under § 362(d)(1) by paying the rent required by the lease.

In Re Dabney · filed 1985-01-11(d)(1)

In this case, in order to provide adequate protection to the lessor, the debtor must pay to the lessor the rental amounts provided for in the lease.

Section 362(d) permits market value to be used in assessing whether a secured creditor is adequately protected during the automatic stay when the equities of the case support it.

Prudential Insurance Company of America v. Monnier · filed 1985-03-01(d)

Instead, the adequate protection requirements apply primarily in the context of preconfirmation proceedings. See, e.g., 11 U.S.C. Sec. 362(d). ... Even though the issue may be moot, the parties have not so treated it and we have considered Prudential's arguments that it was not adequately protected during pendency of the stay. We find these arguments to be without merit. ... Use of the market value was not inappropriate--legislative history indicates that in an adequate protection dispute, "determination of which entity should be entitled to the difference between the going concern value and the liquidation value" should be decided according to the equities of the particular case.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when a secured creditor’s interest lacks adequate protection and the debtor offers no evidence of adequate protection.

In Re Augustus Court Associates · filed 1985-02-20(d)(1)

The debtor has not countered with any evidence that the security interest is adequately protected and thus relief from the automatic stay may properly be entered under § 362(d)(1) “for cause” due to a lack of adequate protection.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay when a debtor cannot adequately protect a secured creditor’s interest in its collateral.

In Re Lilyerd · filed 1985-03-14(d)(1)

Because PCA is entitled to adequate protection and because Debtors have not, will not, and can not provide it, PCA is entitled to relief from stay under § 362(d)(1).

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay when the debtor relies on an equity cushion for adequate protection but the property has no such cushion.

Valley Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Aled Corp. (In Re Aled Corp.) · filed 1985-03-11(d)(1)

In that the debt- or’s defense to stay relief under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) is premised upon the existence of an equity cushion as adequate protection of the plaintiff’s interest in the property, ... we conclude that the plaintiff is entitled to relief from the stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1).

Section 362(d)(1) does not require relief from the automatic stay when an equity cushion and ongoing payments adequately protect the creditor.

In Re Wright · filed 1985-03-12(d)(1)

Moreover, the substantial value cushion above Teitel’s purported second trust, plus the Debtors’ unre-butted testimony that the first and third trusts are current and that the first trust payments include taxes and insurance, plus the Debtors’ Court-ordered monthly adequate-protection payments to Teitel, all together constitute fully adequate protection. Thus, Teitel is not entitled to relief under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1).

When the automatic stay continues to prevent cancellation of an insurance policy, the debtor may be required to pay accrued and ongoing premiums as adequate protection under § 362.

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Hilyard Drilling Co. (In re Hilyard Drilling Co.) · filed 1985-06-07

The stay as to Policy No. SMP030805093 shall not be relaxed. Debtor shall, as adequate protection under 11 U.S.C. § 362, within 30 days from the entry of the Order of this same date pay all premiums earned since the filing of the petition up to the date of this Memorandum Opinion. As further adequate protection, the debtor shall pay at least once monthly all premiums as they accrue.

Section 362(d)(1) requires relief from the automatic stay for cause when a secured creditor’s interest in estate property lacks adequate protection.

In Re Topper · filed 1985-05-15(d)(1)

... the court shall, if requested, grant relief from the automatic stay for cause, including the lack of adequate protection of the value of a secured creditor’s interest in estate property during the period between the filing of the petition and the confirmation of a plan (or dismissal of the case).

Section 362 permits a court considering relief from the stay to require periodic payments that adequately protect a landlord while the debtor occupies leased premises.

In Re Ted Liu's Szechuan Garden, Inc. · filed 1985-05-24(d)(1)

This Court has decided only what amount of periodic payments is required in order to provide "adequate protection” to the Landlord for the tenant’s use and occupancy of the demised premises during an interim period while this case remains pending.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay when a secured creditor lacks adequate protection because the equity cushion is insufficient and accrued interest has eliminated it.

In Re Craig · filed 1985-06-24(d)(1)

We find that the equity cushion of $6,292.80 ($430,000.00 minus $423,707.20) which existed as of February 13, 1985 was clearly insufficient to protect the Bank’s interest in the subject property. Furthermore, the accrued interest of approximately $4,345.00 per month since that time has already more than eliminated even that very slim equity cushion. Therefore, we conclude that there is no equity cushion from which the Bank’s interest might be adequately protected, without even considering the possibility of assessing the Bank’s likely foreclosure costs against the fair market value of the subject property.

Section 362(d) permits a secured creditor to obtain relief from the automatic stay to repossess collateral when adequate protection is not feasible.

First State Bank v. Advisory Information & Management Systems, Inc. (In Re Advisory Information & Management Systems, In · filed 1985-06-27(d)

If adequate protection is not feasible, the creditor may receive relief from the stay to repossess its collateral. 11 U.S.C. § 362(d).

Section 362(d)(1) does not require adequate protection when the automatic stay causes no decrease in the value of the creditor’s interest in property.

