11 U.S.C. § 362

Section 362's automatic stay suspended claims against the bankruptcy petitioner and its wholly owned subsidiary, so the subsidiary's summary judgment motion was denied with leave to renew.

SGS Acquisition Co. v. Linsley · filed 2018-09-30

As a result, claims against it and its wholly owned subsidiary, Northern Zinc, are subject to the automatic stay put in place pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362. ... As reflected at the end of this Order, the Court similarly denies the Motion for Summary Judgment as to Northern Zinc with leave to refile or resolve it in the bankruptcy claims process.

Section 362(d) allows a bankruptcy court to modify the automatic stay to permit a creditor to send monthly account statements to debtors who request them.

In Re Freeman · filed 2006-10-03(d)

Section 362(d) of the Bankruptcy Code gives the court discretion in fashioning relief from the automatic stay to the particular circumstances of a case, “such as by terminating, annulling, modifying, or conditioning such stay.” 11 U.S.C. § 362(d).

Section 362(a) automatically stays qualifying actions against a debtor, and a settlement violating the stay is void.

Valencia v. Rodriguez ( In re Rodriguez) · filed 2007-04-11(a)

Thus, the 1998 settlement agreement violated the automatic stay, see 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), ... rendering it void regardless of whether the Debtors challenged its validity in the bankruptcy court, see In re Schwartz, 954 F.2d 569, 571 (9th Cir.1992).

Section 362(a)(3) and (4) stays affirmative acts to obtain estate property or create, perfect, or enforce a lien against estate property.

Dempsey v. Auditor of Marion County · filed 2007-08-17(a)(3) and (4)

This seems to be precisely the type of activity prohibited by the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay. Petitioning for the issuance of a tax deed appears on its face to be an affirmative “act to obtain possession of property of the estate or of property from the estate,” or an “act to create, perfect, or enforce any lien against property of the estate,” in violation of Section 362(a)(3) and (4).

Section 362's automatic stay does not prohibit a creditor from filing a proof of claim in a bankruptcy case.

Rogers v. B-Real, L.L.C. (In Re Rogers) · filed 2008-07-21

Bankruptcy Code section 501 specifically permits creditors to file proofs of claim. “[T]he filing of a Proof of Claim before a bankruptcy court ... is the logical equivalent of a request for relief from the automatic stay, which cannot in itself constitute a violation of the stay....” In re Sammon, 253 B.R. 672, 681 (Bankr.D.S.C.2000). Other courts considering the issue have reached a similar conclusion. ... The complaint’s fourth claim for relief will be dismissed for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Section 362's automatic stay does not apply to actions initiated by a debtor.

Cobb v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC · filed 2009-06-26

Plaintiff again misapprehends the applicable law, for it is well-established that the automatic stay provision of 11 U.S.C. § 362 “does not apply to actions initiated by a debtor.”

Section 362 stays proceedings against the debtor, so it does not stay a state court appeal initiated by the debtor from an action the debtor also initiated.

Kozich v. Cavallaro (In Re Kozich) · filed 2009-07-01(a)

It is clear to this court, given the plain language of the law, that the answer is no. Section 362, by its own terms, only stays proceedings against the debtor.

Section 362(a) automatically stays acts to exercise control over estate property or to continue proceedings to recover prepetition claims.

Greenwood v. Dickhaus (In Re Dickhaus) · filed 2010-03-16(a)

Section 362 states that upon filing of a bankruptcy petition, there is an automatic stay against any act to exercise control over property of the estate or to continue proceedings to recover a claim against the debtor that arose before the commencement of the bankruptcy case. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) (2009). ... While Plaintiffs did not have possession of the Vehicle, Plaintiffs did indeed have control of the Vehicle as holder of the Execution. ... IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the relief requested in Debtor’s Counterclaim is DENIED and judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiffs and against Debtor in that there was no violation of the automatic stay by Plaintiffs and therefore no damages to Debtor; and this is the final judgment and Order of the Bankruptcy Court in this case.

Section 362 automatically stays proceedings against a debtor after a bankruptcy petition is filed.

Barnes v. University Federal Credit Union and Government Employees Insurance Company/GEICO Insurance · filed 2010-05-27

Accordingly, the appeal is stayed. See 11 U.S.C. § 362; Tex. R. App. P. 8.

Section 362 imposes an automatic stay and permits the court to fashion an appropriate remedy for a willful violation.

