28 U.S.C. § 157

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to hear a non-core proceeding related to a bankruptcy case, but without all parties’ consent it may only submit proposed findings and conclusions to the district court.

Maroun v. New York Mortgage Co. (In re Maroun) · filed 2010-02-11(c)(1)

Section 157(c)(1) provides that if a proceeding is non-core, but otherwise related to a case under title 11, a bankruptcy court may hear the proceeding but can only submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court unless all parties consent to a final order or judgment by the bankruptcy court. Fremont explicitly denies consent to the Court entering final judgment.

Section 157(c) requires a bankruptcy judge in a non-core proceeding to submit proposed findings and conclusions for district court review, and § 157(e) permits a bankruptcy judge to conduct a jury trial only with district court designation and all parties' express consent.

Rhiel v. Central Mortgage Co. (In Re Kebe) · filed 2011-03-30(c), (e)

Thus, if it decided the Third-Party Complaint, the Court, as with matters that are within the Court’s related-to jurisdiction in the Pacor sense, would be required to “submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court, and any final order or judgment shall be entered by the district judge after considering the bankruptcy judge’s proposed findings and conclusions and after reviewing de novo those matters to which any party has timely and specifically objected.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(c). ... Second, there is no reason to believe that Pillar would not have a right to a jury trial on the claims asserted in the Third-Party Complaint, and the Court may conduct a jury trial only “if specially designated to exercise such jurisdiction by the district court and with the express consent of all the parties.” 28 U.S.C. 157(e).

Section 157(c)(1) provides for a bankruptcy court to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in non-core proceedings to the district court.

Antioch Co. Litigation Trust v. Morgan (In Re Antioch Co.) · filed 2011-04-28(c)(1)

Because this memorandum addresses the non-core proceedings as proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, the court is submitting these proposed findings of fact and conclusions to the District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1) and BR 9033(a).

Section 157(c)(1) allows a bankruptcy court to submit findings and recommendations on a proceeding it cannot constitutionally resolve by final judgment, even if Congress designated the proceeding as core.

Field v. Lindell (In Re the Mortgage Store, Inc.) · filed 2011-10-05(c)(1)

Thus, the court has little difficulty in finding that Congress, if faced with the prospect that bankruptcy courts could not enter final judgments on certain “core” proceedings, would have intended them to fall within 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1) granting bankruptcy courts authority to enter findings and recommendations.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy judge to submit proposed findings and conclusions in related proceedings to the district court, while § 157(c)(2) permits final judgment with the parties’ consent.

Paloian v. LaSalle Bank National Ass'n (In re Doctors Hospital of Hyde Park, Inc.) · filed 2011-12-02(c)(1), (c)(2)

However, the parties here did not both consent to entry of final judgment by a bankruptcy judge. Therefore, after the remanded trial, proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law must be prepared here and submitted to a District Court Judge for review and possible entry of judgment. ... This places Counts VIII, IX, and X of the Adversary Complaint within the “related-to” jurisdiction of the bankruptcy judge under 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1). Bankruptcy judges with related jurisdiction may still propose Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law to a District Court Judge for decision whether to enter final judgment. But Summary judgment cannot be granted by a Bankruptcy Judge where that a Bankruptcy Judge lacks authority to enter judgment.

Section 157(c)(1) allows a bankruptcy judge to hear a non-core proceeding related to a bankruptcy case and submit proposed findings when the parties do not consent to final adjudication.

Levey v. Hanson's Window & Construction, Inc. (In Re Republic Windows & Doors, LLC) · filed 2011-12-12(c)(1)

The Defendant has stated that it will not consent to a final determination by this Court. Its decision in that regard does not preclude the Court from hearing this matter and certainly does not warrant the dismissal of this proceeding. Section 157(c)(1) specifically authorizes the submission of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by bankruptcy judges where the parties do not consent, which appears to be the case here.

Section 157 authorizes a bankruptcy judge to decide non-core proceedings and submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court for review.

Parks v. Persels & Associates, LLC (In Re Kinderknecht) · filed 2012-04-13(c)(1)

Of the trustee’s five causes of action, only her fraudulent transfer claim is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(H). Defendants are entitled to a jury trial on that claim, but that fact does not preclude my entering a final order granting summary judgment if that is warranted. The balance of the trustee’s claims are non-core proceedings that are, at best, related to the case as that term is used in § 157(c)(1). Whether they are matters of private right or not, I remain empowered to decide them and submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the District Court for its review.

Section 157(c)(1) allows bankruptcy courts to hear non-core proceedings related to a title 11 case, subject to the limits on their authority.

Cilio v. Wezner (In Re Wezner) · filed 2012-04-30(c)(1)

A related-to or “non-core” proceeding is as a “proceeding that is not a core proceeding but that is otherwise related to a case under title 11.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1). ... Even if this Court was to look past the apparent legal insufficiency of the Wezners’ claim, this Court finds that the adjudication of the Wezners’ claim against Security, despite it having a conceivable effect on the Debtor’s estate would still exceed the scope of this Court’s related-to jurisdiction.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy judge to enter a nonfinal order in a related proceeding without issuing proposed findings and conclusions to a district judge.

Kelley v. Eide Bailly, LLP (In re Petters Co.) · filed 2012-10-12(c)(1)

Because neither outcome to the motion at bar generates a final order, a bankruptcy judge has the authority to enter an order on the Trustee’s motion without need of a report and recommendation to a district judge.

Section 157(a) requires a district court referral before a bankruptcy judge may preside over a civil action on either a binding or a non-binding basis.

In re City of Stockton · filed 2012-12-18(a)

Unless there is a § 157(a) referral, a bankruptcy judge lacks statutory authority to preside over the civil action on either a binding or a non-binding basis.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy judge to enter interim orders in a related, noncore proceeding, while reserving final judgment for the district judge.

Reid v. Climatemp, Inc. (In re 3RC Mechanical & Contracting Services, LLC) · filed 2014-02-20(c)(1)

§ 157(c)(1) further provides that the “any final order or judgment shall be entered by the district judge,” implying that interim orders may be entered by a bankruptcy judge under authority to “hear” the proceeding.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to hear a fraudulent conveyance proceeding as noncore without entering a final order.

Wilkins v. Sanfilippo (In re Mccallan) · filed 2019-03-08(c)(1)

By that, it is meant that the Court will hear the matter but not enter a final order. The Court concludes that it has subject matter jurisdiction and it will hear this as a "noncore" proceeding.

Section 157 allows a bankruptcy court to rule on a motion to dismiss even when the proceeding is non-core or the court lacks authority to enter a final order.

Scher v. Essar Global Fund Ltd. (In re Essar Steel Minn. LLC) · filed 2019-05-23

The Court has the power to enter an order on a motion to dismiss even if the matter is non-core or the Court lacks authority to enter a final order.

Section 157(c)(2) requires the parties’ consent for a bankruptcy court to enter a final judgment in a related noncore proceeding.

Gibbs v. Gibbs · filed 2020-04-10(c)(2)

While this matter may relate to the Debtor’s bankruptcy case, much of the Second Amended Complaint are noncore matters on which this Court lacks authority to enter a final judgment and final order absent consent of the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(2).

Section 157’s limits on a bankruptcy judge’s authority to conduct a trial do not prevent the judge from imposing nondispositive discovery sanctions that may affect that trial.