In re Errington · filed 1985-08-08(d)(1)

The crucial issue here is, therefore, what damage the stay has caused to FmHA’s interest in Debtors’ property. FmHA is already temporarily enjoined for reasons totally unrelated to these Debtors’ bankruptcy filings from foreclosing upon the Debtors’ loans from FmHA. Therefore, this Court sees no damage that FmHA is suffering from the imposition of the automatic stay in this case.

Section 362(d)(1) does not require interest payments as adequate protection for an undersecured creditor when the stay causes no loss to its collateral interest.

In Re Penny · filed 1985-09-09(d)(1)

Where the continuation of prohibition against lien enforcement is not detrimental to the secured creditor, and the delay occasioned by the automatic stay results in no loss to the undersecured creditor, adequate protection need not include interest payments on the collateral’s liquidation value.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for lack of adequate protection; an equity cushion can provide protection only when the debtor has equity in the property.

Hillyard Farms v. White County Bank · filed 1985-09-12(d)(1)

The debtors never met or even attempted to meet their burden of showing adequate protection. Furthermore, while the existence of an adequate equity cushion could constitute adequate protection, since the debtors have no equity in the property no equity cushion exists.

Section 362(d)(1) requires termination of the automatic stay when the debtor fails to provide adequate protection for a secured creditor’s collateral.

Northern Trust Co. v. Leavell (In Re Leavell) · filed 1985-09-06(d)(1)

The directive of the Code to the Court that the automatic stay must be terminated unless the debtor provides adequate protection is nondiseretionary and mandatory. 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1).

Section 362(d)(2) permits relief from the automatic stay when a Chapter 7 debtor has no equity in the property.

Southtrust Bank of Alabama v. Toffel (In Re Blackerby) · filed 1985-09-24(d)(2)

The Bank will be entitled to relief from the automatic stay if it can show that the debtor has no equity in the automobile. 11 U.S.C. Section 362(d)(2) (1984).

Section 362(d)(1) allows a stay to continue when an equity cushion adequately protects the secured creditor, and continuation may be conditioned on monthly payments to prevent erosion of that protection.

Nor-Der Associates v. Boyajian (In re Clayton) · filed 1985-11-19(d)(1)

Considering the amount due monthly under the terms of the modified agreement ($135), the interest of Nor-Der is still adequately protected as of the date of this decision. However, to protect Nor-Der’s position against future erosion, continuation of the stay is conditional on the debtor making regular monthly payments as required under the terms of the March 15, 1984 modified promissory note.

A Chapter 7 debtor may keep the automatic stay in effect during reaffirmation negotiations by providing the secured creditor adequate protection.

In Re Cobb · filed 1985-12-13(d)(1)

However, there is no logical reason why the debtors should not be able to have the stay remain in effect even in a Chapter 7 case by offering a secured creditor adequate protection while the debtors attempt to negotiate a reaffirmation.

Section 362(d)(1) permits the automatic stay to continue for an undersecured creditor when its collateral is preserved and its interest is adequately protected.

In Re Sheehan · filed 1986-02-19(d)(1)

In the instant case, the Court concludes that the automatic stay should be continued and that the interests of Prudential are adequately protected. Prudential was undersecured at the time the petition was filed. The collateral subject to Prudential’s mortgage has been well-preserved and maintained since the date of filing.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for lack of adequate protection; a debtor with no equity in the property cannot rely on an equity cushion to provide that protection.

American Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Sedona San Carlos Development Co. (In Re Sedona San Carlos Development Co.) · filed 1986-03-17(d)(1)

Pursuant to subsection 362(d)(1) the lack of adequate protection of an interest in property of the party seeking relief is one cause for relief, “but it is not the only cause.” ... Since movant has shown that debtor has no equity in the property, adequate protection may not be inferred, for there is no equity cushion.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay when a secured creditor lacks an equity cushion or other adequate protection.

In re Goulin Realty, Inc. · filed 1986-04-23(d)(1)

Based on the entire record, Greenwood is clearly entitled to foreclose, because of the absence of an equity cushion or other evidence of adequate protection.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay when debtors fail to prove they can provide adequate protection to secured creditors.

Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States v. Marchand (In Re Marchand) · filed 1986-04-24(d)(1)

The Court concludes that the debtors have not met their burden of proving that they can provide adequate protection pursuant to § 362(d)(1).

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay when a creditor’s interest in collateral is not adequately protected, or an adequate protection order instead.

Multi-Photo, Inc. v. Mark Twain Bank of St. Charles County, N.A. (In Re Multi-Photo, Inc.) · filed 1986-04-30(d)(1)

Under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1), relief from the stay should be granted where the creditor’s interest in the collateral is not adequately protected. Alternatively, the court can approve an adequate protection order.

Section 362(d) permits a bankruptcy court to require adequate protection for secured creditors as a condition of maintaining the automatic stay, with protection determined case by case.

Ahlers v. Norwest Bank Worthington · filed 1986-07-02(d)

We hold that the bankruptcy court may, as a condition to maintaining a stay of proceedings by creditors against the debtors’ property, require that the debtors furnish adequate protection to the secured creditors to protect against further loss to those creditors.