In Re Gress · filed 2010-09-08

However, Deutsche fails to recognize that this Court may fashion an appropriate remedy when a party engages in willful violation of the automatic stay.

Section 362(h) keeps the automatic stay in effect when a debtor timely files a statement of intention and enters into a reaffirmation agreement.

In Re Barron · filed 2010-12-14(h)

As this court noted in its decision In re Moustafi, 371 B.R. 434 (Bankr.D.Ariz.2007), where, as here, the debtors have done everything required of them by 11 U.S.C. §§ 362(h) and 521(a) by timely filing their Statement of Intention indicating that they wish to reaffirm the debt and timely entering into a reaffirmation agreement, then § 521(d) of the Bankruptcy Code is inapplicable. ... Even though the Reaffirmation Agreement is unenforceable, the creditor may not repossess the Avalanche without violating the automatic stay and/or the discharge injunction, unless there is a post-discharge payment or insurance default.

Section 362(a) does not bar a debtor from prosecuting an appeal.

Altman v. Johnson (In Re Johnson) · filed 2011-03-21(a)

The automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) did not bar him from prosecuting his appeal.

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

Rashid v. Trustreet Properties, Motel Enterprises, Food Service Holdings, LTD D/B/A Dairy Queen Restaurants, and M · filed 2012-03-28

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

Section 362 automatically stays further action in an appeal concerning a party who has filed for bankruptcy.

Arthur v. Angela LaFrances Evans and All Other Occupants · filed 2014-05-27

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

Section 362(a) stays actions against a debtor and acts affecting property of the bankruptcy estate; a bankruptcy filing alone does not establish that a later loan assignment violated the stay.

Trevarthen v. New Century Mortgage Corp. · filed 2014-11-06(a)

Section 362(a) stays, inter alia, “a judicial, administrative, or other action or proceeding against the debtor . . . or to recover a claim against the debtor,” an act to obtain property from the debtor’s estate or to exercise control over property in the estate, or an act creating or enforcing a lien against property in the estate. ... Trevarthen has not shown that the Assignment violated the automatic stay and was void ab initio.

Section 362 automatically stays further action in an appeal when a cross-appellant’s Chapter 7 bankruptcy case is reopened.

David B. McKinnon, North Pondersoa, LLC, Barbara Marshall, LP, William H. Gibson, D. Scott McKinnon, Barbara F. Marshall · filed 2016-07-14

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

Section 362 automatically stays further action in an appeal against an appellee who has filed a bankruptcy petition.

Healy v. Barron · filed 2017-03-03

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

Section 362 automatically stays further action in an appeal when the appellee files for Chapter 13 bankruptcy.

Healy v. Barron · filed 2018-01-16

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

Section 362(a) stayed actions against a bankrupt individual and a company listed as his personal property in the bankruptcy schedule.

Monitor Fin., L.C. v. Wildlife Ridge Estates, LLC · filed 2019-01-09(a)

As a result, 11 U.S.C. § 362 stayed all actions against both Millward and M&S. Therefore, joinder of Millward and M&S was not feasible under Rule 19(a)(2).

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

D. Reginald Stover, Jace Harkey, Robert H. Holmes and the Holmes Law Firm, Inc. v. ADM Milling Co. · filed 2019-01-30

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

Section 362(a)(1) automatically stays an appeal when the debtor was a defendant below, but allows dismissal without prejudice when dismissal does not reach the merits or undermine the stay’s purposes.

Saticoy Bay Llc Series 7728 Villa De La Paz Vs. The Bank Of New York Mellon · filed 2019-07-29(a)(1)

Consequently, an appeal is automatically stayed if the debtor was the defendant in the underlying trial court action. ... Because a dismissal without prejudice will not require this court to reach the merits of this appeal and is not inconsistent with the primary purposes of the bankruptcy stay—to provide protection for debtors and creditors—this court further conclude that such dismissal will not violate the bankruptcy stay.

Section 362 can automatically stay further action in an appeal after the appellant files for bankruptcy.

McNeal v. James David Page and Spouse, Tony Warren and Tamra Warren · filed 2019-08-28

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

Section 362(a) automatically stays further action in an appeal against a party who has filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy.

Skyler Williams, Derivatively on Behalf of Blackland Construction, Inc. v. James G. Miller Abrielle O. Miller And Blackl · filed 2019-11-13(a)

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

Section 362(a)’s automatic stay does not bar an appeal when the debtor is not a party and the stay does not extend to the parties on appeal.

