What Homeowners Must Know After they Have Been Sued in a Bankruptcy Adversary Proceeding

18 Monday Jun 2018

Posted by BNG in Bankruptcy, Federal Court, Foreclosure Defense, Judicial States, Litigation Strategies, Non-Judicial States, Pleadings, Pro Se Litigation, Trial Strategies, Your Legal Rights

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

adversary proceeding, automatic stay, Bankruptcy, bankruptcy adversary proceeding, bankruptcy court, Foreclosure, foreclosure defense, homeowners, Law, Lawsuit, Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Mortgage loan, Plaintiff, Pro se legal representation in the United States, United States

This post will be helpful to the Debtor when defending against a creditor’s/trustee’s objection to your discharge or the filing of a Complaint for Nondischargeability based upon fraud/conversion; however, this post may also assist the Debtor in bringing an adversary proceeding should one be necessary.

Introduction

An adversary proceeding is a lawsuit brought within your bankruptcy. This lawsuit normally centers around whether a particular debt or all of your debts are dischargeable (or forgiven) through the act of your filing bankruptcy. These lawsuits usually focus around some alleged improper act on your part, including fraud, misrepresentation, or your failure to abide by the Bankruptcy Code and accompanying Rules.

You are now at the point of the adversary process where you have received, by mail or by personal service, the complaint filed by your creditor which asks the Court to decide whether or not that particular obligation should be part of your bankruptcy discharge or an objection to your overall discharge should be granted.

This section of the adversary proceeding packet is to inform you of what your obligations are in order to prepare for a trial. Note that there are references to the bankruptcy rules: Local Rules of Bankruptcy Practice = LR; Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure = Fed.R.Bankr.P. You may also find both types of Rules at the county law library or you may access the Local Rules at the court’s website http://www.uscourts.gov. You should take a look at these rules if you have any questions about the information given in this section.

Step 1: Answer

After you receive a complaint, you must file an answer with the clerk of the Bankruptcy Court within 30 days after issuance of the summons. (Fed.R.Bankr.P. 7012) You must provide a copy of that answer to the creditor’s attorney.

Step 2: Pre-Trial Conference

Note that the cover sheet you receive from the Court will set forth a pre-trial conference date in the lower right-hand corner of the Summons. You must attend that hearing. At that time, the Court will set parameters for trial. The Court may also discuss with the parties whether or not any settlement is possible. Prior to this pre-trial conference with the Court, and within thirty (30) days after you have answered the complaint, you are required to meet with the attorney for the creditor to discuss how discovery will be conducted in the case. After you have had this discussion and no later than fourteen (14) days after the meeting with the attorney, the parties are required to submit a discovery plan. (Fed.R.Bankr.P. 7016 and LR 7016) This plan is a form which the creditor’s counsel will have and will be filled out by both parties. The form will then be submitted to the Court and the Court will then approve, disapprove or modify the discovery plan and enter any other orders that may be appropriate.

Step 3: Discovery

After you have gone through the preparation of the discovery plan and have had it approved by the Court, you will then conduct your discovery. Local Rule 7026 will provide you with information as to what the parties may or may not do during the discovery process. You may also want to look at Local Rules 7026 through and including 7036 and Fed.R.Bankr.P. 7026 through and including 7036 which gives further information regarding some of the discovery tools or requirements.

Step 4: Motions

You may find that throughout the time frame prior to trial that motions are being filed. Motions may be filed by either party. If you are served with a motion in your adversary proceeding, please be advised that you are required to file your opposition or response with the Court and serve your response to the creditor’s attorney not more than fifteen (15) days after you have received the motion and, in no event, not later than five (5) business days prior to the date set for the hearing on the motion. (Fed.R.Bankr.P. 9013 and Local Rule 9014) Make sure that you provide counsel with a copy of your response.

When you get to Court, you are basically going to supplement what is in your opposition or your motion so the Court can make a well-informed analysis of the situation and then deliver an appropriate decision. Please note that when you are in front of the Court, your time is limited. Generally, a motion is limited to approximately five minutes for both sides. It is the feeling of all judges in our district that if all motions and oppositions are well-drafted and timely filed, there is no reason to spend lengthy periods with oral argument. Therefore, you will be expected to come in to court, make a brief presentation and then sit down.

Step 5: Trial

After you have completed all discovery and all motions, you will then be at the point where the parties are ready to proceed with trial. Your trial date will be assigned to you at the pre-trial conference and the Court will generally schedule the trial within 60 and 120 days depending upon the nature of the matter being tried.

Approximately two weeks prior to the trial, you are required to file with the Court a trial statement, a list of witnesses, and a list of exhibits. You must also exchange these documents with the attorney for the creditor. If you and the attorney for the creditor can agree on what the basic issues in trial are going to be, the trial statement may be filed jointly. In other words, one statement will represent the facts and information for both sides to the Court.

The day before the trial, the parties will mark all the exhibits and any supplemental information that needs to be added to the trial statements. Although you are not required to agree with the attorney for the creditor as to what exhibits may be introduced into evidence, it is strongly encouraged that the parties try to agree to all exhibits to be placed before the Court in an effort to have an economical and efficient adjudication of the case.

Certain documents have been included in this packet so that you will have the ability to understand what needs to be filed with the Court prior to trial. However, it is strongly recommended that you access the court’s website at http://www.uscourts.gov and download a copy of the Local Rules. These will prove very useful to you through the course of the adversary proceeding. You may also wish to check with the county law library for a copy of the Local Rules.

All bankruptcy judges are willing to set up a time to discuss whether or not the case may be settled. Many times, having an impartial third party listening to the problems will allow negotiations to flow freely and hopefully obviate the need for the trial. If a settlement conference is set up, it will not be the judge in front of whom this matter will be heard, so you need not fear that you will be prejudiced in any way if this matter is not settled.

COURTROOM ETIQUETTE BETWEEN THE COURT AND THE PARTIES

1. Don’t take the argument personally (no personal slurs against the other party.)

2. Advocacy does not mean we cannot be civil and communicate with the other side.

3. Adversary proceedings are intended to be negotiated if possible.

4. If you cannot resolve the matter and proceed to trial, remember the following:

a. Dress Appropriately- Nice attire such as a suit or slacks is acceptable. Please no hats, shorts, thongs, tank tops, etc.

b. Your statements should be addressed to the court and not to the other side- The only time you should speak to opposing counsel is during breaks or with the Court’s permission after requesting a break.

a. Do not interrupt the other side or the judge when they are speaking.

b. Remember to follow the rules as explained in the attached documents regarding the filing of your trial statement, list of exhibits, witnesses, etc.

DEALING WITH THE LAW

1. Understand your responsibilities and respond accordingly. You are held to the same standard as an attorney when presenting your case and arguing the legal issues. You may need to educate yourself on the law at issue by visiting the law library and reading the Bankruptcy Code and cases dealing with those sections of the code involving your case.

2. Sanctions – Remember that if you act disrespectful to the Court or opposing attorney, or if you lie in your court pleadings or under oath at trial, the Court has the power to sanction you by either assessing a fee or ruling for the opposing party.

3. If you have any questions regarding your responsibilities, call the other side’s attorney they will answer procedural questions, but cannot assist you with your legal argument.

4. Know the Local Rules – you can obtain a copy by accessing the court’s website at http://www.uscourts.gov You may also be able to obtain the rules from the county law library or from opposing counsel.

When Homeowner’s good faith attempts to amicably work with the Bank in order to resolve the issue fails;

Home owners should wake up TODAY! before it’s too late by mustering enough courage for “Pro Se” Litigation (Self Representation – Do it Yourself) against the Lender – for Mortgage Fraud and other State and Federal law violations using foreclosure defense package found at https://fightforeclosure.net/foreclosure-defense-package/ “Pro Se” litigation will allow Homeowners to preserved their home equity, saves Attorneys fees by doing it “Pro Se” and pursuing a litigation for Mortgage Fraud, Unjust Enrichment, Quiet Title and Slander of Title; among other causes of action. This option allow the homeowner to stay in their home for 3-5 years for FREE without making a red cent in mortgage payment, until the “Pretender Lender” loses a fortune in litigation costs to high priced Attorneys which will force the “Pretender Lender” to early settlement in order to modify the loan; reducing principal and interest in order to arrive at a decent figure of the monthly amount the struggling homeowner could afford to pay.

If you find yourself in an unfortunate situation of losing or about to lose your home to wrongful fraudulent foreclosure, and need a complete package that will show you step-by-step litigation solutions helping you challenge these fraudsters and ultimately saving your home from foreclosure either through loan modification or “Pro Se” litigation visit: https://fightforeclosure.net/foreclosure-defense-package/

Effective Use of Injunctions Can Make or Break Homeowner’s Foreclosure Case

02 Saturday Apr 2016

Posted by BNG in Appeal, Case Laws, Case Study, Federal Court, Foreclosure Defense, Judicial States, Litigation Strategies, Non-Judicial States, Pleadings, Pro Se Litigation, State Court, Your Legal Rights

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

automatic stay, injunction, injunctive, motion, relief, stay, stay pending appeal

CASE STUDY: 5 F.3d 539 Unpublished Disposition

Effective Foreclosure Defense requires timing. If you time correctly, you can save your home. Homeowners presently in litigation must use injunctions to their advantage. Ignorance will not be to your advantage.

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.

In re Evalyn PREBLICH, Debtor.
Evalyn PREBLICH, Appellant,
v.
Kenneth W. BATTLEY; Dennis Sammut, Appellees.

No. 92-36540.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 11, 1993.*
Decided Aug. 24, 1993.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Alaska; No. CV-91-419-HRH, H. Russel Holland, Chief District Judge, Presiding.