Section 362(d)(1) requires adequate protection for an undersecured creditor from the time the creditor moves for relief from the automatic stay.

In Re Roberts · filed 1986-07-18(d)(1)

Instead, we hold that adequate protection must be provided from the time that the undersecured creditor moves for such relief.

Section 362(d) permits adequate protection payments for a secured creditor’s delayed foreclosure and reinvestment, but those payments begin only when the creditor could have taken possession, sold the collateral, and reinvested the proceeds under state law.

Ahlers v. Norwest Bank Worthington · filed 1986-09-24(d)

Payments to protect the creditor's right to reinvestment return on foreclosure proceeds should not begin until, under state law, the creditor could have taken possession of the collateral, sold it to a third party, and reinvested the proceeds.

Section 362(d)(1) requires adequate protection against a decline in collateral value beginning when the creditor could have sold the property absent bankruptcy.

In Re Asbridge · filed 1986-10-15(d)(1)

Adequate protection for decline in value may follow at some later time, beginning when the property could have been sold but for the bankruptcy.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay when a rapidly eroding equity cushion does not adequately protect a secured creditor.

In Re Park West Hotel Corp. · filed 1986-10-02(d)(1)

The Debtor’s exclusive reliance on a rapidly eroding equity cushion is insufficient to protect Yankee Bank’s financial interests. ... Thus, allowance of Yankee Bank’s Motion for Relief from Stay under section 362(d)(1) is justified under the circumstances of the case.

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

Chase Commercial Corp. v. Donald Benson Accessories, Inc. · filed 1986-10-08(d)(2)

The Court finds that DBA has no equity in that portion of the transfer which appellant has garnished regardless of the value of the transfer. ... Additionally, the Court notes that since DBA filed a voluntary Chapter 7 petition, reorganization is not an issue. ... The Court further ORDERS that the automatic stay under the Bankruptcy Code is lifted to permit appellant to pursue its remedy of garnishment against the Ben-sons.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay when an anticipated lawsuit settlement and unproven equity in other property fail to show adequate protection for the seller.

In Re Polay · filed 1986-10-28(d)(1)

However, we find that the “impending settlement” is far too speculative for the purposes of showing adequate protection under section 362(d)(1). Moreover, the fact that the debtor owns property which is currently under an agreement of sale is equally unpersuasive for the purposes of section 362(d)(1) as there is no evidence showing the amount of equity, if any, in that property. Thus, we find that the debtor has failed to show that the seller is adequately protected as required by 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) and, accordingly, relief from the automatic stay will be granted.

Section 362(d)(1) entitles a secured creditor to relief from the automatic stay unless the debtor adequately protects the creditor’s interest in the collateral.

In re Kielhafner · filed 1986-10-31(d)(1)

Under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1), FmHA is entitled to relief from the stay unless Debtors furnish FmHA adequate protection for its interest in the crops.

Section 362(d)(1) permits conditioning the automatic stay on adequate protection of a secured creditor’s right under its mortgage and state law to seek a receiver and collect rents and profits during foreclosure, even if foreclosure had not begun before bankruptcy.

In Re Offerman Farms, Inc. · filed 1986-11-03(d)(1)

One of the rights bargained for between Land Bank and the Debtor, reflected in the mortgage, and provided for in the Iowa Code, is the right to file a foreclosure petition and request the appointment of a receiver to collect rents and profits. Though it had not taken this step against the Debtor before the bankruptcy filing, it is a right subject to adequate protection in this court.

Section 362(d)(1) permits an equity cushion to provide adequate protection of a secured creditor’s interest when deciding whether to modify the automatic stay.

In Re Dunes Casino Hotel · filed 1986-12-31(d)(1)

If the concept of adequate protection is deemed to protect the value of the creditor’s lien from depreciation, the existence of the substantial equity cushion in this case provides such protection. ... Accordingly, the court will deny SASA’s motion for modification of the stay under § 362(d)(1).

Under § 362(d)(1), an equity cushion alone does not always adequately protect a secured creditor; its size, rate of erosion, interim payments, and prospects for a prompt sale matter.

In Re Liona Corp., NV · filed 1987-01-05(d)(1)

However, the existence of an equity cushion, by itself does not always adequately protect the interest of a secured creditor. Various factors must also be considered. Among them are: the size of the equity cushion (sometimes expressed as a percentage of fair market value); the rate at which the cushion will be eroded; whether periodic payments are to be made to prevent or mitigate the erosion of the cushion; and, if the property is to be liquidated, the likelihood of a reasonably prompt sale.

Section 362(d)(1) requires relief from the automatic stay when a secured creditor’s property is not adequately protected.

In Re Universal Motor Express, Inc. · filed 1987-01-07(d)(1)

Be that as it may, the Court may not continue the stay as against a secured creditor where that creditor’s property is not adequately protected. 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1).

Section 362(d)(1) does not require adequate-protection payments for postpetition interest or lost opportunity cost to an undersecured creditor during the automatic stay.

United Savings Ass'n v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd. · filed 1987-01-09(d)(1)

We hold today that the adequate protection provisions of the Bankruptcy Code,... §§ 362(d)(1) and 361, do not require periodic postpetition payments for interest or lost opportunity cost to an undersecured creditor to compensate it for the delay of the Chapter 11 reorganization proceeding during the pendency of the automatic stay.