Kelley v. BMO Harris Bank N.A., as successor to M&I Marshall and IIsley Bank · filed 2022-06-01

In summary, the foregoing cases demonstrate that bankruptcy judges, like magistrate judges, have the authority to impose non-dispositive discovery sanctions that might impact trial even if those judges lack the authority to conduct the trial.

Section 157(b)(1) authorizes bankruptcy judges to hear and determine cases under title 11.

Willems v. Seefeldt · filed 2011-03-08(b)(1)

Contrary to Willems’s contentions, the bankruptcy court properly concluded that it had jurisdiction to hear her bankruptcy case. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1) (“Bankruptcy judges may hear and determine all cases under title 11”); D. Ariz. Gen. Order 01-15 (“Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a), the court hereby refers to the bankruptcy judges for this district all cases under title 11 and all proceedings under title 11 . . . .”).

Section 157(c) permits a bankruptcy court to rule on preliminary matters without the parties’ consent when the ruling does not finally adjudicate claims on which the court lacks authority to enter final judgment.

ACJK, Inc. v. OptumRX, Inc. · filed 2026-06-10(c)

Even so, this Court has authority to enter orders on preliminary matters to the extent they do not constitute a final adjudication on the merits of underlying causes of action over which the Court does not have constitutional authority to enter a final order.

Section 157(b)(2) does not make a state-law suit challenging a lien on already-exempt Chapter 7 property a core proceeding merely because the suit concerns lien validity.

Poole Ex Rel. Hofmann v. Money Mortgage Corp. of America (In Re Hofmann) · filed 2000-02-09(b)(2)

Using the section 1334(c)(2) measuring stick, this cause of action to avoid Money Mortgage’s lien does not “measure up” as a core proceeding.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to treat a debtor’s challenge to HUD’s denial of a mortgage assignment as a core proceeding.

Madison v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development (In re Madison) · filed 1984-09-17

We have determined that these matters constitute core proceedings which are subject to this court’s jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157.

Section 157(b) treats an adversary proceeding to avoid mortgage liens on an exempt homestead as a core proceeding.

Gibbs v. F & M Marquette National Bank (In Re Gibbs) · filed 1984-11-02(b)

While the jurisdiction objection does not seem to be directed towards the power of bankruptcy judges as opposed to the power of district judges, I think it is clear that this proceeding is a core proceeding as that term is used in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).

Section 157(b)(2)(E) permits a bankruptcy court to determine lien validity, extent, or priority only when the lien concerns property of the estate.

Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Borg-Warner Acceptance Corp. (In Re Dr. C. Huff Co.) · filed 1984-11-07(b)(2)(E)

Section 157(b)(2)(E) must be read as empowering us only to make “determinations of the validity, extent, or priority of liens upon property of the estate.”

Section 157 treats proceedings to determine the validity or priority of liens as core proceedings in which a bankruptcy judge may enter a final judgment or order.

Hugh William THISTLETHWAITE, Trustee v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAFAYETTE · filed 1985-02-01(b)(2)(K)

A proceeding like this one to determine the validity or priority of liens is a "core proceeding" in which a bankruptcy judge, under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 157, may enter a final judgment or order, subject to appeal to the district court or the appeals panel.

Section 157 treats proceedings challenging the validity and enforceability of mortgages as core proceedings when they require determining the extent and validity of liens.

Shell Materials, Inc. v. First Bank of Pinellas County (In Re Shell Materials, Inc.) · filed 1985-02-11(b)(2)

In the instant matter, Counts I, II and IV relate to the claim of the Debtor that certain notes and mortgages are invalid and unenforceable. There is hardly any doubt that these claims involve a question which not only concerns the administration of the estate and the liquidation of assets, but also the determination of the extent and validity of certain liens. This being the case, there is no doubt that these Counts are core proceedings which this Court has full jurisdiction by virtue of a general and unconditional reference heretofore entered by the District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157.

Section 157 treats proceedings determining the validity, extent, and priority of liens as core proceedings.

Kempf v. Internal Revenue Service (In Re American Way Food Service Corp.) · filed 1985-03-07(b)(2)(K)

As this proceeding involves the determination of the validity, extent and priority of liens, it is a core proceedings under the Model Emergency Rule adopted by the U.S. District Court for this District and 28 U.S.C. § 157.

Section 157(b)(2)(K) classifies determinations of the validity, extent, or priority of liens as core proceedings.

Harris v. Michigan National Bank-Valley (In Re Gullifor) · filed 1985-03-08(b)(2)(K)

Determinations as to the validity, extent or priority of liens are defined as core proceedings under the 1984 Amendments to the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(K) (1984).

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy judge to enter a final judgment in a core proceeding determining the validity or priority of liens.

Thistlethwaite v. First National Bank · filed 1985-02-01(b)(2)(K)

A proceeding like this one to determine the validity or priority of liens is a "core proceeding” in which a bankruptcy judge, under 28 U.S.C. § 157, may enter a final judgment or order, subject to appeal to the district court or the appeals panel.

Section 157(b)(2)(K) covers lien determinations only when the lien affects the debtor’s property.

Brooklyn Jenapo Federal Credit Union v. Shain (In Re Shain) · filed 1985-03-14(b)(2)(K)

The closest that we could come to finding jurisdiction here lies in subsection (K) of § 157(b)(2), regarding “determinations of the validity, extent or priority of liens.” However, it is this court’s opinion that the lien in question must be one affecting the debtor’s property. The lien, here does not affect property of the debtor.

Section 157(b)(2)(K) treats an action to determine the validity of a lien against a Chapter 11 debtor as a core proceeding.

Continental Can Co. v. Owensboro Canning Co. (In Re Owensboro Canning Co.) · filed 1985-02-19(b)(2)(K)

This matter is properly before the court under its “core proceeding” jurisdiction of 28 U.S.C. § 157 which provides in part that: ... (k) determinations of the validity, extent, or priority of liens; ... In the present case, Continental is pressing its lien validity action against the Chapter 11 debtor.

Section 157(b)(2)(E) treats disputes over liens on property of the bankruptcy estate as core proceedings that a bankruptcy judge may hear and determine.

In Re Zachman Homes, Inc. · filed 1985-04-24(b)(2)(E)

As such, it is clear that section 157(b)(2)(E) concerns lien disputes only ... with regard to property of the estate. ... As I have already concluded that property of the estate is in fact herein involved, I am of the opinion that this matter constitutes a core proceeding which I have the power to hear and determine.

Section 157(b)(2)(E) classifies the debtors’ lien avoidance proceeding as a core proceeding.

In Re Wolfe · filed 1985-08-07(b)(2)(E)

This is a core proceeding as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E).

Section 157(b)(2)(K) classifies proceedings concerning the validity of liens as core proceedings.

Dart & Bogue Co. v. Slosberg (In Re Dart & Bogue Co.) · filed 1985-08-08(b)(2)(K)

This proceeding is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(K).

Section 157(b)(2)(K) treats a lien dispute as a core proceeding when it has a sufficient nexus to the bankruptcy estate.

Coral Petroleum, Inc. v. Paribas (In Re Coral Petroleum, Inc.) · filed 1985-06-17(b)(2)(K)

28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(K) states that a proceeding to determine the “validity, extent and priority of liens” is a core proceeding. However, since this section must be strictly interpreted, it is proper for the Court to require a sufficient nexus with the bankruptcy estate before finding that a lien dispute is a core matter.

Section 157(b)(1) treats an action to determine the nature, extent, and priority of a lien on the debtor’s accounts receivable as a core proceeding.