Pacheco v. Aguilar · filed 2019-11-21(a)

We have determined that we may proceed with the merits of this appeal, notwithstanding the bankruptcy stay below. Twin Pines is not a party to this appeal, and the stay does not appear to extend to any party on appeal.

Section 362(a)'s automatic stay protects the debtor and does not prevent claims against nonbankrupt codefendants from proceeding.

Arora v. Diversified Consultants, Inc. · filed 2021-06-11(a)

Because T-Mobile and the remaining co-defendants (other than DCI) are not debtors in a bankruptcy proceeding, the Court retains subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over the claims against those defendants.

Section 362(a)(1)'s automatic stay does not automatically extend to a nondebtor merely because the debtor and nondebtor are alleged to be alter egos.

KNOWLES v. ROSA MOSAIC AND TILE COMPANY · filed 2022-02-11(a)(1)

Vesta Tile, as a non-debtor entity, is not entitled to the benefits of the automatic stay extended to Rosa Mosaic as a debtor in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding.

Section 362(a)’s automatic stay generally does not extend to a debtor’s guarantors unless the debtor is effectively the real defendant or the litigation would irreparably harm the debtor, estate, or reorganization plan.

Nike USA, Inc. v. First to the Finish Real Estate LLC · filed 2022-07-06(a)

Therefore, the Court cannot find that Defendants fall into either exception to § 362(a)’s general rule barring extension of the stay in the Bankruptcy Case to this case.

Section 362’s automatic stay does not extend to claims against nonbankrupt codefendants.

Westchester Fire Insurance Company v. Edge Electric, LLC · filed 2022-09-22

the Court notes the stay does not extend to claims against Edge Electric and Little.

Section 362(a) does not stay a defensive claim against a nondebtor, a ruling that leaves estate property’s status quo intact, or recognition of a lien created and recorded before bankruptcy.

In Re: Censo, LLC v. Newrez, LLC · filed 2023-10-18(a)

Section 362(a)(1) prevents judicial action “against the debtor” during the pendency of a bankruptcy proceeding. But Ditech’s counterclaim was defending against KAH’s quiet title claim and was not an action “against the debtor.” ... Censo’s argument under § 362(a)(3), which bars “any act to obtain possession . . . or to exercise control over property of the estate,” also fails. The district court’s decision that KAH took title subject to Fannie Mae’s deed of trust, did not “disturb the status quo of estate property as of the time when the bankruptcy petition was filed.” ... Finally, § 362(a)(4) prohibits “any act to create, perfect, or enforce any lien against property of the estate.” Censo contends that the district court’s order “perfected” Shellpoint’s lien, but the lien was created and recorded before Censo filed its bankruptcy petition.

Section 362(a)'s automatic stay can suspend all proceedings to enforce a marital community debt included in one spouse's bankruptcy estate until the bankruptcy ends or the bankruptcy court grants relief from the stay.

Báez Rivera Y Otros v. Fernández Ramos Y Otros · filed 2015-06-10(a)

Evaluado el expediente y el Derecho aplicable, se revoca el dictamen del Tribunal de Apelaciones y se ordena la paralización de todos los procedimientos hasta tanto culmine el procedimiento de quiebra instado por la señora Guillén Lugo en el foro federal o se obtenga un remedio de relevo de la paralización por parte de ese foro.

Section 362 permits a creditor to sue outside bankruptcy court to liquidate a post-petition claim, but bars enforcement against estate property while the stay protects it.

Smallhold, Inc. · filed 2025-08-18(a)

But nothing in § 362 prevents a creditor that asserts a post-petition claim from seeking to liquidate that claim outside of the bankruptcy court.

Section 362(a) ordinarily stays collection proceedings against the bankruptcy debtor, but a guarantor’s bankruptcy does not stay foreclosure against property owned by a separate corporation.

Banco Popular De Puerto Rico v. Challenger Brass & Copper Co., Inc. Y Otros · filed 2025-10-30(a)

Es decir, al someter la petición de quiebra se paraliza automáticamente todo proceso judicial o extrajudicial de cobro de dinero en contra del deudor, incluyendo la ejecución de sentencias obtenidas previo al inicio del caso. ... Así, ordenamos la ... continuación inmediata de los procedimientos post-sentencia sin mayor dilación.