Section 362(d)(1) does not require a Chapter 11 debtor to make interest or lost opportunity cost payments to an undersecured creditor as adequate protection during the automatic stay.

In Re Timbers Of Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd. · filed 1987-01-09(d)(1)

We hold today that the adequate protection provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, 1 Secs. 362(d)(1) and 361, do not require periodic postpetition payments for interest or lost opportunity cost to an undersecured creditor to compensate it for the delay of the Chapter 11 reorganization proceeding during the pendency of the automatic stay.

Section 362(d) requires notice, a hearing, and court approval before an adequate protection agreement tied to stay relief binds the parties.

In Re Blehm Land and Cattle Co. · filed 1987-02-12(d)

More specifically, we must determine whether the Agreement, which was both an agreement settling a controversy and an adequate protection plan, required court approval before the terms of the Agreement could become binding on the parties. We conclude that court approval was required by Bankruptcy Rule 9019, and by the notice and hearing provisions of sections 362, 363, and 364.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when a decline in collateral value is not adequately protected.

In Re Domestic Fuel Corp. · filed 1987-02-24(d)(1)

The plaintiff is entitled to relief from the automatic stay for cause, as authorized under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1), because of the decline in the value of the Raab stock and the debtor’s failure to prove that it offered adequate protection to the plaintiff to compensate for this decline in value.

Section 362(d) permits a secured creditor to obtain relief from the automatic stay if its interest is not adequately protected.

Matter of Howard's Appliance Corp. · filed 1987-02-26(d)

As a secured creditor, Sanyo is entitled to an order vacating the automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d) if its interest is not being adequately protected.

A substantial equity cushion likely to grow, combined with strong reorganization prospects, can adequately protect a secured creditor and defeat relief from the automatic stay under § 362(d)(1).

In Re Grant Broadcasting of Philadelphia, Inc. · filed 1987-03-02(d)(1)

The existence of an equity cushion of the magnitude present here, which is likely to increase in size, especially since it is combined with the presence of a strong likelihood that the Debtors will be able to successfully reorganize under Chapter 11, constitutes adequate protection to the interests of the Secured Noteholders per 11 U.S.C. § 361, for purposes of 11 U.S.C. §§ 363(c)(2) and 362(d)(1).

Section 362(d)(1) does not allow relief from the automatic stay for lack of adequate protection when adequate protection is offered and the creditor refuses it.

In Re Miller Development Corp. of Louisiana · filed 1987-03-06(d)(1)

I further conclude that when adequate protection is offered and refused, then lack of that adequate protection is not “cause” for relief from the stay under § 362(d)(1).

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for lack of adequate protection, and a court may condition the stay on cash payments that protect a secured creditor’s interest.

In Re Greives · filed 1987-03-17(d)(1)

11 U.S.C. § 362(d), set out above, states that the automatic stay shall be vacated or modified for cause such as the failure to provide adequate protection to the secured creditor. 11 U.S.C. § 361 enumerates certain, non-exclusive methods for providing adequate protection. Subsection 1 sanctions cash payments or periodic cash payments. Thus, this Court may order cash payments by the Debtor to the creditor as adequate protection of the secured creditor's interest. By issuing such an order, this Court satisfies 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1).

Section 362(d)(1) allows relief from the automatic stay for lack of adequate protection, but payments for the licensed programming a debtor uses adequately protect the licensors while those payments continue.

In Re Grant Broadcasting of Philadelphia, Inc. · filed 1987-03-30(d)(1)

We believe that the Debtors’ voluntarily remittance of payments for whatever programming they use does constitute adequate protection to the Programmers’ rights. Whether performance of anything less could constitute adequate protection is not before us. If and only if the Debtors do not maintain their present and intended further payment performance would we consider granting relief on the § 362(d) aspect of the Programmers’ motion.

Section 362(d)(2) requires a creditor seeking relief from the automatic stay to show that the estate has no equity in the property.

In Re Nashua Trust Co. · filed 1987-04-29(d)(2)

Accordingly, Barclays has not shown that the estate has no equity in the Notes and is denied relief from the automatic stay under § 362(d)(2).

Section 362(d)(1) calls for consideration of collateral value, likely changes in value, reorganization prospects, and plan performance when deciding whether a secured creditor has adequate protection against stay relief.

In Re Tashjian · filed 1987-05-05(d)(1)

First, we believe that determination of whether a secured lender received “adequate protection” from a debtor requires an analysis of all of the relevant facts, with a particular focus upon the value of the collateral, the likelihood that it will depreciate or appreciate over time, the prospects for successful reorganization of the Debtor’s affairs by means of the Plan, and the Debtor’s performance in accordance with the Plan.

A third-party guarantee can provide adequate protection of a creditor’s interest when the creditor seeks relief from the automatic stay.

In Re Eureka Southern Railroad Inc. · filed 1987-04-21(d)(1)

In any event, it is clear that a third party guarantee can be a form of adequate protection.