Citizens National Bank of Bowling Green v. Schaberg Lumber Co. (In Re Bowling Green Truss, Inc.) · filed 1985-10-01(b)(1)

In the present action, under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1), we have core proceeding jurisdiction to hear and decide Citizens’ action to determine the extent, nature, and priority of their lien on the debtor’s accounts receivable.

Section 157(b)(2) does not make state-law claims for breach of contract, fraud, and usury core proceedings merely because the plaintiff filed for bankruptcy and the defendant holds liens on estate property.

Counts v. Guaranty Savings & Loan Ass'n (In Re Counts) · filed 1985-10-28(b)(2)

The defendant has not filed a proof of claim and although the defendant holds liens against property of the estate, the lawsuit is before the bankruptcy court only because the plaintiff has previously filed a petition for reorganization. Hence, no relevant difference exists between the state claims seeking damages in Marathon and the state claims here. Therefore, this Court finds that the Counts I, II, III and IV, for breaches of contract, fraud, and usury, are related proceedings, and as related proceedings, this Court is without jurisdiction to finally determine them.

Section 157(b)(2) permits a bankruptcy court to hear and determine this proceeding concerning the priority of an equitable lien as a core proceeding.

Ormond Wholesale Co. v. Moore (In Re Moore) · filed 1985-11-06(b)(2)

This is a “core proceeding” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(A), (B), (K), and (O), which this court may hear and determine.

A motion to avoid a lien is a core proceeding under § 157(b)(2)(K).

In re Fuller · filed 1985-12-13(b)(2)(K)

The instant proceeding concerns a motion to avoid a lien. It is, therefore, a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. *64§ 157(b)(2)(K).

Section 157(b)(2)(K) treats a motion to avoid a lien as a core proceeding.

In re Graham · filed 1985-12-13(b)(2)(K)

The instant proceeding concerns a motion to avoid a lien. It is, therefore, a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(K).

Section 157(b)(2)(K) classifies a dispute over the validity, extent, and priority of a lien as a core proceeding.

Ledford v. Rikes (In re Fields) · filed 1985-12-26(b)(2)(K)

This is a case arising under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(a) and having been referred to this court is determined to be a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(K), in which the plaintiff-Chapter 13 Trustee disputes the validity, extent and priority of a lien.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (B) treats a proceeding to expunge judgment lien claims as a core proceeding.

Rouse v. Industrial Commissioner of New York (In re Rouse) · filed 1986-01-03(b)(2)(A), (B)

This is a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (B).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a proceeding to equitably subordinate a lien as a core proceeding concerning administration of the estate.

Atlas Fire Apparatus, Inc. v. Beaver (In Re Atlas Fire Apparatus, Inc.) · filed 1986-01-21(b)(2)(A)

Count six to equitably subordinate the lien is also a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) — “matters concerning the administration of the estate.”

A motion to avoid a lien is a core proceeding under § 157(b)(2)(K).

Boyer v. ITT Financial Services (In Re Boyer) · filed 1986-01-21(b)(2)(K)

The instant proceeding concerns a motion to avoid a lien. It is, therefore, a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(K).

Section 157(b)(2) gives a bankruptcy judge jurisdiction over a proceeding challenging the validity of a lien on estate property.

Crews Lake Road & Bridge District v. Pineview Estates, Inc. (In re Pineview Estates, Inc.) · filed 1986-01-02(b)(2)

One of the proceedings specifically designated by § 157(b)(2) is a proceeding to determine the validity, extent and priority of liens. Based on the foregoing, it is clear that this Court has jurisdiction to consider the challenge of the validity of the tax lien sought to be foreclosed by the District, simply because the lien under challenge encumbers property of the estate by virtue of § 541 of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 157(b)(2)(K) classifies proceedings to determine the validity, extent, or priority of liens as core proceedings.

Minstar, Inc. v. Plastech Research, Inc. (In Re Arctic Enterprises, Inc.) · filed 1986-03-03(b)(2)(K)

Section 157(b)(2) contains fifteen illustrations of core proceedings. Specifically included in the list of core proceedings are: “determinations of the validity, extent, or priority of liens.” See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(K). This matter is concededly one to determine both the validity and extent of a prepetition lien on property of the debtors. Thus, it is a core proceeding subject to federal court jurisdiction.

Section 157(b)(2) treats proceedings to avoid a preferential security interest and determine a lien’s validity, extent, and priority as core proceedings.

Matter of Lorandos · filed 1986-03-14(b)(2)(A), (F), (K)

This is a case arising under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(a) and having been referred to this court is determined to be a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (F) and (K), in which the plaintiff, Chapter 13 Trustee, seeks to avoid as a preference the security interest granted to the defendant, General Motors Acceptance Corp. (hereinafter GMAC), in the debtor's automobile and to determine the validity, extent and priority of the defendant's lien on the automobile.

Section 157(b)(2)(K) treats this proceeding concerning an assignment of accounts receivable as core, permitting the bankruptcy judge to hear and determine it under subsection (b)(1).

Commercial Helicopters, Inc. v. RepublicBank Dallas, N.A. (In re Commercial Helicopters, Inc.) · filed 1986-02-19(b)(2)(K)

This is a core proceeding as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(K); pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1), the Bankruptcy Judge for this district may hear and determine all core proceedings arising in a case under Title 11 referred under 28 U.S.C. § 157(a), and the Bankruptcy Judge may enter appropriate orders and judgments.

Section 157(b)(2) treats determinations of lien validity and homestead exemptions as core bankruptcy proceedings.

Wolfe v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Paragould (In Re Wolfe) · filed 1986-03-05(b)(2)

Section 157(b)(2)(A), (B), (E), (H), (K), or (0) could theoretically govern the case at bar as to whether this action is a core proceeding. The determination as to whether a creditor’s claim is secured, or even valid, has traditionally been a central or “core” bankruptcy question. Resolution of the validity of Wolfe’s homestead claims also determines whether the underlying property can be exempted and is therefore a core bankruptcy proceeding.

Section 157 allows a bankruptcy court to hear and determine core proceedings, including proceedings concerning stay relief and lien validity.

Multi-Photo, Inc. v. Mark Twain Bank of St. Charles County, N.A. (In Re Multi-Photo, Inc.) · filed 1986-04-30(b)(2)

These are “core proceedings” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(D), (G), (K), and (M), which the Court may hear and determine.

Section 157(b)(2)(K) treats proceedings about the extent and validity of a lien as core proceedings.

Duncan v. Gunter Insurance Agency (In Re Duncan) · filed 1986-05-08(b)(2)(K)

This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(K).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) and (K) classify proceedings concerning claims and liens as core proceedings.

In re Anderson Resources Corp. · filed 1986-06-12(b)(2)(B), (b)(2)(K)

The Court determines that this matter is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B) and (b)(2)(K).

Section 157(b)(2) treats a dispute over a secured creditor's attorneys' fees claim and related lien as a core proceeding when the claim affects administration of the estate.

In Re Hudson Shipbuilders, Inc. · filed 1986-07-23(b)(2)

Since the motion filed by Allied Bank, and joined in by the debtor and Unsecured Creditors' Committee, concerned a claim which would necessarily impact upon the administration of the estate and in which the debtor and other creditors shared a paramount interest, this action clearly constitutes a core proceeding which was properly before the bankruptcy court. The fact that the dispute concerns the allowance or disallowance of a claim for attorneys' fees against the estate and the extent and validity of Blackburn-Bliss' lien for fees further supports the exercise of jurisdiction by the bankruptcy court over this core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2) does not make a lien-priority dispute a core proceeding when the disputed property is outside the estate and the trustee’s interest is inferior to both liens.