D. Alaska

AFFIRMED.

Before PREGERSON, BRUNETTI and RYMER, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM**

Chapter 7 debtor Evalyn Preblich appeals pro se from the district court’s affirmance of a bankruptcy court order authorizing the sale of certain bankruptcy estate property near Hope, Alaska to appellee Dennis Sammut by appellee-trustee Kenneth W. Battley. The district court held that because Preblich had failed to obtain a stay pending appeal, her challenge to the sale was moot under 11 U.S.C. Sec. 363(m). Preblich also petitions this court to stay the present appeal pending resolution by the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of an allegedly related matter arising from the same bankruptcy. Sammut, meanwhile, moves this court to strike Preblich’s Reply Brief.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291. We affirm the order of the district court, and deny the motions of both parties.

I. MOOTNESS

The district court ruled that Preblich’s challenge to the bankruptcy court’s authorization of the sale of the subject property was moot under 11 U.S.C. Sec. 363(m) because she had failed to obtain a stay pending appeal. Preblich does not dispute the fact that she did not obtain a stay, but instead offers reasons why this situation should be excepted from the stay requirement. After careful consideration of these arguments, we conclude that all of them lack merit.

Section 363(m) provides that an appeal from the bankruptcy court’s authorization of the sale of certain property cannot affect the rights of a good faith purchaser, unless the debtor stays the sale pending an appeal.1 We have applied this statute strictly, and have recognized only two situations in which failure to obtain a stay will not render an appeal moot: “(1) where real property is sold to a creditor subject to the right of redemption and (2) where state law would otherwise permit the transaction to be set aside.” In re Mann, 907 F.2d 923, 926 (9th Cir.1990) (internal citations omitted). We have done so in the interest of promoting finality in bankruptcy. See In re Onouli-Kona Land Co., 846 F.2d 1170, 1172 (9th Cir.1988).

Preblich argues that her appeal of the sale authorization order is not moot because she holds a statutory right of redemption in the subject property which would authorize the setting aside of the sale under state law. Preblich fails, however, to explain either the factual or statutory basis of this claim. Indeed, she cites no Alaska law whatsoever for the proposition that the trustee’s sale of the property in this case may be set aside for any reason. Our own research, reveals that Alaska statutes do recognize a right of redemption, but only where property is sold to satisfy a judgment or other lien. See Alaska Stat. Secs. 09.35.250 (redemption by judgment debtor or successor), 09.45.190 (redemption after foreclosure of lien) (1983). The sale at issue here falls into neither of these categories; it was an ordinary sale of estate assets for the purposes of bankruptcy liquidation.

Preblich also argues that section 363(m) is not applicable to her appeal because Sammut did not purchase the property in “good faith” within the meaning of the statute. Specifically, Preblich contends that the sale price was not adequate, that the auction was not adequately advertised, and that the trustee agreed to pay for unnecessarily expensive environmental cleanup measures. We have defined a lack of good faith under this statute to constitute “fraud, collusion … or an attempt to take grossly unfair advantage of other bidders.” Onouli-Kona Land Co., 846 F.2d at 1173.

After reviewing Preblich’s contentions, we conclude that none are sufficient to establish a lack of good faith on the part of Sammut. First of all, we have explicitly held that good faith does not depend on the value paid for the subject property. Id. at 1174. Preblich’s contentions that Sammut did not pay a sufficiently high purchase price are therefore unavailing. Second, the fact that advertisement of the property was not as extensive as Preblich wished, does not render the sale fraudulent, collusive or unfair. According to the district court, the property was advertised in the Hope-Sunrise area, and was ultimately sold at an auction in which Sammut and one other individual bid against each other. Under these circumstances, we are unable to conclude that the sale lacked good faith. Third, the fact that the trustee may have paid more than necessary for environmental cleanup in connection with the sale is entirely irrelevant to Sammut’s good faith. Although these expenditures may have effectively lowered the purchase price, the inadequacy of that price will not establish that Sammut lacked good faith.

Finally, Preblich argues that her appeal should not be adjudicated moot under section 363(m), because the trustee unlawfully exercised control over the subject property. According to Preblich, the trustee recovered the property from Preblich’s husband and son as a fraudulent conveyance, under a judgment of the bankruptcy court. Preblich contends, however, that the fraudulent conveyance judgment was in error and that the trustee did not have a right to sell the property to Sammut.

However true Preblich’s contentions may be, the fraudulent conveyance issue was the subject of a separate bankruptcy court order which was separately appealable and is not presently before this court. Moreover, a finding that the trustee had improperly recovered the subject property for the bankruptcy estate would not overcome section 363(m). In the absence of a stay, section 363(m) renders moot any action which might affect the rights of a good faith purchaser. Although we have recognized narrow exceptions to this rule, see In re Mann, 907 F.2d at 926, an erroneous fraudulent conveyance holding on the part of the bankruptcy court would satisfy none of them.

II. MOTION TO STAY THE APPEAL

Subsequent to filing the present appeal, Preblich petitioned this court to stay this proceeding pending the resolution of another matter which is pending before the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, BAP No. 92-1861. Preblich contends that “[i]f this case should be decided favorably for the appellant, the Ninth Circuit case would become moot. If it is decided unfavorably, then it will be [appealed] and consolidated with the current appeal so there will be just one appeal.” Preblich, however, gives no description of the issues involved in the BAP case or any explanation of why a favorable BAP decision would render the present appeal moot. For this reason we are not persuaded that staying the present appeal is necessary and accordingly deny Preblich’s motion.2

III. MOTION TO STRIKE

Sammut has moved to strike the Preblich’s Reply Brief on the ground that it raises matters not within the scope of her opening brief and introduces evidence which is not a part of the record. Because we reach the merits of Preblich’s appeal and reject it, we deny Sammut’s motion as moot.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s affirmance of the bankruptcy court’s order authorizing the sale of the subject property, deny Preblich’s motion to stay the present appeal and deny Sammut’s motion to strike Preblich’s Reply Brief.

AFFIRMED.

*The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4

**This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

1 The statute explicitly provides that:

The reversal or modification on appeal of an authorization under subsection (b) or (c) of this section of a sale or lease of property does not affect the validity of a sale or lease under such authorization to an entity that purchased or leased such property in good faith, whether or not such entity knew of the pendency of the appeal, unless such authorization and such sale or lease were stayed pending appeal.

11 U.S.C. Sec. 363(m).

2 Sammut suggests that the BAP case referred to by Preblich involves an attempt to reopen the adversary proceeding in which the bankruptcy court held that Preblich’s conveyance of the subject property to her husband and son was fraudulent. As we explained above, however, a finding that the conveyance was not fraudulent would not overcome the strict requirement in section 363(m) that a stay be obtained if an appellate court is to provide any relief affecting the rights of a good faith purchaser

Why Homeowners Must Effectively Use Court Injunctions To Save Their Homes

01 Friday Apr 2016

Posted by BNG in Appeal, Bankruptcy, Case Laws, Case Study, Federal Court, Foreclosure Defense, Judicial States, Litigation Strategies, Non-Judicial States, Pro Se Litigation, Your Legal Rights

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

automatic stay, injunction, injunctive relief, motion, stay, stay pending appeal

CASE STUDY: 893 F.2d 1338 Unpublished Disposition

In re James MILLER, Jr. and Pamala F. Miller,
James MILLER, Jr. and Pamala F. Miller, Appellants,
v.
LINCOLN TITLE COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 88-5687.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Oct. 30, 1989.
Decided Jan. 12, 1990.

Before WILLIAM A. NORRIS, REINHARDT and TROTT, Circuit Judges.

I. MEMORANDUM*

1 The Millers (“Debtors”) seek reversal of an order of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) denying the Debtors’ Ex Parte Motion for Order Setting Aside Default Order and dismissing as moot the Debtors’ appeal of the dismissal of their Chapter 11 petition. The Debtors base their appeal on two arguments: (1) the BAP erred in denying the Debtors’ Rule 60(b) motion to set aside the default judgment; and (2) the BAP erred in dismissing the Debtors’ appeal of the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing their Chapter 11 case on the grounds of mootness. We affirm the BAP’s order dismissing the Debtors’ appeal insofar as it relates to the automatic stay and the sale of the property, due to the mootness of that issue, and we remand to the BAP the issues of timeliness of the Debtors’ appeal to the BAP and whether dismissal of the Debtors’ Chapter 11 petition for lack of prosecution of their earlier Chapter 13 petition was proper.