Section 362(h) requires proof that a creditor knew of the automatic stay to recover damages for a willful violation.

Little · filed 2026-03-19(h)

Even if true, Plaintiffs still must establish Eagle Express knew the stay was in effect. ... Because there is a genuine issue of material fact as to Eagle Express’s knowledge of the stay, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion as to the automatic-stay violation.

Section 362(a)(3) stays a postpetition forfeiture action against property of the bankruptcy estate.

Dery v. United States (In Re Bridge) · filed 1988-09-06(a)(3)

At an initial hearing, the Court ruled that 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) would preclude the United States from prosecuting a post-petition forfeiture action against estate property.

Section 362(a)(4) bars acts to enforce a lien against property of the bankruptcy estate.

In Re DeLuca · filed 1992-07-24(a)(4)

The automatic stay provision of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(4) specifically bars, “any act to create, perfect, or enforce any lien against property of the estate.” The I.R.S. levy on the post-petition, pre-confirmation payments is not supported by law and is therefore void.

Section 362 protects estate property from a creditor’s efforts to obtain possession or enforce a lien without relief from the automatic stay.

Mercedes-Benz Financial Services of America, LLC v. Corner Lot Inc. (In re Lyons) · filed 2013-03-18(a)(4)

As property of the estate, the Truck was subject to the automatic stay. Any action taken by Corner Lot to secure possession of the Truck in Magistrate Court violated the automatic stay, bringing Corner Lot’s conduct within the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court.

Section 362(a)(4) bars a creditor from imposing a lien on property of the bankruptcy estate while the automatic stay remains in effect, even when the creditor seeks the lien in bankruptcy court.

Wells Fargo Rail Corporation v. Black Iron, LLC · filed 2020-01-10(a)(4)

The Court believes that compliance with the stay provisions of the bankruptcy code are paramount and without seeking relief from stay to seek an attachment or otherwise impose a lien on property of the estate, Wells Fargo’s request for an attachment fails.

Section 362(a)(3) stays an action concerning a prepetition cause of action belonging to a debtor's bankruptcy estate.

Dailey Law Firm, P.C. v. Travelers Indemnity Company · filed 2024-02-16(a)(3)

This action is subject to the automatic stay provision under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3); In re Nicole Gas Production, Ltd., 916 F.3d 566, 570 (6th Cir. 2019).

A debtor does not automatically receive retroactive relief from an earlier lost economic opportunity award under Section 362(d)(1) after Timbers; the debtor must have preserved an appeal of that award.

Matter of Martin · filed 1988-09-29(d)(1)

Merely because the Supreme Court has settled a conflict among the circuit courts on the application of 11 U.S.C. Section 362(d)(1) does not mean that the debtors are automatically entitled to retroactive relief from previous American Mariner-type orders of lost economic opportunity compensation, absent a properly preserved appeal-of the order granting the compensation.

A party seeking relief from the automatic stay waives § 362(e)’s time limits by agreeing to continue the final hearing and submit briefs afterward.

In Re City Wide Press, Inc. · filed 1989-07-21(e)

We also reject CC’s contention that the automatic stay expired pursuant to the terms of 11 U.S.C. § 362(e) and Bankruptcy Rule (hereinafter “B. Rule”) 4001(a)(2), because CC’s ultimate agreement that the final hearing be continued until June 21, 1989, and briefed thereafter, waived the time periods set forth therein, at least through the date of this decision.

Section 362 prohibits actions to recover a pre-filing debt after a bankruptcy petition has been filed.

Lee v. Yeutter · filed 1989-10-18

The limited lift of the automatic stay is appropriate in light of 11 U.S.C. § 362 which prohibits any actions to recover a pre-filing debt once the petition has been filed.

Section 362(b)(2) does not except collection of a future education expense from the automatic stay when the debt is not an ongoing support obligation.

In Re Janovski · filed 1990-02-16(b)(2)

Accordingly, since the debtor’s obligation to the children’s college education is a debt excepted from the debtor’s discharge under § 523(a)(5) and not an on-going support obligation within the meaning of § 362(b)(2), the movant’s motion for relief from the automatic stay is due to be denied.

Section 362(b)(2) permits collection of alimony, maintenance, or support from property outside the bankruptcy estate.