Small v. Elliott-Ottinger Construction Co. (In Re Phillips House Associates, Inc.) · filed 1986-09-04(b)(2)

The contention that this is a regular “core” proceeding within the meaning of Section 157(b)(2), supra, must be rejected.

Section 157 treats a dispute over the validity, priority, and extent of a lien as a core proceeding in which the bankruptcy court may enter a final order.

Pankau v. First State Bank of Harvard (In Re Pankau) · filed 1986-09-22(b)(2)(E)

As such, this is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E). Therefore, this Court may enter a final order on the cross motions for summary judgment.

Section 157(b)(2) classifies proceedings involving stay relief and lien validity as core bankruptcy proceedings.

In Re Abell · filed 1986-09-26(b)(2)

This is a core proceeding as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B), (C), (G), (K), and (0).

Section 157(b)(2)(B), (G), and (K) permits a bankruptcy court to hear and determine core proceedings involving exemptions, stay relief, and liens.

In Re Faughn · filed 1986-09-05(b)(2)(B), (G), and (K)

This is a “core proceeding” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B), (G), and (K), which the Court may hear and determine.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to hear and determine core proceedings concerning relief from the automatic stay and the validity of a security interest.

In Re Ward · filed 1986-10-15(b)(2)(G), (K)

This is a “core proceeding” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(G), and (K)), which the Court may hear and determine.

Section 157(b)(2) treats turnover, automatic-stay, and lien-validity claims as core proceedings.

F/S Airlease II, Inc. v. Aerothrust Corp. (In Re F/S Airlease II, Inc.) · filed 1986-12-01(b)(2)

Determination of core status is achieved by a reading of Title 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2). The three counts of Plaintiff’s Complaint listed above are particularly provided for in subsections (E), (G), and (K) of § 157(b)(2).

Section 157(b)(2) does not make a dispute solely over priorities between two creditors a core proceeding when the debtor has no interest in the dispute.

Jordan & Nobles Construction Co. v. Orah Wall Financial Corp. (In Re Orah Wall Financial Corp.) · filed 1986-12-15(b)(2)(O)

This matter only involves relative priorities between two creditors. Whatever the result, the amount of debt owed by Debtor is not changed; the unsecured claims of the prevailing party will be reduced; the unsecured claims of the losing party will be correspondingly increased. Even the broadest reading of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2), particularly at subsection (o), does not make such an action a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2) covers proceedings to sell property, determine lien and ownership interests, and resolve preference and fraudulent transfer counterclaims as core proceedings.

Eads v. Probasco (In Re Eads) · filed 1986-12-16(b)(2)

The complaint to sell the property and determine lien and ownership interest therein as well as the counterclaims under 11 U.S.C. §§ 547, 548 appear to be core actions. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(F), (H), (K), (N).

Section 157(b)(2)(E) treats a trustee’s motion to determine priorities among liens on proceeds from estate property as a core proceeding.

Hoffman v. Peoples Bank (In re Cuni) · filed 1986-12-24(b)(2)(E)

The trustee’s motion for a determination of priorities among three competing liens attaching to the proceeds from a sale of estate property gives rise to this core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(K) treats a proceeding to determine lien priority as a core bankruptcy proceeding.

In Re Henning · filed 1987-01-13(b)(2)(K)

This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(K).

Section 157(b)(2)(K) permits a bankruptcy court resolving lien priority to determine the competing interests in the property, including those of parties other than the debtor.

First National Bank of Peoria v. Muller (In Re Muller) · filed 1987-03-31(b)(2)(K)

Similarly, in the case at hand, the bankruptcy court was called upon to determine the extent of the debtor’s interest in the check. This inquiry necessarily involved determining the relative rights and interests of the other parties. The fact that the court was required to adjudicate the rights of these other parties, however, did not move the proceeding outside the court’s jurisdiction. Therefore, the bankruptcy court did not exceed its authority in determining the ownership of the check and the terms of its payment.

Section 157 authorizes bankruptcy courts to determine the validity, extent, and priority of liens.

In re Van Sanford Tool & Die Co. · filed 1987-04-15(b)(2)

Unlike the former Bankruptcy Act and its enabling provisions, present law clearly recognizes the Court’s jurisdiction and authority to determine the validity, extent and priority of liens. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I); Code § 506.

Section 157(b)(2)(K) treats determinations of the validity, extent, or priority of liens, including maritime liens, as core bankruptcy proceedings.

In Re McLean Industries, Inc. · filed 1987-07-29(b)(2)(K)

Instead, this is an issue within the “core” jurisdiction of the bankruptcy courts, for 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(K) provides that “determinations of the validity, extent, or priority of liens” are core matters.

Section 157(b)(2)(K) treats a proceeding to determine a lien as a core proceeding in which the bankruptcy court may enter final judgment.

Bank of North Arkansas v. Owens · filed 1987-08-10(b)(2)(K)

The Bankruptcy Court properly found that the action was a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(K) and that it had jurisdiction to enter a final judgment.

Section 157(b)(2)(K) classifies lien determinations as core bankruptcy proceedings.

In Re Data Entry Service Corp. · filed 1988-01-15(b)(2)(K)

This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(K).

Section 157(b)(2)(K) treats proceedings to determine the validity and extent of liens as core matters in which the bankruptcy court may enter a final order.

Harbor Pointe Office Park, Ltd. v. Prudential National Assurance Co. (In Re Harbor Pointe Office Park, Ltd.) · filed 1988-02-04(b)(2)(K)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(K), this Court finds that the issues herein constitute “core” matters and shall therefore enter a final order accordingly.

Section 157(b)(2)(K) treats a claim seeking to void a lien as a core proceeding involving the lien’s validity.

Painter v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of South Carolina (In Re Painter) · filed 1988-03-14(b)(2)(K)

With respect to the standing issue, the truth in lending claim asserted by Painter in her second amended complaint asserts, among other things, that the security interest of First Federal is void. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(K) recites that core proceedings include “determinations of the validity, extent or priority of liens.” ... This court finds that the truth in lending claim asserted in the third claim of Painter in her second amended complaint is a core proceeding to be heard by this court.

Section 157(b)(2)(K) treats proceedings to determine the validity, extent, or priority of liens as core proceedings.

Herdman v. Oak Creek Florists (In re Oak Creek Florists) · filed 1988-05-24(b)(2)(K)

This proceeding which arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) in a case referred to this court by the Standing Order Of Reference entered in this district on July 30, 1984, is determined to be a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(K) — proceedings to determine the validity, extent, or priority of liens.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) and (K) classifies exemption and lien validity determinations as core proceedings that bankruptcy judges may decide.

Caruthers v. Fleet Finance, Inc. (In Re Caruthers) · filed 1988-06-03(b)(2)(B), (K)

Determination and allowance of exemptions from property of the estate, as well as determination of the validity of liens, are fundamental bankruptcy matters (“core proceedings”) that have been delegated by Congress to the bankruptcy courts for adjudication.

Section 157(b)(2)(k) treats disputes over a claimed security interest as core proceedings.

Novack v. Business Credit Leasing, Inc. (In Re Novack) · filed 1988-07-19(b)(2)(k)

The court finds that the instant action is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(k) and that jurisdiction and venue are proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334 and 1409(a), respectively.