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

2 The Debtors filed a Chapter 11 petition on June 12, 1986. On March 9, 1987, the U.S. Trustee filed a motion to dismiss the Chapter 11 case or, alternatively, to convert it to a Chapter 7 case. On March 31, 1987, Lincoln Title Company (“Lincoln”) filed a motion to join in the motion to dismiss and its own motion for dismissal. Lincoln based its motion to dismiss on the Debtors’ previous Chapter 13 case that was dismissed for failure to prosecute.1 Lincoln asked the court to take judicial notice of the fact that the Chapter 13 was dismissed pursuant to section 109(g)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code.2 On May 12, 1987, the bankruptcy court dismissed the Debtors’ Chapter 11 case based on the Debtors’ ineligibility to file the Chapter 11 case under section 109(g)(1). The order of dismissal was entered on May 15, 1987, and the Debtors filed their notice of appeal to the BAP on May 28, 1987, two days after the ten-day deadline prescribed by Bankruptcy Rule 8002. The respondent objected on the ground that the appeal was untimely and the BAP filed a conditional order of dismissal on July 22, 1987, inviting the Debtors to file a written explanation showing legal cause why the appeal should not be dismissed. On July 23, 1987, the Debtors filed a motion in opposition to the respondent’s objection. On September 9, 1987, the BAP issued an order denying the motion to dismiss. The order did not specify the BAP’s reasons for denial.
3 While the Chapter 11 case was pending, Creditway of America (“Creditway”) filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay. On September 17, 1986, the bankruptcy court entered an order modifying the automatic stay. This order denied Creditway’s motion to lift the stay subject to the following conditions to be performed by the Debtors: (1) Submission of proof of insurance on the subject property; (2) filing of schedules and statements by August 27, 1986; and (3) filing of a plan and disclosure statement on or before September 29, 1986. The order also stated that if the Debtors failed to perform any of these conditions, Creditway could file a declaration of default or order for relief from stay.
4 The Debtors complied with the first two requirements, but did not file a plan and disclosure statement by the prescribed deadline. However, the Debtors delivered a request for an extension of time to the trustee on September 26, 1986. The Trustee filed the request on September 30, 1986. On October 9, 1986, Creditway filed a document styled, “Declaration of Jeffrey A. Paris and Order Terminating Automatic Stay,” based on the Debtors’ noncompliance with the order to file a plan and disclosure statement by September 29. The Debtors claim to have received this declaration/order on October 20, 1986. On October 24, 1986, the court granted the Debtors’ request for an extension of time to file the plan and disclosure statement until October 27, 1986. On November 24, 1986, Judge Fenning signed Creditway’s proposed order terminating the automatic stay, and on December 16, 1986, entered a default order terminating the stay. The Debtors allege that neither the court nor Creditway provided them with a copy of any signed order. The Debtors did not appeal the November or December order.
5 On January 7, 1987, Creditway conducted a Trustee’s Sale of the property. The property was purchased by an independent third party. The Debtors then filed numerous papers in the state courts as well as the bankruptcy court seeking to set aside the sale. All actions were unsuccessful. In the meantime, the municipal court granted a Writ of Execution, Money Judgment for and Writ of Possession of Real Property on the foreclosed property.
6 On July 27, 1987, the bankruptcy court declined to hear the Debtors’ Complaint to Invalidate Sale of Real Property filed June 1, 1987, due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction since the bankruptcy case had been dismissed. The Debtors then filed with the BAP, on December 2, 1987, an ex parte motion to set aside the default order under Rule 60(b). The BAP denied the Debtors’ motion and dismissed their appeal as moot on January 11, 1988. The panel clarified this order at the request of the Debtors on March 11, 1988, and explained that because the order lifting the automatic stay was never appealed and the property was subsequently sold, the appeal was rendered moot. Debtors then filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit on February 10, 1988.

III. ANALYSIS

7 The court of appeals reviews a decision of the BAP de novo. Both the court of appeals and the BAP apply the same standard of review to the bankruptcy court judgment, reviewing findings of fact under the clearly erroneous standard and questions of law de novo. See In re Burley, 738 F.2d 981 (9th Cir.1984).

i. The Automatic Stay.

8 We affirm the order of the BAP denying the Debtors’ Rule 60(b) motion and dismissing their appeal insofar as it affects the automatic stay. The issue of the automatic stay and the sale of the Debtors’ residence has been rendered moot by the sale of the property to an independent third party.
9 This circuit has held that where a stay pending appeal is not requested or is not granted, a party risks losing its ability to realize the benefit of a successful appeal. See In re Combined Metals Reduction Co., 557 F.2d 179 (9th Cir.1977); In re Sun Valley Ranches, Inc., 823 F.2d 1373, 1374 (9th Cir.1987) (“We have generally held that where an automatic stay is lifted, the debtor’s failure to obtain a stay pending appeal renders an appeal moot after assets in which the creditor had an interest are sold.”). Where the property has been sold to an independent third party, this circuit has held that the appeal is moot, because the court cannot grant effective relief, at least in the absence of the third party. See In re Royal Properties, Inc., 621 F.2d 984, 987 (9th Cir.1980) (“Once the orders have been performed, an appeal attacking the order is moot. Nor may the appellants attack the validity of the sale or the deed in this appeal. The purchasers of the property have not been made parties to the appeal, and we cannot grant effective relief in their absence.”).
10 In the instant case, the default order was not appealed and a stay was not requested. The Debtors claim that they did not appeal because they were not served with the signed default order within the time period for appeal. Nonetheless, because the subject property was sold to an independent third party pursuant to a bankruptcy court order, we cannot grant effective relief in a proceeding to which the purchaser is not a party. Thus, we affirm the BAP’s denial of the Debtors’ Rule 60(b) motion and its order dismissing the Debtors’ appeal insofar as it affects the automatic stay.

ii. Dismissal of the Debtors’ Chapter 11 Petition

A. Extent of Property Involved

11 The BAP dismissed the Debtors’ appeal of the order dismissing their Chapter 11 case based on the sale of the Debtors’ residence rendering the appeal moot. However, it appears that the BAP mistakenly believed that the only property involved in the Debtors’ Chapter 11 case was the Debtors’ residence. Because other property appears to be involved, we reverse the BAP’s dismissal. On remand, the BAP should determine whether the Chapter 11 case involved other property.

B. Dismissal Under 11 U.S.C. Sec. 109(g)(1).

12 The bankruptcy court dismissed the Debtors’ Chapter 11 petition under section 109(g)(1). This section bars an individual who was a debtor in a previous Title 11 case pending in the preceding 180 days from being a debtor under Title 11 if the previous case was dismissed “for willful failure to abide by orders of the court, or to appear before the court in proper prosecution.” The Debtors’ earlier Chapter 13 case was dismissed for “failure to prosecute” and their subsequent Chapter 11 petition was filed within 180 days of that dismissal. The appellees argue that the dismissal for lack of prosecution of the Chapter 13 proceeding acts as a bar to the Debtors’ Chapter 11 filing. The appellants vigorously disagree, arguing that the Chapter 13 dismissal was not based on a willful failure to prosecute and that since section 109(g)(1) requires the element of willfulness, they are not barred from filing the Chapter 11 petition. The BAP did not consider this issue because it dismissed the appeal as moot. Thus, on remand if the BAP concludes that the appeal is timely (see section C infra ) and that property other than the house is involved, it should also consider the issue of whether the dismissal of the Debtors’ Chapter 13 case for failure to prosecute served to trigger the 180-day filing bar of section 109(g)(1).

C. Timeliness of the Appeal to the BAP.

13 The untimely filing of a notice of appeal is jurisdictional. In re Nucorp Energy, Inc., 812 F.2d 582 (9th Cir.1987). However, Bankruptcy Rule 8002 avoids potential hardship by allowing deadline extensions. If a party does not file the notice of appeal or an extension within the ten-day filing period, he may still receive an extension upon request within twenty days of the deadline if he can show “excusable neglect.” 11 U.S.C. Sec. 8002(c). The Debtors did not actually request an extension of time to file the appeal before the BAP and the BAP order did not indicate whether or not the Debtors had shown excusable neglect. Thus, on remand the BAP should reconsider the issue of the timeliness of the Debtors’ appeal or provide an explanation of the basis for its earlier determination.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this disposition.
*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3
1 The Millers filed a Chapter 13 petition on November 7, 1985. On November 13, 1985, the court filed an order for the Millers to file a plan and statement, and an order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed. On December 2, 1985, a show cause hearing was held and the court dismissed the Chapter 13 petition for “failure to prosecute.” The Millers did not attend this hearing
2 Section 109(1)(g) states that an individual may not be a debtor under Title 11 if he has been a debtor in a Title 11 case pending at any time in the preceding 180 days if “the case was dismissed by the court for willful failure of the debtor to abide by orders of the court, or to appear before the court in proper prosecution.” 11 U.S.C. Sec. 109(g)(1)

When Homeowner’s good faith attempts to amicably work with the Bank in order to resolve the issue fails;

Home owners should wake up TODAY! before it’s too late by mustering enough courage for “Pro Se” Litigation (Self Representation – Do it Yourself) against the Lender – for Mortgage Fraud and other State and Federal law violations using foreclosure defense package found at http://www.fightforeclosure.net “Pro Se” litigation will allow Homeowners to preserved their home equity, saves Attorneys fees by doing it “Pro Se” and pursuing a litigation for Mortgage Fraud, Unjust Enrichment, Quiet Title and Slander of Title; among other causes of action. This option allow the homeowner to stay in their home for 3-5 years for FREE without making a red cent in mortgage payment, until the “Pretender Lender” loses a fortune in litigation costs to high priced Attorneys which will force the “Pretender Lender” to early settlement in order to modify the loan; reducing principal and interest in order to arrive at a decent figure of the monthly amount the struggling homeowner could afford to pay.

How Homeowners Can Effectively Use Automatic Stay Provisions of the Bankruptcy Code

27 Sunday Dec 2015

Posted by BNG in Bankruptcy, Case Laws, Case Study, Foreclosure Crisis, Foreclosure Defense, Judicial States, Non-Judicial States, Pro Se Litigation, Your Legal Rights

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

automatic stay, bankruptcy code, chapter 11 bankruptcy, chapter 13 bankruptcy, chapter 7 bankruptcy, foreclosure defense, lifting automatic stay, pro per, pro se, Pro se legal representation in the United States, wrongful foreclosure

I. Introduction.

A. Scope.

1. Section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code (the “Code”) contains a broad
statutory stay of litigation and lien enforcement, effective automatically on the commencement of a bankruptcy case. 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) (“. . . a petition [commencing a case] . . . operates as a stay, applicable to all entities . . .”.).