Section 362(d) permits relief from the automatic stay when the debtor fails to show adequate protection for the creditor.

In Re Walton · filed 1987-07-08(d)

The Debtors having failed to meet their burden of proof as to adequate protection, the stay should be relieved.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when the debtor fails to provide adequate protection to a mortgagee.

Kessler v. Merrill Lynch Mortgage Corp. (In Re Kessler) · filed 1987-07-22(d)(1)

We therefore conclude that the Mortgagee is entitled to relief under § 362(d)(1) for “cause,” because the Debtor has failed to provide adequate protection.

Under § 362(d)(1), the realism of a debtor’s proposed reorganization plan is highly relevant to whether a creditor is adequately protected.

Mitchell v. Frankford Trust Co. (In Re Mitchell) · filed 1987-09-25(d)(1)

Without deciding whether we would follow any of these lines of cases, we observe that the element of the realism of a proposed Plan of the Debtors in effecting a successful reorganization is highly relevant in determining whether a creditor is “adequately protected” pursuant to § 362(d)(1).

Section 362(d)(1) permits an equity cushion to adequately protect a secured creditor and support denial of stay relief despite missed post-petition mortgage payments.

In Re Heath · filed 1987-11-19(d)(1)

In spite of debtor’s failure to make any post-petition mortgage payments, we find that the current equity cushion adequately protects Mid-States’ interest. Thus, we deny the motion without prejudice to any refiling by Mid-States at a later date.

Section 362(d)(1) does not entitle an undersecured creditor to interest on its collateral during the automatic stay as adequate protection for delayed foreclosure.

United Sav. Assn. of Tex. v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd. · filed 1988-01-20(d)(1)

The Fifth Circuit correctly held that the undersecured petitioner is not entitled to interest on its collateral during the stay to assure adequate protection under 11 U. S. C. § 362(d)(1).

Section 362(d)(1) permits stay relief for lack of adequate protection, but speculative stock value does not warrant relief on that ground.

In Re Salem Tool Co. · filed 1988-02-10(d)(1)

The Bankruptcy Code allows relief from the stay to be granted if there is a lack of adequate protection of Movant’s interest in the property. ... For the time being, attempts to value Movant’s stock would require the Court to indulge in purely subjective measurements so as to make any determination wholly speculative. Such speculation is not warranted in these circumstances.

Section 362(d)(2) does not permit relief from the automatic stay when the moving creditor fails to prove that the debtor lacks equity in the collateral; the court then need not decide whether the property is necessary to reorganization.

Matter of Cardell · filed 1988-02-10(d)(2)

As the moving party has not sustained its burden of proof with respect to the debtors lack of equity in the collateral, relief from the stay should not be granted under § 362(d)(2) and there is no reason for the court to make a determination as to whether the residence is necessary for an effective reorganization.

Section 362(d) requires denial of relief from the automatic stay when feasible plan payments and commitments to pay ongoing property charges adequately protect the creditor’s interest.

Fox v. Hill (In Re Fox) · filed 1988-03-03(d)

If the Debtor is able to propose payments to the Defendant via a reasonably-feasible Plan and make other commitments and payments sufficient to maintain the future taxes, water and sewer bills, and insurance against the property, the interest of the Defendant in the Premises will be adequately protected, thus requiring denial of the Defendant’s § 362(d) motion.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when the debtor fails to establish adequate protection of a creditor’s interest in property.

Grimes v. Munoz (In Re Munoz) · filed 1988-03-09(d)(1)

Grimes has an interest in stock owned by Munoz. The Munozes did not carry their burden to establish that this interest is being adequately protected. Thus, Grimes is entitled to relief from the stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) for cause.

Under § 362(d)(1), missed prepetition payments alone do not require relief from the automatic stay when the debtor adequately protects the secured creditor.

In Re Capodanno · filed 1988-03-03(d)(1)

Adequate protection will effectively counter any contention that failure to remit past payments is “cause” for relief from the stay under § 362(d)(1), and a realistic and feasible Plan, including payments sufficient to retain a debtor’s residence will perforce establish that the premises is necessary to an effective reorganization, thus preventing relief from the stay under § 362(d)(2).

Section 362(d)(1) allows a court to deny relief from the automatic stay when an equity cushion adequately protects the secured creditor and no other cause for relief is proven.

First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Warner Robins v. Standard Building Associates, Ltd. (In Re Standard Building Assoc · filed 1988-03-15(d)(1)

Since there is an equity cushion in the subject property in excess of $430,-000.00, the court concludes that the equity cushion is sufficient to provide adequate protection to First Federal. ... No other “cause” for lifting the stay has been proven. Consequently, First Federal’s motion to lift stay under Section 362(d)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code is also denied.

Section 362(d)(1) entitles a secured creditor seeking relief from the automatic stay to adequate protection for the debtor’s continued use of its collateral.

In Re McLean Industries, Inc. · filed 1988-03-24(d)(1)

With Prudential having demanded that the automatic stay be vacated against the Vessels, it was entitled to adequate protection by virtue of § 362(d)(1) for their continued use by the Debtors through their being chartered to Sea Land.