Section 157(b)(2) permits a bankruptcy court to determine the validity, extent or priority of liens as a core proceeding only when the liens are on estate property.

In re Gibbons-Grable Co. · filed 1988-10-24(b)(2)

Section 157(b)(2) must be read as empowering the court only to make a determination of the validity, extent or priority of liens upon property of the estate.

Section 157(b)(2)(k) gives bankruptcy courts core jurisdiction over lien disputes only when the lien encumbers property of the estate.

Crane v. Coan (In Re Coan) · filed 1988-12-29(b)(2)(k)

“Core” jurisdiction under § 157(b)(2)(k) only relates to liens encumbering other property of the estate.

Section 157(b)(2)(E) treats a proceeding to determine the validity of liens as a core bankruptcy proceeding.

Aikens v. City of Philadelphia, Water Revenue Bureau (In Re Aikens) · filed 1989-01-25(b)(2)(E)

... it seems clear that this is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E) (“Core proceedings include ... determinations of the validity, extent, or priority of liens; ... ”).

Section 157(b)(2)(H) and (K) makes this dispute over a lien and an alleged fraudulent conveyance a core bankruptcy proceeding.

Palatine National Bank of Palatine v. Strom (In Re Strom) · filed 1989-03-14(b)(2)(H), (K)

This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(H) and (K).

Section 157(b)(2)(K) makes a proceeding to determine the priority and extent of liens a core bankruptcy proceeding.

Webb v. First Mutual Corp. (In Re Webb) · filed 1989-04-24(b)(2)(K)

Although the Debtor’s one-and-a-half-page, bare-bones Complaint fails to include the requisite averments that we have jurisdiction to hear this matter and that it is a core proceeding, as required by B.Rule 7008(a), we easily conclude that this is the case, as this proceeding falls squarely within the scope of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(K).

Section 157(b)(2)(E) gives a bankruptcy court jurisdiction to determine the validity of liens on nonexempt property held by the trustee.

Gardner v. Zimmerman (In Re Gardner) · filed 1989-06-13(b)(2)(E)

Since plaintiff Terryl Gardner’s complaint involved the validity of liens relating to nonexempt property held by the trustee, the bankruptcy court clearly had jurisdiction to determine the validity of these liens pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E).

Section 157(b)(2)(K) covers determinations of the validity, extent, or priority of liens; a turnover complaint alleging no lien does not fall within that category.

Wildlife Center, Inc. v. Fasig Tipton Kentucky, Inc. (In Re Wildlife Center, Inc.) · filed 1989-06-22(b)(2)(K)

Section 157(b)(2)(K) covers “determinations of validity, extent or priority of liens.” However, nothing in the body of either complaint alleges the existence of any lien. Each complaint is captioned “Complaint for Turnover Order” and the relief requested is a turnover of the property described, not a declaration with respect to the validity of a lien.

Section 157(b)(2)(K) treats a dispute over the validity of a tax lien as a core proceeding only when the lien concerns the debtor’s property.

Holland Industries, Inc. v. United States (In Re Holland Industries, Inc.) · filed 1989-06-28(b)(2)(K)

Although bankruptcy courts routinely determine the validity of tax liens, they do so under the rubric of a core proceeding only when the lien concerns the debtor’s property.

Section 157(b)(2) identifies proceedings concerning estate property and lien interests as core bankruptcy proceedings.

Woodson v. Ford Motor Credit Co. (In Re Thompson) · filed 1989-07-05(b)(2)(E), (K), (O)

This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E), (K), (O), 11 U.S.C. §§ 541(a)(1), 544(a).

A proceeding to determine the validity and priority of a lien is a core proceeding.

Page v. Consolidated Title & Abstract Co. (In re Brewery Ltd. Partnership) · filed 1990-04-27(b)(2)(F)

This proceeding, to determine the validity and priority of the trustee’s replacement lien in the sale proceeds, is a core proceeding under § 157(b)(2)(F).

Section 157(b)(2)(K) treats proceedings to determine the validity, priority, or extent of a lien as core proceedings.

In Re Wlodarski · filed 1990-06-07(b)(2)(K)

This is a core proceeding in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(K).

Section 157(b)(2)(K) treats determinations of lien validity, extent, or priority as core proceedings, generally when the lien concerns property of the bankruptcy estate.

Ewers v. Walsh (In Re Walsh) · filed 1991-02-06(b)(2)(K)

Core proceedings include determinations of the validity, extent, or priority of liens. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(K). Generally, however, the lien involved must be on property of the estate.

Section 157(b)(2)(K) treats determination of the validity and extent of liens as a core proceeding even when the property has been abandoned by the estate.

Leavell v. United States (In Re Leavell) · filed 1991-03-07(b)(2)(K)

The Court finds no merit in the defendant’s related argument that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction to make determinations concerning liens on the debtor’s property once it is abandoned and is no longer property of the estate.

Section 157(b)(2) treats an objection seeking to determine the validity or extent of a lien or to enforce a bankruptcy sale order as a core proceeding.

In re Marcus Hook Development Park, Inc. · filed 1991-08-19(b)(2)(E), (b)(2)(N)

First, the purchaser’s objection is expressly designed to determine the validity or extent of the County’s lien against the property. Section 157(b)(2)(E), which states that “determinations of the validity, extent, or priority of liens” are core proceedings, therefore applies. By objecting to the motion for final decree, the Purchaser can also be viewed as trying to enforce the August 14 sale order. As such, the objection is directly analogous to section 157(b)(2)(N), which provides that “orders approving the sale of property” are core proceedings. Under either characterization, then, the Purchaser’s objection is a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(K) treats a lien dispute as a core proceeding only if the lien touches property of the estate or the debtor.

First National Bank of Westminster v. Rarick (In Re Rarick) · filed 1991-09-20(b)(2)(K)

Furthermore, for a lien dispute to constitute a core proceeding under § 157(b)(2)(K), the lien must touch property of the estate or the debtor.

Section 157(b)(2)(K) does not give a bankruptcy court jurisdiction to decide lien priority between creditors over property outside the bankruptcy estate when the dispute does not affect the estate.

Antelope County Farmers Cooperative Ass'n v. Citizens State Bank · filed 1992-05-29(b)(2)(K)

We are concerned in this case with the determination of the validity and priority of two conflicting liens, but § 157(b)(2)(K) is not dispositive of the issue. ... Therefore, the bankruptcy trustee had no interest in the proceeds of the corn crop, and the property which is the subject of this appeal is not property of the estate. ... The bankruptcy court had not determined this issue, nor did it have jurisdiction to do so.

Section 157 does not make a lien dispute about property outside the bankruptcy estate a core proceeding.

Trager v. Internal Revenue Service (In Re North Star Contracting Corp.) · filed 1992-10-19

Core jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E) only relates to liens encumbering property of the debt- or’s estate.

Section 157(b)(2)(K) treats determinations about the validity, extent, or priority of liens as core proceedings only when the liens are on property of the bankruptcy estate.

In re Sims · filed 1995-01-10(b)(2)(K)

That section of the statute only makes sense, however, if taken to refer strictly to liens on property of the bankruptcy estate.

Section 157(b)(2)(K) treats proceedings to determine the validity, extent, or priority of liens as core proceedings that a bankruptcy court may decide with finality.