2. Purpose – Time to Reorganize. This automatic stay gives a trustee or
chapter 11 debtor-in-possession1 a breathing spell from creditors by stopping all collection efforts, harassment, and all foreclosure actions, allowing a debtor to attempt a reorganization plan. See, e.g., In re Siciliano, 13 F.3d 748, 750 (3d Cir. 1994) (“[t]he purpose of the automatic stay provision is to afford the debtor a ‘breathing spell’ by halting the collection process. It enables the debtor to attempt a repayment or reorganization plan with an aim toward satisfying existing debt.”);
Maritime Electric Co., Inc. v. United Jersey Bank, 959 F.2d 1194, 1204 (3d Cir. 1991) (“automatic stay allows debtor breathing spell from creditors and stops collection efforts”); In re Peregrine Systems, Inc., 314 B.R. 31, 44 (Bankr. D. Del. 2004) aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other grounds, 2005 WL 2401955 (D. Del. Sept. 29, 2005) (automatic stay is a “fundamental protection provided to a debtor for the purpose of stopping all creditor collection efforts and harassment of the debtor and to provide … a fresh start.”); Shaw v. Ehrlich, 294 B.R. 260, 267 (W.D. Va. 2003), aff’d, 99 Fed. Appx. 466 (4th Cir. 2004) (“stay protects debtors, as well as creditors, by providing debtors a breathing spell from collection efforts”).

3. Policy Rationale – Debtor Asset Protection. Behind the stay is a clear
policy rationale: “to grant complete, immediate, albeit temporary relief to the debtor from creditors, and also to prevent dissipation of the debtor’s assets before orderly distribution to creditors can be effected.” S.E.C. v. Brennan, 230 F.3d 65, 70 (2d Cir. 2000) (quoting Penn Terra Ltd. v. Department of Envtl. Resources, 733 F.2d 267, 271 (3d Cir. 1984)). See also Reliant Energy Services, Inc. v. Enron Canada Corp., 349 F.3d 816, 825 (5th Cir. 2003) (“purposes of the bankruptcy stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362 ‘are to protect the debtor’s assets, provide temporary relief from creditors, and further equity of distribution among the creditors by forestalling a race to the courthouse.'”) (quoting GATX Aircraft Corp. v. M/V Courtney Leigh, 768 F.2d 711, 716 (5th Cir. 1985)); Mann v. Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp., 316 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 2003) (“automatic stay provision is designed to forfend against the disorderly, piecemeal dismemberment of the debtor’s estate outside the bankruptcy proceedings”).

_____________________________

1 Code § 1107(a) gives a chapter 11 debtor-in-possession the “rights,” “duties” and “powers” of a trustee.
See NLRB v. Bildisco & Bildisco, 465 U.S. 513, 517 n. 2 (1984). See also Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9001(10) (“‘Trustee’ includes a debtor in possession in a Chapter 11 case.”).

——————————

4. Procedural Safeguards for Secured Creditors. The Code still imposes
procedural safeguards for the benefit of the secured creditor (e.g., “adequate protection” against erosion of collateral value; time limits on stay modification requests; limits on counterclaims against secured lender seeking stay modification). As shown below, it attempts to reconcile the rights of the secured creditor with the needs of the debtor and its unsecured creditors. See United Savings Assn. of Texas v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd. (In re Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd.), 484 U.S. 365, 376 (1988) (“ . . . lack of any realistic prospect of effective reorganization will require” modification of stay of lien enforcement”).

II. The Automatic Stay.

A. When Effective.

1. The stay is automatic upon filing of the petition commencing a case under Code chapters 7 (liquidation), 9 (municipal debt adjustment), 11 (reorganization),13 (individual debt adjustment), or chapter 15 (cross-border cases) with respect to foreign main proceedings. See e.g. Eskanos & Adler, P.C. v. Leetien, 309 F.3d 1210, 1214 (9th Cir. 2002) (“the automatic stay requires an immediate freeze of the status quo by precluding and nullifying post-petition actions”); Rexnord Holdings, Inc. v. Bidermann, 21 F.3d 522, 527 (2d Cir. 1994) (“[a]utomatic stay is effective immediately upon filing of bankruptcy petition”) (citing Shimer v. Fugazy (In re Fugazy Express, Inc., 982 F.2d 769, 776 (2d Cir. 1992));

2. The stay acts as a specific and definite court order to restrain creditors
from continuing the judicial process or collection efforts against debtor. See e.g. In re San Angelo Pro Hockey Club, Inc., 292 B.R. 118 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2003) (automatic stay is self-executing injunction, constituting an order issuing from bankruptcy court); In re Bottone, 226 B.R. 290, 297 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1998) (“as long as the Chapter 13 case is pending . . . the automatic stay … restrains postpetition creditors from taking action against property of the estate”) (quoting In re Woodall, 81 B.R. 17, 18 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 1987)).

3. Unless modified by the court, the stay is effective for the duration of a
bankruptcy case, and generally cannot be waived by the debtor. Maritime Elec. Co., Inc. v. United Jersey Bank, 959 F.2d 1194 (3d Cir. 1991) (held, because automatic stay serves interests of both debtors and creditors, it may not be waived and its scope may not be limited by debtor); In re Atrium High Point Ltd. Partnership, 189 B.R. 599 (Bankr. M.D.N.C. 1995) (before enforcing a debtor’s prepetition waiver of automatic stay bankruptcy court must look at circumstancesunder which prepetition waiver arose); but see In re Excelsior Henderson Motorcycle Mfg. Co., Inc., 273 B.R. 920 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2002) (court enforced prepetition agreement under which chapter 11 debtor waived automatic stay).

B. Jurisdictional Basis of Injunctive Power.

1. The district court has “exclusive jurisdiction of all of the property,
wherever located, of the debtor as of the commencement of [the] case.” 28 U.S.C. § 1334(d). A bankruptcy court is a “unit of the district court.” 28 U.S.C. § 151. Section 362 implements this jurisdiction and is supplemented by § 105(a), which authorizes a court to “issue any order, process, or judgment that is necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of the Code.

2. The broad jurisdictional base of Section 362 confirms the court’s inherent power to protect property within its jurisdiction and to prevent any divestiture of that jurisdiction. Isaacs v. Hobbs Tie & Timber Co., 51 S. Ct. 270, 282 (1931) (held, jurisdiction of bankruptcy court respecting property of debtor’s estate having attached, actions brought in other courts could not affect it). See In re Mohawk Greenfield Motel Corp., 239 B.R. 15 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1999) (“the automatic stay protects the bankruptcy court’s exclusive jurisdiction over the debtor and its property”) (citing In re Soares, 107 F.3d 969, 975 (1st Cir. Mass. 1997)).

3. Section 362(a) stays, among other things:

a. a secured creditor from collecting accounts receivable of debtor.
Matter of Pernie Bailey Drilling Co., Inc., 993 F.2d 67 (5th Cir. 1993)
(account receivables were property of the estate; court must lift stay for
creditors to gain access to receivables);

b. a creditor’s dissolution of a debtor corporation. 11 U.S.C.
§ 362(a)(3); Hillis Motors, Inc. v. Hawaii Automobile Dealers’ Assoc.,
997 F.2d 581 (9th Cir. 1993) (held, dissolution proceeding constituted
exercise of control over debtor’s property);

c. foreclosure proceedings in other courts instituted against debtor’s
property prior to commencement of bankruptcy case. 11 U.S.C.
§ 362(a)(1); see In re Vierkant, 240 B.R. 317, 322 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 1999)
(citing Kalb v. Feuerstein, 308 U.S. 433 (1940); In re Soares, 107 F.3d
969 (1st Cir. 1997)) (post-petition state court default order signed by judge
two weeks after bankruptcy filing violated automatic stay);

e. an IRS sale of property seized prior to commencement of case.
11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(8); United States v. Whiting Pools, Inc., 462 U.S. 198
(1983) (IRS may also be compelled to turn over levied property under
Code § 542).

f. arbitration proceedings that not only concern claims asserted
against the debtor, but also concern the debtor’s claims against a third
party. ACandS, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Co., 425 F.3d 252
(3d Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2291 (2006). (although arbitration
was commenced by debtor, continuation of arbitration proceedings
violated automatic stay because, unlike trial, it is impossible in arbitration
to definitely classify arguments presented (i.e., claims and counterclaims);
arbitration award, which effectively terminated debtor’s insurance
coverage, is invalid because it diminishes estate property); In re Edwin
Epstein Jr. Operating Co., Inc., 314 B.R. 591 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2004)
(held, automatic stay applied, not only to prevent non-debtor party to
arbitration proceedings from asserting claims against debtor for tortious
interference and slander of title, but also to prevent arbitrators from
hearing debtor’s claims to replace this non-debtor party as operator of oil
and gas wells based on debtor’s asserted ownership interests therein).