Section 362(d)(1) permits adequate protection payments to an undersecured creditor only to address a decline in collateral value during the stay, not the cost of delayed foreclosure.

In Re Anderson · filed 1988-04-15(d)(1)

Although § 1205(b)(3) provides authority for this Court to order adequate protection based on the fair rental value of the land, if required, this provision need only be resorted to by the Court if there is an interest in property that must be protected under § 362(d)(1) as defined by Timbers. ... Accordingly, undersecured creditors may now only receive the most common form of adequate protection, payments over time, but only to the extent necessary to protect such creditors from a decrease in the value of their collateral during the pendency of the case.

Under § 362(d)(1), adequate protection covers decline in collateral value from the petition date, even when the secured creditor seeks stay relief later.

Lincoln National Life Insurance v. Craddock-Terry Shoe Corp. (In Re Craddock-Terry Shoe Corp.) · filed 1988-05-26(d)(1)

The Court finds that Lincoln and Westinghouse are entitled to adequate protection for all decline in the value of the collateral since the petition date.

Section 362(d)(1) does not entitle an undersecured creditor to compensation for delay in foreclosing on collateral during the automatic stay.

In Re Cimarron Investors, Debtor. Cimarron Investors v. Wyid Properties · filed 1988-06-03(d)(1)

The Supreme Court in Timbers squarely addressed this question and held that undersecured creditors are not entitled to compensation under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) for the delay caused by the automatic stay in foreclosure on collateral. ... Because Timbers squarely overrules the case upon which the bankruptcy court relied in granting a modification of the automatic stay, this court must reverse the bankruptcy court’s decision.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay when a debtor offers no payments or other adequate protection for a secured creditor’s interest.

Mays v. United States, Department of Housing & Urban Development (In Re Mays) · filed 1988-05-05(d)(1)

However, not having reached this conclusion, we are compelled to grant HUD relief from the automatic stay under § 362(d)(1). ... She presented no evidence that she would make payments, nor make any other performance which might constitute adequate protection of HUD’s secured interest in the premises.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for lack of adequate protection when a lien on future crops is too speculative to protect a creditor’s current interest in cash.

Matter of Lundell Farms · filed 1988-05-13(d)(1)

The alternative ground for relief found in section 362(d) “for cause, including lack of adequate protection” is supported by the facts developed on this motion. ... In most cases, a bare replacement lien on future, non-existent crops is too speculative to constitute adequate protection. ... Therefore, relief from stay must be granted and CCC may proceed to setoff the unpaid amounts due on the subject contracts which it now holds.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay if a debtor fails to bring court-ordered adequate protection payments current.

Fair Savings v. Sherwood Square Associates (In Re Sherwood Square Associates) · filed 1988-06-09(d)(1)

Consequently, Fairfax will be granted relief from stay unless Debtor promptly brings current the adequate protection payments which were awarded to Fairfax.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay when a creditor lacks adequate protection; a contingent, unliquidated lawsuit is insufficient to provide that protection.

In Re Ziegler · filed 1988-07-01(d)(1)

The next question is whether debtor has met his § 362(g) burden. Debtor claims that the pending lawsuit adequately protects Hill’s interests. We hold that such a speculative funding source is insufficient to provide adequate protection.

Under § 362(d)(1), a three percent equity cushion does not adequately protect a secured creditor against depreciation of its collateral.

In Re McDaniel · filed 1988-06-30(d)(1)

In this case, it appears that the sellers have an equity cushion of only 3%, disregarding costs of sale if they chose to resell the property. This is not a sufficient equity cushion to protect them from the depreciation in the value of their collateral. The court concludes that sellers are not adequately protected.

Section 362(d)(1) does not entitle an undersecured creditor to interest on its collateral as compensation for foreclosure delay caused by the automatic stay.

Rice v. Indiana Lawrence Bank (In Re Rice) · filed 1988-08-25(d)(1)

Since Timbers it is firmly established that “interest in property” does not include a creditor’s right to immediate foreclosure, and that an undersecured creditor is not entitled to interest on its collateral as compensation for delay caused by a stay in bankruptcy.

Under § 362(g)(2), debtors opposing relief from the automatic stay bear the burden of showing adequate protection; a Chapter 13 plan that cannot be confirmed does not provide it.

In Re Davis · filed 1988-09-28(g)(2)

The Chapter 13 Plan was offered as adequate protection under § 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) and Debtors have not met their burden under § 362(g)(2) to provide such protection because that Plan is flawed. The stay must therefore be modified in favor of the Bank and the requested Plan modifications and Creditor Order must be denied.

Section 362(d)(1) does not require relief from the automatic stay for lack of adequate protection when a planned payment to a senior lienholder preserves a junior lienholder’s interest against accruing interest.

Matter of Billman · filed 1988-10-31(d)(1)

Brenton, however, is adequately protected. The debtors’ plan proposes to pay the FLB an installment of $15,132.60 as soon as the plan is confirmed. This payment will in turn increase the value of Brenton’s interest in the real estate by the same amount. Thus, Brenton is protected from any erosion of its interest occasioned by the accumulation of interest on FLB’s claim.