Olde Florida Investments, Ltd. v. Port of the Islands Community Improvement District (In Re Olde Florida Investments, Lt · filed 2003-05-02(b)(2)(K)

This conclusion, however, does not end the inquiry, and one still must consider, by virtue of the second approach by the Debtor, the challenge of the validity of the 1993 reassessment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(K). This Section provides that the proceeding to determine the validity, extent and priority of liens is a “core proceeding” on which this Court has the power to determine with finality the issues raised there under and enter appropriate orders and judgments, subject only by a timely filed appeal prosecuted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158.

Section 157 treats proceedings to determine the validity and priority of lien rights as core proceedings that bankruptcy judges may hear and determine.

Schultz v. Dunne · filed 2005-12-27(b)(2)(E)

Because Dunne sought to establish the validity and priority of his claim and lien rights, his claim falls squarely within the meaning of a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E). In these circumstances, the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to hear and determine Dunne’s cross-claim and cross-motion for summary judgment.

Section 157(b)(2)(K) treats proceedings determining the validity, extent, or priority of a lien as core proceedings in which the bankruptcy court may enter final judgment.

Crouch Supply Co. v. Piknik Products Co. (In Re Piknik Products Co.) · filed 2006-08-03(b)(2)(K)

Further, because this proceeding is one to determine the validity, extent, or priority ... of a lien, this is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(K) thereby extending this court’s jurisdiction to the entry of a final judgment.

Section 157(b)(2), as construed in this opinion, treats disputes over liens on a debtor’s exempt property as core proceedings even when the property is outside the bankruptcy estate.

Hallmark Capital Group, LLC v. Pickett (In Re Pickett) · filed 2007-02-12(b)(2)(E)

Therefore, since the lien which is this subject of this Adversary Proceeding is on the Debtor’s exempted homestead, and § 157(b)(2)(E) includes liens on property not just of the bankruptcy estate but also on property of the debtor, this Adversary Proceeding is a core proceeding, and this Court has jurisdiction over it.

Section 157(b)(2)(K) treats determinations of the validity, extent, or priority of liens as core bankruptcy proceedings.

Koval v. Henry Kirkland Contractors, Inc. · filed 2008-02-15(b)(2)(K)

Here, the bankruptcy court's judgment was part of a "core proceeding." Core proceedings include, but are not limited to, determinations of the validity, extent, or priority of liens. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(K) (2006).

Section 157(b)(2)(K) lists lien validity and priority determinations as potential core proceedings, but a lien dispute that could arise outside bankruptcy is not core merely because it fits that description.

Metro Bank v. Kessler (In Re Kessler) · filed 2010-06-22(b)(2)(K)

While the issues of priority and validity of a lien appear to fit within the 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(K) category of “determinations of the validity, extent, or priority of liens,” proper application of the Third Circuit’s additional two-part test reveals that this proceeding is, in fact, not “core” and only “related to” the main bankruptcy proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(K) treats determinations of the validity, extent, or priority of liens as core proceedings.

Schroeder v. HSBC Bank U.S.A., N.A. (In re Schroeder) · filed 2015-04-02(b)(2)(K)

Jurisdiction with regard to this adversary proceeding is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 157. Subdivision (b)(1) of this section states in relevant part that bankruptcy judges “may hear and determine all cases under title 11, and all core proceedings arising under title 11.... ” Subdivision (b)(2) then provides that core proceedings “include, but are not limited to ... (K) determinations of the validity, extent, or priority of liens.” Such is precisely the determination that the debtor seeks in the present instance.

Section 157(b)(2)(E) treats a lien determination as a core proceeding only when it concerns assets of a bankruptcy estate currently in administration.

Faricy Law Firm, P.A. v. A.P.I., Inc. (In re A.P.I., Inc.) · filed 2015-09-09(b)(2)(E)

And there is no core-proceeding status under the one specific statutory category cited by the Trust, 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E), “determinations of the validity, extent, or priority of liens.” To ensure a circumscribed scope for this type of core proceeding, a determination of the status of a lien on invocation of that jurisdiction must relate to the assets of a bankruptcy estate currently in administration.

Section 157(b)(2)(K) classifies proceedings to determine the validity and extent of liens as core proceedings.

High-Top Holdings, Inc. v. RREF II BB Acquisitions, LLC (In re High-Top Holdings, Inc.) · filed 2017-01-27(b)(2)(K)

The Court also finds that Count I of each complaint and the counterclaims/crossclaims seeking a determination of the validity and extent of liens are core proceedings, subject to final determination by this Court.

Section 157(b)(2)(K) makes determinations of the validity, extent, or priority of liens core bankruptcy proceedings.

In Re: Latricia L. Hardy · filed 2018-09-11(b)(2)(K)

However, as previously discussed, 28 U.S.C. § 157(b) clearly states that “core proceedings” within the Bankruptcy Court’s jurisdiction include “determin[ing] the validity, extent, or priority of liens.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(K).

Section 157(b)(2)(K) treats a proceeding to determine the validity of a lien as a core proceeding.

Butler v. Cortland Savings & Banking Company · filed 2020-08-03(b)(2)(K)

In this action, the debtors seek a declaratory judgment as to the validity of Cortland Bank’s lien against their residence, which makes this a core proceeding.

Section 157(b) permits a bankruptcy court to treat actions for violations of the automatic stay and discharge injunction as core proceedings.

Grant v. Cole (In Re Grant) · filed 2000-10-17(b)

As to Debtor’s motion to declare the adversary a core proceeding, the court concludes that the §§ 362 and 524 actions are core proceedings and/or are actions which are part of the inherent power of the court.

Section 157(b)(2)(G) treats a motion to lift the automatic stay as a core proceeding that a bankruptcy judge may hear and decide.

United States v. Bishop · filed 2000-08-18(b)(2)(G)

Section 157(b)(2)(G) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that a motion to lift stay is a “core proceeding” arising under Title 11. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(G). As such, it is appropriate for the bankruptcy judge to hear and determine the United States’ motion to lift stay as to the Property under the criteria of § 362(d)(2).

Section 157 treats a claim for a willful violation of the automatic stay as a core proceeding on which a bankruptcy judge may enter final judgment, even if the property has left the estate.

Long Beach Acceptance Corp. v. City of Chicago (In Re Madison) · filed 2000-06-27(b)

Even if the property involved may no longer be part of this Debtor’s bankruptcy estate, a claim alleging willful violation of the automatic stay invokes the central protections and procedures of the bankruptcy process. This proceeding is therefore a core jurisdiction proceeding under 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334, and subject matter jurisdiction lies to hear, adjudicate, and enter final orders and judgment in this Adversary case.

Section 157(b)(2)(G) classifies motions to annul an automatic stay as core bankruptcy proceedings.

Merrill Lynch Credit Corp. v. King · filed 2000-06-12(b)(2)(G)

Annulling an automatic stay is one such core bankruptcy proceeding.

Section 157(b) treats actions for injunctive relief under 11 U.S.C. § 105 and actions addressing automatic stay violations under 11 U.S.C. § 362 as core proceedings.

Technologies International Holdings Inc. v. Kentucky (In Re Technologies International Holdings Inc.) · filed 1999-06-11(b)

While the complaint states both core and non-core claims for relief, actions for injunctive relief pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 105 and actions to address violations of the automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362 are core proceedings. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).

A referred proceeding to terminate, annul, or modify the automatic stay is a core proceeding that a bankruptcy judge may hear and determine.

D.C. Films, Inc. v. Best Film & Video Corp. (In Re Best Film & Video Corp.) · filed 1985-03-22(b)(2)(G)

The Court now has jurisdiction because this is a core proceeding which this Court is authorized to hear and determine when such a proceeding is referred to it by the District Court.