III. Scope and Duration of Stay.

A. Scope of Section 362.

1. Property of Estate. The bankruptcy court’s injunctive power is ordinarily
limited to protecting property belonging to a debtor. Property of the estate is defined in Code § 541(a)(1) (“. . . all legal or equitable interests of the debtor in property as of the commencement of the case.”). See In re Lankford, 305 B.R. 297, 301 (Bankr. N.D. Iowa 2004) (“All recognizable interests of the debtors or the estate are afforded the protection of § 362(a)…This includes a mere possessory interest in real property without any accompanying legal interest.”). See also In re Moffett, 356 F.3d 518 (4th Cir. 2004) (held, chapter 13 debtor’s statutory right of redemption was sufficient interest in automobile that was repossessed prepetition to be included in estate property). But see In re Jasper, 325 B.R. 50, 55 (Bankr. D. Me. 2005) (credit union’s policy of revoking membership benefits of members who caused credit union a loss does not violate automatic stay); In re Santangelo, 325 B.R. 874 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. March 22, 2005) (district court did not violate automatic stay by approving class action
settlement for claims against mortgage lender; rather, court gave prospective class members, including debtor choice of remaining class members or opting out of class); In re Medex Regional Laboratories, LLC, 314 B.R. 716 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2004) (proceeds of debtor’s directors’ and officers’ liability insurance policies were not property of estate and were not protected by automatic stay, even though policies also provided coverage to debtor for indemnification claims, because the debtor had not provided any indemnification to non-debtor insiders and such indemnification claims were merely hypothetical). Compare In re Arter &
Hadden, L.L.P., 335 B.R. 666 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2005) (proceeds of debtor’s
directors’ and officers’ liability insurance policies are property of estate because policies also provided coverage to debtor and there was no reason why direct suit against debtor is either practically or procedurally untenable).

a. Property Outside the Scope. The stay is not applicable to actions
against property that is neither the debtor’s nor the estate’s. Rodger v.
County of Munroe (In re Rodgers), 333 F.3d 64 (2d Cir. 2003) (debtor’s
mere possession of title to real property is not sufficient to find property to
be property of estate or to bar delivery of deed to purchaser by operation
of stay); Chugach Timber Corp. v. Northern Stevedoring & Handling
Corp. (In re Chugach Forest Prods., Inc.), 23 F.3d 241 (9th Cir. 1994)
(court refused to extend stay to boat that was not property of debtor’s
estate but on which assets of debtor had been transferred) (11 U.S.C.
§ 541(b)); In re Howell, 311 B.R. 173, 179 (Bankr. D. N.J. 2004)
(automatic stay does not preclude estranged spouse from seeking equitable distribution of non-estate property such as exempt property, postpetition earnings, property excluded from the estate, property abandoned by the trustee or debtor surplus); NLRB v. McDermott, 300 B.R. 40 (D. Col. 2003) (automatic stay did not protect property of debtor’s wife’s). Examples of property outside the stay’s scope are:

(i) Foreclosure. If a lender completes foreclosure before the bankruptcy filing, neither the debtor nor the estate has any interest in the property and the automatic stay does not apply. In re Theoclis, 213 B.R. 880 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1997) (held, foreclosure sale had terminated debtor’s interest in property.); In re Williams, 247 B.R. 449 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2000) (when foreclosure sale of debtor’s residence became final prior to commencement of chapter 13 case, residence did not become property of estate and was not protected by automatic stay);

(ii) Abandonment. Abandonment terminates the stay as to abandoned property. In re Holly’s, Inc., 140 B.R. 643 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 1992) (once abandonment of debtor’s property is effectuated, or foreclosure of real and personal property is completed, taxing entity is entitled to enforce its
statutory in rem rights against property.). But see In re Thompson-Mendez, 321 B.R. 814, 819 (Bankr. D. Md. 2005) (trustee’s deemed rejection of debtor’s residential lease by failure to timely assume it did constitute
abandonment such that lease was no longer protected by automatic stay).

2. Entities Affected by the Stay. Section 362(a) applies “to all entities,”
including any “person, estate, trust, governmental unit.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(15). This broad definition of “entity” eliminates the need to define who is a “creditor,” “secured creditor” or other person affected by the stay.

B. Duration of the Stay. Unless the court orders otherwise (i.e., unless creditor gets automatic stay modified), the stay “continues until such property is no longer property of the estate.” 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(1). The stay of all other acts continues until case is closed or dismissed, or, if debtor is an individual, until debtor is granted or denied a discharge. 11 U.S.C. §§ 362(c)(2)(A), (B) and (C). See also In re Allen, 300 F.3d 1055, 1059 (9th Cir. 2002) (automatic stay “prohibits action against the bankruptcy estate only until the bankruptcy court confirms a plan reorganizing the debtor’s property”); Middle Tennessee News Co., Inc. v. Charnel of Cincinnati, Inc., 250 F.3d 1077 (7th Cir. 2001) (automatic stay remains in effect until bankruptcy court disposes of case or grants relief from stay); In re Spirtos, 221 F.3d 1079, 1081 (9th Cir. 2000) (“So long as there are assets in the estate, then, the stay remains in effect”); Eastern Refractories Co. Inc. v. Forty Eight Insulations Inc., 157 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 1998) (order “terminating” automatic stay operates from date of order’s entry); Lomagno v. Salomon Brothers Realty Corp., 320 B.R. 473, 481 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 2005), aff’d, 429 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2005) (automatic stay not retroactively imposed when dismissal order set aside on due process grounds); In re Peregrine Systems, Inc., 314 B.R. 31, 44 (Bankr. D. Del. 2004), aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other grounds, 2005 WL 2401955 (D. Del. Sept. 29, 2005) (automatic stay “continues until the bankruptcy case is closed, dismissed, or discharge is granted or denied, or until the bankruptcy court grants some relief from the stay.”) (citing Maritime Elec. Co., Inc. v. United Jersey Bank, 959 F.3d 1194, 1206 (3d Cir. 1991)); U.S. v. White, 466 F.3d 1241 (11th Cir. 2006) (debtor discharged and automatic stay terminates on date of confirmation of debtor’s reorganization plan even when plan contains a later effective date). If a case is filed by or against a debtor who is an individual and a case of the debtor was pending within the preceding one year period but was dismissed, the automatic stay “with respect to any action taken with respect to a debt or property securing such debt or with respect to any lease shall terminate with respect to the debtor on the 30th day after the filing of the later case.” 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3)(A). See Jumpp v. Chase Home Finance, LLC (In re Jumpp), 356 B.R. 789 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 2006) (interpreting § 362(c)(3)(A) automatic stay terminates only in regard to debtor; stay continues, though, in regard to property of estate).

As of October 17, 2005, automatic stay terminates 60 days after a request for relief from stay unless final decision on request is rendered by court within the 60-day period or period is extended by agreement or by court for specific period of time found necessary for good cause.2

__________________________________________

2 The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 was enacted on April 20, 2005, and many of its provisions became effective on October 17, 2005.

———————

IV. Acts Stayed. Section 362(a) is broad in scope, but specifically lists eight categories that are subject to its injunctive power.

1. “Commencement or continuation . . . of a judicial, administrative, or other proceeding against the debtor . . . to recover on a prepetition claim against a debtor.”3 Code § 362(a)(l) (emphasis added):

a. Appeals: stay covers all proceedings originally brought against the
debtor, regardless of whether the debtor is appellant or appellee.4 Halmar
Robicon Group, Inc. v. Toshiba Int’l Corp., 127 Fed. Appx. 501, 503 (Fed.
Cir. 2005) (automatic stay only operates as against actions in which debtor
is in defensive posture); Nielson v. Price, 17 F.3d 1276, 1277 (10th Cir.
1994) (“[t]he 362(a)(1) stay applies to actions that are ‘against the debtor’
at their inception, regardless of the subsequent appellate posture of the
case”); Ellis v. Consolidated Diesel Elec. Corp., 894 F.2d 371, 373 (10th
Cir. 1990) (operation of stay should not depend upon whether district
court finds for or against the debtor). But see In re Mid-City Parking,
Inc., 322 B.R. 798 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2005) (debtor may unilaterally waive
protections of automatic stay by pursuing appeal without first obtaining
bankruptcy court order lifting stay; debtor could not be held liable for
damages to creditor-appellee arising from debtor’s alleged “willful stay
violation).

b. Administrative proceedings: See In re Krystal Cadillac Oldsmobile
GMC Truck, Inc., 142 F.3d 631 (3d Cir. 1998) (postpetition
determinations by Pennsylvania’s Board of Vehicle Manufacturers,
Dealers and Salespersons, ordering termination of franchise agreement
violated automatic stay); In re Best Payphones, Inc., 279 B.R. 92 (Bankr.
S.D.N.Y. 2002) (administrative law judge’s post-petition decision in
proceeding commenced pre-petition ‘but concluded after debtor’s chapter
11 filing’ was void and without effect because it violated automatic stay).
But see Board of Governors of Federal Reserve System v. MCorp
Financial, Inc., 502 U.S. 32 (1991) (Section 362(a) does not apply to
ongoing, nonfinal administrative/regulatory proceedings, and action of
Board of Governors was excepted from the stay under Section 362(b)(4)
of the Code (the “governmental unit” exception)).

c. Partnerships. Actions against partners and their property are not
protected in first instance by the filing of a partnership petition. Bankers
Trust (Delaware) v. 236 Beltway Inv., 865 F. Supp. 1186 (E.D. Va. 1994)
(automatic stay does not protect partnership debtor’s individual general
partners); O’Neill v. Boden-Wert Real Estate USA Funds I, Ltd., 599
So.2d 1045 (Fla. App. 2d Dist. 1992) (held, automatic stay did not stop action against general partner in partnership debtor or against general
partner’s general partner).