Section 362(d)(1) does not warrant relief from the stay for lack of adequate protection when the debtor uses collateral without reducing its value.

Matter of Bluridg Farms, Inc. · filed 1988-10-31(d)(1)

At the time of the hearing, the Bank admitted that the value of the collateral had not declined despite the fact the debtor has used the machinery during the course of the case. Accordingly, the Bank is not entitled to adequate protection.

Section 362(d)(1) permits a court to modify the automatic stay for cause, including inadequate protection of a creditor’s interest in the debtor’s property.

Hamilton v. Lomas Mortgage U.S.A. (In Re Hamilton) · filed 1989-02-16(d)(1)

Under § 362(d)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) (1982), the bankruptcy court has the authority to modify the automatic stay “for cause, including lack of adequate protection” of a creditor’s interest in property held by the debtor.

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.

In re Bult · filed 1989-02-21(d)(2)

At that hearing, the court found that if New London has a valid perfected security interest in the property in question, there is no equity in the property. The court also found that the property is not necessary for an effective reorganization. Mr. Bult was no longer practicing law, and his plans for future use of the building were too speculative. (See court minutes of hearing.) This constitutes sufficient reason to lift the automatic stay. 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2).

Section 362(d)(2) permits relief from the automatic stay when a secured creditor shows the debtor lacks equity in the collateral and the debtor fails to show the collateral is necessary for an effective reorganization in prospect.

In Re Trexler · filed 1989-03-08(d)(2)

As movant is a secured creditor, it has standing to seek relief from the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2). It is well established that to obtain relief under § 362(d)(2), a secured creditor has the burden of demonstrating the debtor’s lack of equity in the collateral. Once this element is established, the burden shifts to the debtor to prove that the secured property is necessary for an effective reorganization that is in prospect.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay or adequate protection payments for an undersecured junior creditor when interest accruing on a senior secured claim erodes the value of the junior creditor’s interest in the collateral.

Ridgemont Apartment Associates, Ltd. v. Atlanta English Village, Ltd. · filed 1989-03-15(d)(1)

Un-dersecured creditors may, however, seek relief from the automatic stay under the provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 362 where the creditor’s interest in a debtor’s property depreciates in value as a result of the stay. Under that section, the court may grant relief from the stay altogether or it may condition the stay upon the debtor providing the afflicted under secured creditor adequate protection of his interest in the debt- or’s property. ... Nothing in Timbers would prevent adequate protection payments from being made to compensate junior undersecured creditors for the decline in value of the security interest due to the increase in the claim of the senior secured creditor for accruing interest.

An equity cushion can constitute adequate protection under § 362(d)(1), depending on its size, erosion, and any periodic payments.

In Re Rorie · filed 1989-04-10(d)(1)

The existence of an equity cushion alone may, in certain circumstances, constitute adequate protection within the meaning of § 362(d)(1).

Section 362(d)(1) treats a plan with years of reduced payments and a large balloon payment as inadequate protection when it places substantial repayment risk on the secured creditor.

In Re Executive House Associates · filed 1989-04-20(d)(1)

The debtor is proposing to pay only $1,080,000 per year with a final balloon payment of $18,900,000 after 15 years. I agree with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, at least in the context of a motion under § 362(d), that such a plan is so risky it does not afford HUD’s claim adequate protection.

Section 362(d)(1) requires adequate protection for interest accruing on unpaid real estate taxes during the stay when a senior tax lien thereby reduces the value of a secured creditor’s collateral.

Carteret Savings Bank, F.A. v. Nastasi-White, Inc. (In Re East-West Associates) · filed 1989-11-06(d)(1)

Clearly, the interest on the accruing real estate taxes increases the City of New York’s tax lien on the premises along with the principal, thereby decreasing the value of Carteret’s lien on the premises, which is junior to the City’s tax lien. Accordingly, Carteret is entitled to be compensated for this decline in the value of its collateral.

Section 362(d)(1) does not permit relief from the automatic stay based solely on erosion of an oversecured creditor’s equity cushion when the creditor has not alleged a decline in collateral value.

In Re Chauncy Street Assoc. Ltd. Partnership · filed 1989-11-08(d)(1)

The Bank has not alleged that the value of its collateral is decreasing. Therefore, it has not alleged sufficient “cause” to grant relief from the automatic stay under § 362(d)(1), the erosion of its equity cushion notwithstanding.

Under § 362(d)(1), adequate protection for an undersecured creditor covers declines in collateral value, not losses from delay caused by the bankruptcy filing.

In Re Marion Street Partnership · filed 1989-12-07(d)(1)

Because TCF is slightly undersecured, it is not entitled to damages that it may suffer as a result of the delay occasioned by the filing of a bankruptcy petition, other than being compensated for potential declines in the value of the collateral, measured from its value as of the date of the filing of the petition.

Section 362(d)(1) does not warrant relief from the automatic stay for lack of adequate protection when the creditor fails to show that the collateral is declining in value during reorganization.