Rogers v. Overstreet (In Re Rogers) · filed 1994-01-20(b)(2)

As discussed earlier in this Order, the automatic stay does not apply to collecting alimony, maintenance, or support from property that is not property of the Debtor’s estate. 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(2). Accordingly, Overstreet did not violate the automatic stay to the extent she collected alimony, maintenance, or support from the Superior Court.

Section 362(b)(7) excepts a repo participant’s setoff of a settlement payment claim from the automatic stay when securities remain due to settle a repurchase agreement.

In The Matter Of Bevill, Bresler & Schulman Asset Management Corporation · filed 1990-02-22(b)(7)

We hold that AMC's obligation to deliver the GNMAs to safekeeping was an obligation to make a settlement payment; that, therefore, Savings' claim is a claim for a settlement payment arising out of a repurchase agreement, within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. Sec. 362(b)(7). The automatic stay, therefore, does not prevent Savings from exercising a right of setoff.

Section 362(a)(3) does not prohibit a bank’s temporary freeze of a deposit account when the debtor has no property interest in the account itself.

BNY Financial Corp. v. Masterwear Corp. (In Re Masterwear Corp.) · filed 1999-02-01(a)(3)

Hence, the debtors did not have a property interest in the account such that BNY’s temporary freeze would violate section 362(a)(3). As a result, BNY is entitled to summary judgment dismissing those portions of the Sixth and Seventh Counterclaims alleging violations of the automatic stay.

Section 362(a)(1) does not bar a creditor from voluntarily dismissing its pending action against a debtor in bankruptcy.

Seattle-First National Bank v. Westwood Lumber, Inc. · filed 1990-09-24(a)(1)

We are satisfied that taking of a voluntary nonsuit of a pending action against a debtor in bankruptcy does not violate the automatic stay because it does not violate any of the purposes of the automatic stay.

Section 362(a) prevents a tax administrator from blocking the transfer of a debtor’s liquor license to collect delinquent taxes.

PUB Dennis of Mineral Spring Avenue, Inc. v. Town of North Providence (In Re PUB Dennis of Mineral Spring Avenue, Inc.) · filed 1991-04-26(a)

Both the automatic stay, § 362(a), and R.I.GEN.LAWS § 3-5-19 clearly foreclose the Tax Administrator from preventing the transfer at issue.

Section 362(a)(3) requires a secured creditor to turn over repossessed estate property when a debtor files a subsequent bankruptcy petition, even if the creditor obtained relief from the stay in the earlier case.

Carr v. Security Savings & Loan Ass'n · filed 1991-08-08(a)(3)

Under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) (“Automatic stay”), Security Savings was obliged to turn over the repossessed car immediately after the filing of the second petition and the verification of insurance.

Section 362(a)(3) prohibits a creditor from exercising control over estate property by retaining and refusing to return property seized before bankruptcy.

Thompson v. GMAC · filed 2009-05-27(a)(3)

For these reasons, we find that the act of passively holding onto an asset constitutes “exercising control” over it, and such action violates section 362(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 362(a) bars HHS from withholding postpetition Medicare reimbursements to recover prepetition overpayments when the provider agreement has not been assumed and HHS has not obtained relief from the stay.

University Medical Center v. Sullivan (In re University Medical Center) · filed 1992-08-24(a)

Rather, we conclude that both the Bankruptcy and the Medicare policies alike are best preserved by holding that during this post-petition period, HHS remained subject to the automatic stay and thus was not free to withhold pre-petition overpayments from UMC’s post-petition reimbursement. Only if UMC formally assumed the provider agreement, or if HHS sought and received relief from the stay from the bankruptcy court pursuant to section 362(d), would such withholding be proper.

Section 362 requires a creditor to seek relief from the automatic stay before proceeding with foreclosure even after the debtor’s redemption period expires.

In Re Simcock · filed 1993-03-19(a)(1), (a)(3), (a)(6)

However, the underlying requirement that a movant bring a motion for relief from stay after the period of redemption has expired remains in force for the reasons stated above.

Section 362(d)(4) does not permit in rem relief from the automatic stay after the bankruptcy case is dismissed because no stay remains to lift.

In re Harris · filed 2019-01-14(d)(4)

Without a pending bankruptcy case, however, I lack jurisdiction to grant Wells Fargo stay relief and so it would be futile for me to grant its motion for reconsideration.

Section 362(k) does not support a separate damages suit for an alleged stay violation when the bankruptcy court has lifted and annulled the stay; the debtor must appeal that order.