______________________________

3 “‘[C]laim against the debtor’ includes claim against property of the debtor.” 11 U.S.C. § 102(2).
4 Actions against non-debtors and against co-defendants are not stayed. See sub-section (e) infra.

d. Shareholders of corporate debtor. Bankruptcy court has no jurisdiction
over stock of corporate debtor that belongs to third party shareholders.
See e.g. In re Marvel Entertainment Group, Inc., 209 B.R. 832, 838 (D.
Del. 1997) (“automatic stay provisions of the Bankruptcy Code are not
implicated by the exercise of shareholders’ corporate governance rights.”).

e. Actions against surety, co-debtor, or guarantor are not stayed.5 See
e.g. Reliant Energy Services, Inc. v. Enron Canada Corp., 349 F.3d 816,
825 (5th Cir. 2003) (“[by its terms the automatic stay applies only to the
debtor, not to co-debtors under Chapter 7 or Chapter 11”); In re Third
Eighty-Ninth Associates, 138 B.R. 144 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) (suit against
guarantors of chapter 11 debtor was not a “back-door” attempt to acquire
assets of debtor); In re Rohnert Park Auto Parts, Inc., 113 B.R. 610
(B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1991) (automatic stay does not prevent creditors from
suing co-debtors).

f. Actions are not stayed against non-debtor co-defendants.6 See e.g.
Queenie, Ltd. v. Nygard Intl., 321 F.3d 282, 287 (2d Cir. 2003) (debtor’s
filing of bankruptcy petition stayed his appeal and that of his wholly owned corporation7, but not that of co-defendants); 555 M Mfg., Inc. v.
Calvin Klein, Inc., 13 F. Supp. 2d 719 (N.D. Ill. 1998) (automatic stay
protection not available to debtor’s solvent co-defendant in breach of
contract case). But see Woodell v. Ormet Primary Aluminum Corp., 808
N.E.2d 402, 407 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004) (automatic stay applies to claims
against debtor’s employee co-defendants only to the extent that the causes of action against them arise from their status as employees of the debtor).

_____________________________________

5 In limited circumstances, courts have asserted their equitable powers under 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) to enjoin the continuation of litigation against non-debtors when the debtor’s trustee demonstrates that continuation of litigation against non-debtors imminently and irreparably threatens the debtor’s reorganization prospects. E.g. In re United Health Care Org., 210 B.R. 228, 233 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (staying action against non-debtor principals and officers of debtor when enforcement of judgment imminently and irreparably threatened non-debtors’ ability to fund debtor’s plan); North Star Contracting Corp. v. McSpeedon (In re North Star Contracting Corp.), 125 B.R. 368, 370-71 (S.D.N.Y.1991) (staying action against non-debtor president of debtor when, among other things, continuation of action would distract vital non-debtor and there was no distinct cause of action against him, but merely an action commenced solely to circumvent the stay).

6 Courts may stay actions against a non-debtor third-party defendant under “unusual circumstances” when “there is such identity between the debtor and third-party defendant that the debtor may be said to be the real party defendant and that a judgment against the third-party defendant will in effect be a judgment … against the debtor.” A.H. Robins Co. v. Piccinin, 788 F.2d 994, 999 (4th Cir. 1986). See also In re Nat’l Century Fin. Enter., 423 F.3d 567 (6th Cir. 2005) (commencement of civil action to recover accounts receivable held in collection account in debtor’s name violated automatic stay even though debtor was not named as defendant because action sought to recover estate property); Global Industrial Technologies, Inc. v. Ace Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (In re Global Industrial
Technologies), 303 B.R. 753 (W.D. Pa. 2004), vacated in part, modified in part on other grounds, 2004 WL 555418 (Bankr. W.D.Pa. Mar. 19, 2004) (held, state court action brought by insurers for declaratory judgment regarding non-debtor’s rights in insurance policies it shared with debtor violated automatic stay even though debtor was not named as defendant in state court action because outcome of state action could affect debtor’s rights in shared insurance); Teachers Ins. & Annuity Assoc. of America v. Butler, 803 F.2d 61, 65 (2d Cir. 1986) (referred to A.H. Robins decision as case with “unusual circumstances”). Compare In re Transervice Logistics, Inc., 304 B.R. 805 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2004) (declining to extend automatic stay to non-debtor co-defendants because, unlike situation
in A.H. Robins, defendant-debtor only faced one suit, not thousands, and thus would not be barraged by discovery and litigation).

——————

g. Proceedings or claims arising post-petition are not subject to automatic
stay, although successful plaintiff must obtain relief from stay if it seeks to enforce judgment against estate.8 Bellini Imports, Ltd. v. Mason & Dixon Lines, Inc., 944 F.2d 199 (4th Cir. 1991) (automatic stay did not bar
institution of action arising out of alleged postpetition breach of contract);
Erickson v. Polk, 921 F.2d 200 (8th Cir. 1990) (lessor of farmland did not
violate automatic stay when it retook possession of property following
postpetition expiration of lease); In re Dominguez, 312 B.R. 499 (Bankr.
S.D.N.Y. 2004) (prepetition lapse of debtor-taxpayer’s redemption period
may constitute “cause” for lifting stay to allow tax authority to exercise its
rights in debtor’s real property; it did not relieve taxing authority’s
obligation to move first for modification of stay).

h. Automatic stay does not apply to post-petition defensive actions in a
prepetition lawsuit brought by a debtor. Stanwyck v. Beilinson, 104 Fed.
Appx. 616 (9th Cir. 2004).

2. Enforcement of prepetition judgment against debtor or its property (11
U.S.C. § 362(a)(2)). See generally Delpit v. Commissioner, 18 F.3d 768 (9th Cir. 1994) (held, appeal to enforce pre-petition judgment was subject to the automatic stay).

3. “[A]ny act” to obtain possession of debtor’s property, or to exercise
control over such property. 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3).

__________________________________

7 The court ignored its own precedent in coming to this bizarre result, but justified it by reasoning that adjudication of a claim against the wholly-owned corporation would have an “immediate adverse economic impact” on the debtor. But see Feldman v. Trustees of Beck Ind., Inc. (In re Beck Ind., Inc.), 725 F.2d 880 (2d Cir. 1973) (court cannot enjoin suit against solvent independent subsidiary of debtor merely because stock is held by debtor in reorganization); In re Unishops, Inc., 374 F.Supp. 424 (S.D.N.Y. 1974) (bankruptcy court lacks jurisdiction to grant
a stay of court proceedings against subsidiaries).

8 Judiciary Code, 28 U.S.C. § 959(a), provides relief to holders of postpetition claims against a debtor from having to obtain leave from bankruptcy court to pursue claims arising from “acts or transactions in carrying on business connected with [estate] property.” 28 U.S.C. § 959. Section 959’s exception to the automatic stay is limited to postpetition claims arising from operation of the debtor’s business, and does not include acts associated with liquidation or administration of the bankruptcy estate. See In re Crown Vantage, Inc., 421 F.3d 963, 971-72 (9th Cir. 2005) (postpetition claim against trustee arising from liquidation of estate not subject to § 959 because not related to business operation); Carter v. Rogers, 220 F.3d 1249, 1254 (11th Cir. 2000); In re DeLorean Motor Co., 991 F.2d 1236 (6th Cir. 1993) (malicious prosecution claims against trustee arising from avoidance actions are not based on acts arising from business operation and thus not subject to § 959).

—————————

a. A credit union that accepts and retains postpetition deductions from
chapter 13 debtor’s salary violates automatic stay. See, e.g., Town of
Hempstead Employees Federal Credit Union v. Wicks, 215 B.R. 316
(E.D.N.Y. 1997) (credit union’s four-month-long administrative hold on
chapter 13 debtors’ savings accounts violated automatic stay).

b. Letters of Credit. See, e.g., In re Kmart Corp., 297 B.R. 525 (N.D. Ill.
2003) (letters of credit are not property of debtor’s estate subject to
automatic stay; beneficiary not prevented from drawing on letter of credit
when account party is in bankruptcy); In re A.J. Lane & Co., Inc., 115
B.R. 738 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1990) (held, payment by third party on letter of
credit not stayed because it did not involve a transfer of debtor’s assets).

c. Creditors’ actions against debtor to obtain property fraudulently
transferred by debtor prior to bankruptcy are barred by the automatic stay.
See, e.g. Constitution Bank v. Tubbs, 68 F.3d 685 (3d Cir. 1995) (bank’s
action against guarantors for fraudulent conduct triggered automatic stay
when each guarantor filed a bankruptcy petition during fraud action).

d. Mortgagees’ postpetition foreclosure against real property subject to
deed naming debtor’s spouse a sole owner violated automatic stay because, although debtor only had arguable interest in the property, the
determination should be made by bankruptcy court before mortgagees
foreclosed. In re Chesnut, 422 F.3d 298 (5th Cir. 2005).

e. Debtor’s Tax Benefits. Circuits apparently are split regarding whether
a debtor’s tax benefits (e.g., net operating losses) are property of the estate, thus subject to the automatic stay. See In re UAL Corp., 412 F.3d 775
(7th Cir. 2005) (finding bankruptcy court’s injunction restricting trading in
debtor’s securities to protect tax benefits to be “problematic on the merits,” and questioning court’s reliance on Bankruptcy Code §§ 105(a) and 362 as basis for trading procedures order). Compare In Prudential Lines, Inc., 928 F.2d 565 (2d Cir. 1991) (finding debtor’s tax benefits to be estate property, and that automatic stay thus enjoined debtor’s parent from taking worthless stock deduction on parent’s tax return).

4. Any act to create, perfect, or enforce any lien against debtor’s property
(but not the perfection of mechanic’s lien9 — §§ 362(b)(3) and 546(b) — or when perfection occurs within the 10-day period after the time of effective transfer of the property, under §§ 362(b)(3), and 547(e)(2)(A)). 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(4). See In re Fuller, 134 B.R. 945 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1992) (held, automatic stay prevents creation or perfection of lien, even by operation of law).

_________________________________________

9 The mechanic’s lienor will ordinarily be able to perfect its lien after bankruptcy for work performed prior to bankruptcy. See generally, In re Yobe Electric, Inc., 728 F.2d 207, 208 (3d Cir. 1984) (per curiam) (service of notice of intent to file mechanic’s lien did not violate stay since under state statute “perfection of mechanic’s lien ‘relates back’ to the installation of the first material”); In re Lionel Corp., 29 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1994) (held, no automatic stay violation resulted from mechanics’ lienors’ post-petition serving notice of lien upon lessors and
chapter 11 debtor lessee, when New York law permitted perfection of filed mechanics’ lien after another entity had acquired rights to the property).