Section 157(b)(2)(G) classifies a motion for relief from the automatic stay as a core proceeding.

New ULM State Bank v. Brokmeyer (In Re Brokmeyer) · filed 1985-05-24(b)(2)(G)

This matter is a core proceeding as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(G).

Section 157 treats proceedings concerning lien validity, extent, or priority and relief from the automatic stay as core proceedings that a referred bankruptcy judge may hear and determine.

Kredietbank, N v. v. ESIC Capital Corp. (In Re Rosner) · filed 1985-04-15(b)(2)(G), (K)

Pursuant to these Orders of Reference, this Court holds this proceeding to determine the validity, extent or priority of liens, and to lift the automatic stay to be a core proceeding arising in a case under Title 11 which this Court is authorized to hear and determine when such a proceeding is referred to it by the District Court. 28 U.S.C. § 157(a), (b)(1), (2)(G), (K).

Section 157(b)(2)(G) treats a motion for relief from the automatic stay as a core proceeding.

In Re Leonard · filed 1985-06-14(b)(2)(G)

There is no question but that the issue at hand is a core proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(G); see also 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B) and (I).

Section 157(b) treats a motion to vacate the automatic stay as a core proceeding that a bankruptcy court may decide.

In Re Newman Companies of Wis. · filed 1985-01-08(b)

The motion to vacate stay is a “core” proceeding, disposition of which is within the authority of this court (28 U.S.C. § 157(b), but the underlying dispute raises jurisdictional questions.

Section 157(b)(2)(G) makes motions to lift the automatic stay core proceedings that a bankruptcy court may hear and determine.

In Re Penny · filed 1985-09-09(b)(2)(G)

These proceedings are “core proceedings” under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(G), which this court may hear and determine.

Section 157(b)(2)(G) treats proceedings to continue or modify the automatic stay as core proceedings.

Lifshutz v. Trang (In Re Trang) · filed 1985-09-10(b)(2)(G)

The issue of continuing the automatic stay is expressly a core proceeding for it relates to modification of the automatic stay as enumerated by Congress in § 157(b)(2)(G).

Section 157 treats this request for relief from the automatic stay as a core proceeding.

Trident Steel Corp. v. UNR, Inc. (In Re UNR Industries, Inc.) · filed 1985-09-13

having found that this cause constitutes a core proceeding, 28 U.S.C. § 157, and being fully advised in the premises; ... On July 29, 1982, Debtor UNR, Inc. and the other above-entitled Debtors filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 157 treats a proceeding for relief from the automatic stay as a core proceeding.

Teilhaber Manufacturing Co. v. Unarco Industries, Inc. (In Re UNR Industries, Inc.) · filed 1985-09-13

This cause constitutes a core proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 157.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (G) treats this motion concerning lease assumption, adequate protection, and relief from the automatic stay as a core proceeding.

In Re Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp. · filed 1985-10-21(b)(2)(A) and (G)

This is a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (G).

A motion for relief from the automatic stay is a core proceeding under § 157(b)(2)(G).

In Re Posey · filed 1985-11-26(b)(2)(G)

This is a core proceeding as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(G).

Section 157(b)(2)(G) treats a motion to terminate, annul or modify the automatic stay as a core proceeding.

In Re Western Preferred Corp. · filed 1985-12-06(b)(2)(G)

A motion to terminate, annul or modify the automatic stay is a “core proceeding” as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(G).

Section 157(b)(2)(G) makes motions to terminate, annul, or modify the automatic stay core proceedings in which a bankruptcy judge may enter orders and judgments.

American Guaranty, Inc. v. Miller (In Re Miller) · filed 1985-12-05(b)(2)(G)

Under 28 U.S.C. 157(b)(1) the bankruptcy judge may enter appropriate orders and judgments in core proceedings. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(G) provides that “motions to terminate, annul or modify the automatic stay” are core proceedings.

Section 157 treats a motion for relief from the automatic stay as a core proceeding.

In Re Mastroeni · filed 1986-01-23(b)(2)(G)

This is a core proceeding in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(6).

Section 157 treats proceedings concerning stay relief and lien determinations as core proceedings that a bankruptcy judge may hear and determine after referral.

RDR Systems Development, Inc. v. Guaranty Bank & Trust Co. (In Re RDR Systems Development, Inc.) · filed 1986-01-24(b)(1), (b)(2)(G) and (K)

This is a core proceeding as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(G) and (K); pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1), the Bankruptcy Judge for this district may hear and determine all core proceedings arising in a case under Title 11 referred under 28 U.S.C. § 157(a), and the Bankruptcy Judge may enter appropriate orders and judgments.

Section 157(b)(2) classifies proceedings concerning relief from the automatic stay and the status of a secured claim as core proceedings.

Bank of Ruleville v. Chudy (In Re Chudy) · filed 1986-03-25(b)(2)(G), (K), (O)

This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(G)(K) & (O).

Section 157 permits bankruptcy courts to hear and decide core proceedings, including civil contempt proceedings to enforce the automatic stay.

In Re Shafer · filed 1986-04-07

28 U.S.C. § 157 provides that bankruptcy courts may hear and decide “core proceedings” arising under the Bankruptcy Code. The Court concludes that a civil contempt proceeding to enforce the automatic stay imposed by 11 U.S.C. § 362 is a core proceeding.

A proceeding concerning the automatic stay, estate administration, and estate property can be a core proceeding under § 157.

Beker Industries Corp. v. Florida Land & Water Adjudicatory Commission (In Re Beker Industries Corp.) · filed 1986-02-13(b)

Since the relief sought, moreover, implicates a determination of the extent of the automatic stay, is based on the needs of estate administration, and concerns the validity of constraints on estate property, the proceeding before us is clearly a matter arising under the Bankruptcy Code, or arising in a case under the Bankruptcy Code. ... As such and because it concerns property of the estate, it is also a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) covers an adversary proceeding alleging a violation of the automatic stay as a core proceeding.

Brock v. Barlow (In Re Brock) · filed 1986-03-14(b)(2)(A)

This is a case arising under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(a) and having been referred to this court, Adversary No. 3-81-0326 (Brock v. Barlow) is determined to be a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), in which Brock seeks a judgment that Barlow violated the provisions of the automatic stay and an award of damages against her, and Adversary No. 3-81-0381 (Barlow v. Brock) is determined to be a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a)(2)(I), in which Barlow seeks a determination that the debt due to H.F.C. upon which Brock was to hold her harmless pursuant to a domestic relations court divorce decree is an exception to the debtor’s discharge because the debt is alimony, maintenance or support as determined under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5).

A motion for relief from the automatic stay is a core proceeding under § 157(b)(2)(G).

Knez v. Bosteder (In Re Bosteder) · filed 1986-04-22(b)(2)(G)

This is a case arising under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(a) and having been referred to this court is determined to be a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(G) in which the creditor-movants, Robert and Nancy Knez, seek relief from the automatic stay (11 U.S.C. § 362(a)) pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d) in order to institute foreclosure proceedings, alleging as cause a default by the debtor-respondents, Clifford and Kathy Bosteder, on a balloon payment due on a promissory note secured by a mortgage on real property that is the Bosteders’ principal residence.

Section 157(b)(2)(G) classifies proceedings for relief from the automatic stay as core proceedings.

In Re Sar-Manco, Inc. · filed 1986-05-27(b)(2)(G)

This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(G).