Pickett v. Santander Consumer USA · filed 2022-05-24(k)

The plaintiff cannot bring this claim seeking damages for the alleged violation of an automatic stay—where the bankruptcy court determined that there was no stay in place—as a separate civil case.

Section 362(a)(1) does not prevent a court from dismissing a pending claim against a debtor for failure to follow court rules when the dismissal does not undermine the automatic stay's purposes.

Brunetti v. Reed · filed 1993-06-01(a)(1)

The automatic stay provisions are not designed to insulate a creditor from required court rules in a particular jurisdiction. ... Therefore, we hold that the original dismissal of appellants' tort claim against respondents was not violative of the automatic stay provision issued by the Bankruptcy Court, and thus the failure of the trial court to vacate the dismissal for violation of the stay was not an abuse of discretion.

Section 362(b)(10) permits a lessor to recover possession of nonresidential real property after the lease expires during the bankruptcy case.

Salzer v. Jocquel Supply (In Re Salzer) · filed 1993-11-02(b)(10)

Lessors of nonresidential real estate are the subject of a specific exception to the auto-matie stay. ... As a result of the deemed rejection of the lease, which occurred pursuant to § 365(d)(4), and as a result of the lease having terminated of its own accord, the leased property was no longer protected by the automatic stay at the time the defendants excluded the debtor from it. Thus, their actions were not prohibited by the automatic stay and the stay was not violated.

Section 362(a) bars a tax purchaser from pursuing a tax deed after a bankruptcy petition when doing so perfects a lien or takes possession of estate property; a deed obtained in violation of the stay is void.

In Re Jackson · filed 1994-03-16(a)(3), (a)(4)

Accordingly, Midwest’s attempts to obtain its tax deed were in violation of the automatic stay and are void ab initio.

Section 362 makes a post-petition property transfer void when it violates the automatic stay.

In Re Burns · filed 1995-07-07

We also conclude that the post-petition transfer of the property was at least a technical violation of the automatic stay, and is therefore void.

Section 362 permits a creditor to sue outside bankruptcy to liquidate a post-petition claim, but the stay prevents enforcement against estate property while it remains in effect.

Smallhold, Inc. v. Mountain Meadow Mushroom Farms · filed 2025-08-18

But nothing in § 362 prevents a creditor that asserts a post-petition claim from seeking to liquidate that claim outside of the bankruptcy court.

Section 362 permits a creditor to sue outside bankruptcy court to liquidate a post-petition claim, but stays enforcement against estate property.

Mountain Meadow Mushroom Farms v. SMALLHOLD, INC. · filed 2025-08-18(a)

But nothing in § 362 prevents a creditor that asserts a post-petition claim from seeking to liquidate that claim outside of the bankruptcy court.

Section 362(a) automatically stays state court proceedings against a debtor when a bankruptcy petition is filed.

D. J. King Trkg. v. C. Jennison Bldrs., No. Cv 94 0534936 (Apr. 10, 1996) · filed 1996-04-10(a)

The filing of a petition in bankruptcy automatically stays the proceedings in state court against a debtor. 11 U.S.C. § 362 (a). Hence, this court is precluded from taking any action in the present case.

Section 362's automatic stay applies to setoffs permitted under section 553.

In Re Healthback, L.L.C. · filed 1998-07-31

11 U.S.C. § 553 allows setoff to occur but subject to the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362.

Section 362(a)(7) bars retaining postpetition proceeds to offset a prepetition overpayment; relief from the stay must be sought under § 362(d)-(g).

First National Bank of Louisville v. Hurricane Elkhorn Coal Corp. (In Re Hurricane Elkhorn Coal Corp.) · filed 1983-09-01(a)(7)

Finally, it can hardly be doubted that L & K’s retention of the contested amount violated the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay provisions, 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(7). It may be possible for L & K to obtain relief from these stay provisions, but L & K must follow the procedures outlined by the Act, 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)-(g).

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for post-confirmation payment defaults when relief is consistent with the confirmed Chapter 13 plan.

In Re Binder · filed 1998-08-28(d)(1)

Granting a creditor relief from the automatic stay for post-confirmation defaults is not precluded by any Code provision and is not inconsistent with § 1327 so long as such relief is consistent with the provisions of the confirmed plan. ... Cause exists for granting Chase Manhattan’s Motion for Relief from Stay.

Section 362(a)’s breathing spell does not justify enjoining a rate-making proceeding when no party claims the automatic stay applies to it.