—————————–

a. Sections 362(b)(3) and 546(b)(1)(A), read together, set the
boundaries of this exception.

(i) Section 362(b)(3) subjects a creditor’s right to “perfect, or
to maintain or continue the perfection of, an interest in property” to
Section 546(b) of Code. 11 U.S.C. §362(b)(3).

(ii) In turn, Section 546(b) limits the trustee’s powers to avoid statutory liens by providing that they “are subject to any generally applicable law that permits perfection of an interest in property to be effective against an entity that acquires rights in such property before the date of perfection.” 11 U.S.C. §546(b)(1)(A) (emphasis added); see, e.g., In re AR Accessories Group, Inc., 345 F.3d 454, 458 (7th Cir. 2003) (held, priming statute need not contain language expressly providing for retroactive perfection in order to trigger exception provided in 11 U.S.C. §546(b)(1)(A)); In re
Hayden, 308 B.R. 428 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2004) (held, towing operator did not violate automatic stay in refusing to surrender possession of debtor’s vehicle, which was towed prepetition, unless debtor first paid towing charges because towing operator was merely acting to maintain or continue possession of its lien, not to enforce it).

5. Any act to create, perfect, or enforce a lien against debtor’s property for
prepetition claims. 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(5). See, e.g., In re Birney, 200 F.3d 225
227 (4th Cir. 1999) (Section 362(a)(5) prohibits “any act to create, perfect, or enforce against property of the debtor any lien to the extent that such lien secures a claim that arose before the commencement of the case under this title”).

6. “Any act to collect, assess, or recover a prepetition claim against the
debtor.” 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(6). Pertuso v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 233 F.3d 417,
423 (6th Cir. 2000) (a course of conduct violates § 362(a)(6) if it “(1) could
reasonably be expected to have a significant impact on the debtor’s determination as to whether to repay, and (2) is contrary to what a reasonable person would consider to be fair under the circumstances”) (quoting In re Briggs, 143 B.R. 438 453 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1992)); see also In re Diamond, 346 F.3d 224, 227-28 (1st Cir. 2003) (settlement negotiations challenging Chapter 7 debtor’s discharge do not violate the automatic stay per se, but creditor’s threat to seek revocation of debtor’s real estate license during negotiations was coercive, thus dismissal of debtor’s complaint proper); In re Optel, Inc., 60 Fed.Appx. 390 (3d Cir. March 25,
2003) (sale agreement between creditor and debtor provided that debtor either pay $6 million lump sum payment or, if creditor requested, $10 million over time; held, automatic stay prohibited creditor from requesting the $10 million deferred payment, therefore creditor was only entitled to distribution on $6 million claim); In re Jamo, 283 F.3d 392, 399 (1st Cir. 2002) (“a creditor may engage in post petition negotiations pertaining to a bankruptcy-related reaffirmation agreement so long as the creditor does not engage in coercive or harassing tactics”).

7. Setoffs of any prepetition debt owing to the debtor. 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(7).
See Newbery Corp. v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 95 F.3d 1392 (9th Cir. 1996)
(right of setoff is subject to automatic stay provisions of chapter 11); Citizens Bank of Maryland v. Strumpf, 516 U.S. 16 (1995) (temporary administrative freeze by bank not a stay violation or setoff; intent to settle accounts permanently is required for setoff within meaning of automatic stay provisions). Compare Jimenez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 335 B.R. 450 (Bankr. D. N.M. Dec. 21, 2005) (temporary administrative freeze by bank, without right of setoff, violated automatic stay); In re Calvin, 329 B.R. 589 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2005) (bank’s administrative freeze of debtor’s account violated automatic stay when bank was not creditor of debtor and thus had no right of setoff); In re Cullen, 329 BR. 52 (Bankr. N.D. Iowa 2005) (bank’s administrative freeze of account jointly held by debtor and debtor’s father violated automatic stay because freeze was intended to continue indefinitely until bankruptcy case was closed; bank did not have valid
right of setoff because funds in account were property of debtor’s father and mutuality requirement for setoff thus was lacking).

a. N.B.: The automatic stay, however, does not prevent a creditor
from exercising its right of recoupment.10 See, e.g., In re Slater Health
Center, Inc., 398 F.3d 98 (1st Cir. 2005) (right of recoupment entitled
government to recoup prepetition overpayments to debtor-health care
provider by reducing postpetition payments to debtor); In re Holyoke
Nursing Home, 372 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2004) (same); In re Anes, 195 F.3d
177 (3d Cir. 1999) (held, doctrine of recoupment did not apply so as to
permit pension plans to deduct loan payments from debtors’ postpetition
paychecks because the payments were not part of the same transaction); In
re Delicruz, 300 B.R. 669 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2003) (“recoupment reduces
or extinguish[es] a debt arising from the same transaction, and is not
stayed by the bankruptcy”). But see York Linings Int’l, Inc. v. Harbison-
Walker Refractories Co., 839 N.E.2d 766 (Ind. App. 2005) (although
automatic stay does not bar creditor from exercising right of recoupment,
stay does prevent creditor from asserting counterclaim for recoupment in
litigation because such a counterclaim seeks affirmative relief).

_____________________________________

10 “Recoupment” has been defined as follows: “. . . so long as the creditor’s claim arises out of the identical transaction as the debtor’s, that claim may be offset against the debt owed to the debtor, without concern” for the Code’s setoff limitations. In re University Medical Center, 973 F.2d 1065, 1080 (3d Cir. 1992). Recoupment in bankruptcy has been narrowly construed by courts because it violates the basic bankruptcy principle of equal distribution. In re B & L Oil Co., 782 F.2d 155, 158 (10th Cir. 1986) (“[a] fundamental tenet of bankruptcy law is that . . . [once] a petition is filed, debts that arose before the petition may not be satisfied through post-petition transactions. This is seen in bankruptcy restrictions on setoffs [and recoupment].”); In re McMahon, 129 F.3d 93,
97 (2d Cir. 1997) (“in light of the Bankruptcy Code’s strong policy favoring equal treatment of creditors, recoupment . . . should be narrowly construed”).

———————-

8. Commencement or continuation of a proceeding before the United States Tax Court concerning the debtor. 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(8). See, e.g., Halpern v. C.I., 96 T.C. 895 (U.S. Tax Ct. 1991) (held, automatic stay bars commencement or continuation of any proceeding in Tax Court, regardless of whether claim relates to prepetition or postpetition tax year deficiencies).

As of October 17, 2005, § 362(a)(8) is limited to proceedings
concerning corporate debtor’s tax liability for taxable period the
bankruptcy court may determine or, if debtor is individual, to tax
for taxable period ending before date of order for relief.

9. Only affirmative acts are stayed. Section 362 applies only to affirmative
acts against the debtor or its estate.

a. The automatic stay does not affect, and the court may not exercise
its equitable powers to stay or toll, the automatic transfer of rights such as
that occurring by the expiration of a statutory period of redemption.
Canney v. Merchants Bank (In re Frazer), 284 F.3d 362 (2d Cir. 2002)
(did not stay mortgagee’s act of recording a certificate of non-redemption;
held, expiration of statutory period is not an “affirmative act” and
automatic stay did not apply).

b. Omissions and waivers are not stayed by the Code because they
are not affirmative acts. See e.g. Mann v. Chase Manhattan Mortg. Corp.,
316 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir. 2003) (mortgagee’s failure to submit
preconfirmation request, pursuant to bankruptcy statute governing rights
of oversecured creditors, to have its postpetition attorney fees included in
its allowed secured claim was not sort of overt, affirmative act that
violates stay).

When Homeowner’s good faith attempts to amicably work with the Bank in order to resolve the issue fails;

What Homeowners Need to Know About Bankruptcy Automatic Stay

22 Tuesday Sep 2015

Posted by BNG in Bankruptcy, Federal Court, Foreclosure Defense, Litigation Strategies, Non-Judicial States, Pro Se Litigation, Your Legal Rights

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

automatic stay, Bankruptcy, bankruptcy court, chapter 13 bankruptcy, Federal Court, Foreclosure, homeowners, Pro se legal representation in the United States

A. Scope.

1. Section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code (the “Code”) contains a broad
statutory stay of litigation and lien enforcement, effective automatically on the commencement of a bankruptcy case. 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) (“. . . a petition [commencing a case] . . . operates as a stay, applicable to all entities . . .”.)

2. Purpose – Time to Reorganize. This automatic stay gives a trustee or
chapter 11 debtor-in-possession1 a breathing spell from creditors by stopping all collection efforts, harassment, and all foreclosure actions, allowing a debtor to attempt a reorganization plan. See, e.g., In re Siciliano, 13 F.3d 748, 750 (3d Cir. 1994) (“[t]he purpose of the automatic stay provision is to afford the debtor a ‘breathing spell’ by halting the collection process. It enables the debtor to attempt a repayment or reorganization plan with an aim toward satisfying existing debt.”);
Maritime Electric Co., Inc. v. United Jersey Bank, 959 F.2d 1194, 1204 (3d Cir. 1991) (“automatic stay allows debtor breathing spell from creditors and stops collection efforts”); In re Peregrine Systems, Inc., 314 B.R. 31, 44 (Bankr. D. Del. 2004) aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other grounds, 2005 WL 2401955 (D. Del. Sept. 29, 2005) (automatic stay is a “fundamental protection provided to a debtor for the purpose of stopping all creditor collection efforts and harassment of the debtor and to provide … a fresh start.”); Shaw v. Ehrlich, 294 B.R. 260, 267 (W.D. Va. 2003), aff’d, 99 Fed. Appx. 466 (4th Cir. 2004) (“stay protects debtors, as well as creditors, by providing debtors a breathing spell from collection
efforts”).