In Re Cardinal Congregate I · filed 1990-01-12(d)(1)

Assuming that the Movants’ assertion of no equity is true, the evidence at the hearing did not show that the value of the Property is decreasing, or will decrease in the time required for reorganization. ... Therefore, having found both grounds under § 362(d)(1) to be without merit, the Court concludes that the value of the Collateral is adequately protected.

A creditor seeking adequate protection under § 362(d)(1) must show that its collateral is decreasing in value.

In Re Swansea Consolidated Resources, Inc. · filed 1991-04-22(d)(1)

The Movants have also asserted grounds for relief from stay under § 362(d)(1), based upon lack of adequate protection. Since the value of the subject property is dependent upon the substantive merit of Debtor’s plan of reorganization, which we have yet to see, and since the Movants’ have failed to demonstrate, at least thus far, that their collateral is decreasing in value so as to justify the imposition of an order for adequate protection, we decline to enter such an order at this time.

Section 362(d)(1) permits denial of stay relief when an assignee’s adequate assurance of performance adequately protects the party seeking relief.

In Re Wills Motors, Inc. · filed 1991-10-22(d)(1)

Volvo’s motion for relief from the automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) is denied because Volvo is adequately protected as a result of the assign-ee’s adequate assurance of performance.

Under § 362(d)(1), an equity cushion may adequately protect a secured creditor based on the circumstances of the case, without a fixed minimum percentage.

In Re Senior Care Properties, Inc. · filed 1992-02-25(d)(1)

Whether a creditor’s interest should be adequately protected must be determined on a case by case basis rather than by mechanical application of a formula. ... In this case, NBD is protected by an 18% equity cushion. ... It appears that NBD is adequately protected by the $530,000 equity cushion.

Section 362(d) does not require lifting the automatic stay for an oversecured creditor merely to let it control all collateral when its claim remains adequately protected.

In re James Wilson Associates · filed 1992-05-22(d)

It has no right to fence off the entire collateral in which it has an interest so that no other creditor can get at it. Its only entitlement is to the adequate protection of its interest.

Section 362(d)(1) does not entitle a creditor with an unperfected security interest to relief from the automatic stay for lack of adequate protection.

In Re Walker · filed 1992-06-15(d)(1)

Since the financing statements filed by movant were insufficient, its interest in the equipment remains unperfected. As an unsecured creditor, movant is not entitled to relief from the automatic stay or adequate protection.

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

Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Pickett (In Re Pickett) · filed 1992-11-12(d)(1)

Ford has alleged no specific basis for relief from the stay, but to obtain relief from the stay Ford must have a lien on the truck: Without a lien, Ford has no interest that requires adequate protection.

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.

First American Bank of Virginia v. Monica Road Associates (In Re Monica Road Associates) · filed 1992-11-17(d)(2)

Section 362(d)(2) requires this Court to grant relief from stay only if we conclude that the Debtor has no equity in the Subject Property and that the Subject Property is not necessary for an effective reorganization.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay when a diminishing equity cushion, delinquent property taxes, missed loan payments, or a proposed priming lien leaves a secured creditor inadequately protected.

Equitable Life Assurance Society v. James River Associates (In Re James River Associates) · filed 1992-12-31(d)(1)

The bankruptcy court properly found that the diminishing equity cushion, the delinquent real estate taxes, the lack of payments on the Note since April 1991, and the deterioration of Equitable’s security position under the priming lien constitute, both independently and together, a lack of adequate protection under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1).

An undersecured creditor may receive adequate protection for a decline in collateral value during the automatic stay, but not for harm caused solely by delayed foreclosure; stable or increasing value does not warrant stay relief or protection payments.

Matter of Newark Airport/Hotel Ltd. Partnership · filed 1993-01-28(d)(1)

As an undersecured creditor, FGH is not entitled to payment for any damages that it may suffer as a result of the delay in foreclosure occasioned by the filing of the debtor’s bankruptcy petition. ... In a situation such as this one, the only compensation available to the FGH is payment for any decline in the value of the Hotel during the term of the stay. ... Thus, FGH’s interest in the Hotel is being adequately protected, no adequate protection payments are necessary given the current situation, and FGH is not entitled to relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)(1).

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for lack of adequate protection when a secured creditor’s collateral is losing value during the stay.

Federal National Mortgage Ass'n v. Dacon Bolingbrook Associates Ltd. Partnership · filed 1993-04-02(d)(1)

The bankruptcy court correctly stated that the question of adequate protection revolves around the need to compensate a secured creditor for diminution in the value of its security during the pendency of the automatic stay.

Section 362 permits termination of the automatic stay when debtors fail to offer adequate protection for a mortgagee’s interest.

Honesdale National Bank v. Mordenti (In re Mordenti) · filed 1993-07-13(d)(1)

This Court hereby terminates the automatic stay based on the failure of the Debtors to offer adequate protection to the Honesdale National Bank by reason of its second mortgage interest in the real estate.

Section 362(d)(1) does not entitle an undersecured creditor to adequate protection payments when its collateral is not declining in value.

In Re Kalian · filed 1994-07-18(d)(1)

We conclude that Timbers is applicable to the instant case and that Northeast, as an undersecured creditor whose collateral is not declining in value, is not entitled to either adequate protection or postpetition interest on its claim.