Louisiana Public Service Commission v. Mabey (In re Cajun Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.) · filed 1999-08-16(a)

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

Section 362’s automatic stay does not apply in an ancillary proceeding under § 304, so a motion for relief from that stay is inappropriate.

Aranha v. Eagle Fund, Ltd. (In Re Thornhill Global Deposit Fund, Ltd.) · filed 2000-02-01(d)

Thus, for example, the debtor is not entitled to the automatic stay under § 362 or a discharge of its debts on completion of the section 304 proceeding. ... A motion for relief from stay is therefore inappropriate under this section.

Contempt is not a remedy for violating Section 362(a)’s automatic stay because the stay arises by statute rather than court order.

James v. Planters Bank (In Re James) · filed 2001-01-24(a)

Since the stay is a statutory provision and not a court order, contempt is no longer an appropriate remedy.

Section 362 does not make a utility’s refusal to restore service a stay violation when the utility takes no action to collect a prepetition debt; the stay-violation damages remedy is therefore unavailable.

One Stop Realtour Place, Inc. v. Allegiance Telecom, Inc. (In Re One Stop Realtour Place, Inc.) · filed 2001-10-17(a)(1), (a)(6), (h)

One Stop did not present any evidence that Allegiance took any action after the filing of the chapter 11 petition to collect the pre-petition debt or that Allegiance took any other action prohibited by Section 362(a)(1) or (6). Instead, the evidence presented by One Stop shows that Allegiance refused to restore service without a deposit or advance payment in violation of Section 366.

Section 362(b)(11) permits a holder of a negotiable instrument to present it for payment without violating the automatic stay.

In re: Janice B. Meadows v. · filed 2008-11-12(b)(11)

It would be illogical to interpret § 362(b)(11) to mean that the holder of a check can hand the check to a bank teller but cannot take the cash the teller hands over the counter without violating the stay, or that the holder may accept the funds but must immediately return them to the drawer. Such an interpretation would render the exception essentially meaningless, because the purpose of presenting a check is to receive payment.

Section 362(b)(3) uses “interest in property” as a federal term informed by local property law.

Soto-Rios v. Banco Popular De Puerto Rico · filed 2011-11-23(b)(3)

We emphasize, however, that "interest in property" under sections 362(b)(3) and 546(b)(1)(A) is a federal statutory term, and "the meaning of [language under the Bankruptcy Code] is a matter of federal law".

Section 362(b)(21) prevents the automatic stay from arising when debtors are ineligible under § 109(g).

In re Combs · filed 2018-05-11(b)(21)

Aside from the likely dismissal in that event, the automatic stay does not arise in a case in which debtors are ineligible under § 109(g).

Section 362(b)(3) does not except passive retention of a debtor's vehicle to maintain a purported possessory lien from the automatic stay.

Cross v. City of Chi. (In re Cross) · filed 2018-05-25(b)(3)

The City is clearly incorrect that its actions are excepted from the automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(3) both because the mere "act" of retaining possession of the vehicle in order to maintain perfection of its purported possessory lien is not excepted from the stay pursuant to that provision of the bankruptcy code and because it does not have a valid possessory lien pursuant to Illinois law.

Section 362(b)(3)'s lien-perfection exception does not permit a creditor to retain a debtor's car when the creditor's lien is not subject to avoidance by a trustee.

In re Shannon · filed 2018-09-07(b)(3)

Thus, a trustee could not use any avoiding powers under § 544 to avoid the City's possessory lien. Since there are no avoiding powers of the trustee under § 544 that would be limited by - or "subject to" - the City's ordinances, the exception to the automatic stay in § 362(b)(3) does not apply.

Section 362(a)(1), as incorporated into PROMESA, stays proceedings to determine payments owed under an injunction against a debtor.

Migrant Health Center, Inc. v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico · filed 2019-03-21(a)(1)

PROMESA, by virtue of Section 301(a), expressly incorporates 11 U.S.C. § 362, and the default operation of Section 362 in this case is to stay -- or temporarily "relieve" -- the Commonwealth's compliance with its federal obligations under the Medicaid Act.

Section 362(k) does not allow damages for a stay violation when the stay has been retroactively annulled under § 362(d).

Oya v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. · filed 2019-09-19(k)

But if there is no violation of the stay, there can be no damages for violating the stay under § 362(k).