Section 157(b)(2) treats motions for relief from the automatic stay and to extend the time to file a proof of claim as core proceedings.

Massey-Ferguson, Inc. v. Central Equipment & Service Co. (In Re Central Equipment & Service Co.) · filed 1986-07-01(b)(2)

The Court finds these matters to constitute core proceedings within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).

Section 157(b)(2)(G) treats a motion for relief from the automatic stay as a core proceeding.

In Re Moody · filed 1986-05-30(b)(2)(G)

This is a core proceeding as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(G).

Section 157(b)(2)(G) treats proceedings concerning the automatic stay as core bankruptcy proceedings.

In Re Cohoes Industrial Terminal, Inc. · filed 1986-06-12(b)(2)(G)

This is a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(G).

Section 157(b)(2)(G) and (M) covers a proceeding addressing relief from the automatic stay and assumption of a lease as a core bankruptcy proceeding.

In Re R.H. Neil, Inc. · filed 1986-03-28(b)(2)(G) and (M)

This is a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(G) and (M).

Section 157(b)(2) covers proceedings concerning lease assumption and relief from the automatic stay as core bankruptcy proceedings.

Dellway Villa Apartments v. Goodloe (In Re Goodloe) · filed 1986-07-15(b)(2)

This is a core proceeding. 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(A), (G), (L), (M) (Supp. II 1984).

Section 157(b)(2)(G) makes a motion to modify the automatic stay a core proceeding that the bankruptcy court may hear and determine.

In Re CLC of America, Inc. · filed 1986-08-26(b)(2)(G)

This is “core proceeding” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(G), which the Court may hear and determine.

Section 157(b)(2)(G) classifies proceedings concerning relief from the automatic stay as core proceedings.

In Re Pelham Fence Co., Inc. · filed 1986-10-10(b)(2)(G)

This is a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(G).

Section 157(b)(2)(G) classifies motions for relief from the automatic stay as core proceedings.

In Re Bean · filed 1986-10-16(b)(2)(G)

This matter constitutes a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(G), and this Court recognizes jurisdiction pur ... suant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334.

Section 157(b) treats a motion for stay relief involving a bankruptcy default clause as a core proceeding.

In Re Winters · filed 1986-10-27(b)

This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).

A motion to modify the automatic stay and request adequate protection is a core proceeding under § 157(b)(2)(A) and (G).

In Re Offerman Farms, Inc. · filed 1986-11-03(b)(2)(A) and (G)

The matter before the Court is the Federal Land Bank of Omaha (Land Bank) Motion for Modification of Automatic Stay and Request for Adequate Protection. It is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (G).

A proceeding to prosecute a violation of the automatic stay is a core proceeding concerning administration of the bankruptcy estate.

Budget Service Company v. Better Homes Of Virginia, Inc. · filed 1986-11-03(b)(2)(A)

We are of opinion and hold that a proceeding to prosecute a violation of the automatic stay is a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 157(b)(1) and (2). The matter presented here, for example, is within subsection (2)(A) as concerning the administration of the estate, and a motion with respect to a turnover of the automobiles in question or an order with respect thereto would have been within one or both of subsections (2)(E), the turnover of property of the estate; and (2)(G), terminating, annulling or modifying the automatic stay.

Section 157 treats motions to modify the automatic stay as core proceedings that a bankruptcy court may decide by order.

In Re Opelika Manufacturing Corp. · filed 1986-10-16(b)(2)(G)

A motion to modify the automatic stay under § 362 is a core proceeding and a bankruptcy court has jurisdiction to enter an order granting or denying the motion.

Section 157(b)(2)(G) treats a motion for relief from the automatic stay as a core proceeding.

In Re Dino & Artie's Automatic Transmission Co. · filed 1986-12-18(b)(2)(G)

This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(G).

Section 157 treats motions to lift the automatic stay and to assume a lease as core proceedings that the bankruptcy court may decide.

In Re Safon Ochart · filed 1986-12-18(b)(2)(G), (M)

The court had before it two core proceedings, a motion to lift stay and a motion to assume a lease contract. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(G), (M). The court had authority to pass on these core proceedings.

Section 157(b) permits a bankruptcy court to enter an order on a motion to change venue because the motion is a core proceeding.

In Re 19101 Corp. · filed 1987-05-12(b)

We have previously held that a motion for a change of venue is a “core proceeding” in which this Court may enter orders under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).

Section 157(b)(2)(G) treats a motion for relief from the automatic stay as a core proceeding.

Mercantile Bank of Northwest County v. Oransky (In Re Oransky) · filed 1987-06-23(b)(2)(G)

This matter is before the Court upon the motion of Mercantile Bank of St. Peters for relief from the automatic stay. ... 1. This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(G).

Section 157(b)(2)(G) treats proceedings concerning relief from the automatic stay as core proceedings in which a bankruptcy judge may enter a final order.

Chittenden Trust Co. v. Sebert Lumber, Co. (In Re Vermont Toy Works, Inc.) · filed 1987-12-23(b)(2)(G)

We have subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b), and the authority to enter a final order over this core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(G).

Section 157(b)(2)(G) gives bankruptcy courts authority over motions for relief from the automatic stay.

In re Tetirick · filed 1988-02-17(b)(2)(G)

One area in which this Court has jurisdiction by virtue of BAFJA is over cases involving motions for relief from the automatic stay. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(G). Accordingly, a controlling question of law is not involved, and neither does there exist “a substantial ground for difference of opinion” in this matter.

Section 157(b)(2)(G) treats a motion for relief from the automatic stay as a core proceeding.

In Re Rassier · filed 1988-04-04(b)(2)(G)

This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(G).

Section 157(b)(2)(G) encompasses motions for sanctions for violating the automatic stay as core proceedings.

Fortune & Faal v. Zumbrun (In Re Zumbrun) · filed 1988-07-19(b)(2)(G)

Although a motion for sanctions under section 362(h) is not explicitly listed in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2), section 157(b)(2)(G) specifically deals with motions regarding the automatic stay. Further, it is recognized that such a proceeding is a core proceeding because the automatic stay is a “creature peculiar to federal bankruptcy law” and it “plays a fundamental role in the administration of the Bankruptcy Code.”

Section 157 treats a motion to modify the automatic stay and obtain supplemental relief as a core proceeding.

Equimark Commercial Finance Co. v. Makoroff (In Re Guterl Special Steel Corp.) · filed 1988-10-11(b)(2)(A), (G), and (O)

This constitutes a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (G), and (0).

Section 157(b)(2) gives bankruptcy courts core jurisdiction to determine whether the automatic stay applies.

Hunt v. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (In Re Hunt) · filed 1988-12-08(b)(2)

Congress empowered the Bankruptcy Courts with core jurisdiction to determine the applicability of the automatic stay.

Section 157(b)(2) treats a motion to void a trustee’s sale for violating the automatic stay as a core proceeding.

In Re Greetis · filed 1989-03-17(b)(2)(G), (0)

This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(G), (0).

Section 157(b)(2) classifies a motion for relief from the automatic stay as a core proceeding.

In Re Randall · filed 1989-04-21(b)(2)(A), (G), and (O)

This motion constitutes a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (G), and (O).

Section 157(b)(2)(G) treats a motion for relief from the bankruptcy stay as a core proceeding in which the bankruptcy court may enter a final order.

First Federal Savings of Arkansas v. Beard (In re Beard) · filed 1989-12-05(b)(2)(G)

In addition the court finds this matter to be a core proceeding as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(G) in which the Court may give a final order.