3. Policy Rationale – Debtor Asset Protection. Behind the stay is a clear
policy rationale: “to grant complete, immediate, albeit temporary relief to the debtor from creditors, and also to prevent dissipation of the debtor’s assets before orderly distribution to creditors can be effected.” S.E.C. v. Brennan, 230 F.3d 65, 70 (2d Cir. 2000) (quoting Penn Terra Ltd. v. Department of Envtl. Resources, 733 F.2d 267, 271 (3d Cir. 1984)). See also Reliant Energy Services, Inc. v. Enron Canada Corp., 349 F.3d 816, 825 (5th Cir. 2003) (“purposes of the bankruptcy stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362 ‘are to protect the debtor’s assets, provide temporary relief from creditors, and further equity of distribution among the creditors by forestalling a race to the courthouse.'”) (quoting GATX Aircraft Corp. v. M/V Courtney Leigh, 768 F.2d 711, 716 (5th Cir. 1985)); Mann v. Chase
Manhattan Mortgage Corp., 316 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 2003) (“automatic stay
provision is designed to forfend against the disorderly, piecemeal dismemberment of the debtor’s estate outside the bankruptcy proceedings”).

__________________________________

1 Code § 1107(a) gives a chapter 11 debtor-in-possession the “rights,” “duties” and “powers” of a trustee. See NLRB v. Bildisco & Bildisco, 465 U.S. 513, 517 n. 2 (1984). See also Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9001(10) (“‘Trustee’ includes a debtor in possession in a Chapter 11 case.”).

4. Procedural Safeguards for Secured Creditors. The Code still imposes
procedural safeguards for the benefit of the secured creditor (e.g., “adequate protection” against erosion of collateral value; time limits on stay modification requests; limits on counterclaims against secured lender seeking stay modification). As shown below, it attempts to reconcile the rights of the secured creditor with the needs of the debtor and its unsecured creditors. See United Savings Assn. of Texas v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd. (In re Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd.), 484 U.S. 365, 376 (1988) (“ . . . lack of any realistic prospect of effective reorganization will require” modification of stay of lien enforcement”).

II. The Automatic Stay.

A. When Effective.

1. The stay is automatic upon filing of the petition commencing a case under Code chapters 7 (liquidation), 9 (municipal debt adjustment), 11 (reorganization), 13 (individual debt adjustment), or chapter 15 (cross-border cases) with respect to foreign main proceedings. See e.g. Eskanos & Adler, P.C. v. Leetien, 309 F.3d 1210, 1214 (9th Cir. 2002) (“the automatic stay requires an immediate freeze of the status quo by precluding and nullifying post-petition actions”); Rexnord Holdings, Inc. v. Bidermann, 21 F.3d 522, 527 (2d Cir. 1994) (“[a]utomatic stay is effective immediately upon filing of bankruptcy petition”) (citing Shimer v. Fugazy (In re Fugazy Express, Inc., 982 F.2d 769, 776 (2d Cir. 1992));

3. Unless modified by the court, the stay is effective for the duration of a
bankruptcy case, and generally cannot be waived by the debtor. Maritime Elec. Co., Inc. v. United Jersey Bank, 959 F.2d 1194 (3d Cir. 1991) (held, because automatic stay serves interests of both debtors and creditors, it may not be waived and its scope may not be limited by debtor); In re Atrium High Point Ltd. Partnership, 189 B.R. 599 (Bankr. M.D.N.C. 1995) (before enforcing a debtor’s prepetition waiver of automatic stay bankruptcy court must look at circumstances under which prepetition waiver arose); but see In re Excelsior Henderson Motorcycle Mfg. Co., Inc., 273 B.R. 920 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2002) (court enforced prepetition agreement under which chapter 11 debtor waived automatic stay).

B. Jurisdictional Basis of Injunctive Power.

2. The broad jurisdictional base of Section 362 confirms the court’s inherent
power to protect property within its jurisdiction and to prevent any divestiture of that jurisdiction. Isaacs v. Hobbs Tie & Timber Co., 51 S. Ct. 270, 282 (1931) (held, jurisdiction of bankruptcy court respecting property of debtor’s estate having attached, actions brought in other courts could not affect it). See In re Mohawk Greenfield Motel Corp., 239 B.R. 15 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1999) (“the automatic stay protects the bankruptcy court’s exclusive jurisdiction over the debtor and its property”) (citing In re Soares, 107 F.3d 969, 975 (1st Cir. Mass. 1997)).

3. Section 362(a) stays, among other things:

c. foreclosure proceedings in other courts instituted against debtor’s
property prior to commencement of bankruptcy case. 11 U.S.C.
§ 362(a)(1); see In re Vierkant, 240 B.R. 317, 322 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 1999)
(citing Kalb v. Feuerstein, 308 U.S. 433 (1940); In re Soares, 107 F.3d
969 (1st Cir. 1997)) (post-petition state court default order signed by judge two weeks after bankruptcy filing violated automatic stay);

d. a landlord’s proceeding to recover possession of leased premises.
11 U.S.C. § 363(a)(5); 48th St. Steakhouse, Inc. v. Rockefeller Group, Inc.
(In re 48th St. Steakhouse, Inc.), 835 F.2d 427 (2d Cir. 1987) (serving
notice of termination on assignee of restaurant lease rather than on debtor, which still had interest in the property, violated automatic stay); and e. an IRS sale of property seized prior to commencement of case. 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(8); United States v. Whiting Pools, Inc., 462 U.S. 198 (1983) (IRS may also be compelled to turn over levied property under Code § 542).

III. Scope and Duration of Stay.

A. Scope of Section 362.

1. Property of Estate. The bankruptcy court’s injunctive power is ordinarily
limited to protecting property belonging to a debtor. Property of the estate is defined in Code § 541(a)(1) (“. . . all legal or equitable interests of the debtor in property as of the commencement of the case.”). See In re Lankford, 305 B.R. 297, 301 (Bankr. N.D. Iowa 2004) (“All recognizable interests of the debtors or the estate are afforded the protection of § 362(a)…This includes a mere possessory interest in real property without any accompanying legal interest.”).
See also In re Moffett, 356 F.3d 518 (4th Cir. 2004) (held, chapter 13 debtor’s statutory right of redemption was sufficient interest in automobile that was repossessed prepetition to be included in estate property). But see In re Jasper, 325 B.R. 50, 55 (Bankr. D. Me. 2005) (credit union’s policy of revoking membership benefits of members who caused credit union a loss does not violate automatic stay); In re Santangelo, 325 B.R. 874 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. March 22, 2005) (district court did not violate automatic stay by approving class action settlement for claims against mortgage lender; rather, court gave prospective class members, including debtor choice of remaining class members or opting out of class); In re Medex Regional Laboratories, LLC, 314 B.R. 716 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2004) (proceeds of debtor’s directors’ and officers’ liability insurance policies were not property of estate and were not protected by automatic stay, even though policies also provided coverage to debtor for indemnification claims, because the debtor had not provided any indemnification to non-debtor insiders and such indemnification claims were merely hypothetical). Compare In re Arter & Hadden, L.L.P., 335 B.R. 666 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2005) (proceeds of debtor’s directors’ and officers’ liability insurance policies are property of estate because policies also provided coverage to debtor and there was no reason why direct suit against debtor is either practically or procedurally untenable).

(ii) Abandonment. Abandonment terminates the stay as to abandoned property. In re Holly’s, Inc., 140 B.R. 643 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 1992) (once abandonment of debtor’s property is effectuated, or foreclosure of real and personal property is completed, taxing entity is entitled to enforce its statutory in rem rights against property.). But see In re Thompson-Mendez, 321 B.R. 814, 819 (Bankr. D. Md. 2005) (trustee’s deemed rejection of debtor’s residential lease by failure to timely assume it did constitute abandonment such that lease was no longer protected by
automatic stay).

____________________________________

2. Entities Affected by the Stay. Section 362(a) applies “to all entities,”
including any “person, estate, trust, governmental unit.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(15).

This broad definition of “entity” eliminates the need to define who is a “creditor,” “secured creditor” or other person affected by the stay.

B. Duration of the Stay. Unless the court orders otherwise (i.e., unless creditor gets automatic stay modified), the stay “continues until such property is no longer property of the estate.” 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(1). The stay of all other acts continues until case is closed or dismissed, or, if debtor is an individual, until debtor is granted or denied a discharge. 11 U.S.C. §§ 362(c)(2)(A), (B) and (C). See also In re Allen, 300 F.3d 1055, 1059 (9th Cir. 2002) (automatic stay “prohibits action against the bankruptcy estate only until the bankruptcy court confirms a plan reorganizing the debtor’s property”); Middle Tennessee News Co., Inc. v. Charnel of Cincinnati, Inc., 250 F.3d 1077 (7th Cir. 2001) (automatic stay remains in effect until bankruptcy court disposes of case or grants relief from stay); In re Spirtos, 221 F.3d 1079, 1081 (9th Cir. 2000) (“So long as there are assets in the estate, then, the stay remains in effect”); Eastern Refractories Co. Inc. v. Forty Eight Insulations Inc., 157 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 1998) (order “terminating” automatic stay operates from date of order’s entry); Lomagno v. Salomon Brothers Realty Corp., 320 B.R. 473, 481 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 2005), aff’d, 429 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2005) (automatic stay not retroactively imposed when dismissal order set aside on due process grounds); In re Peregrine Systems, Inc., 314 B.R. 31, 44 (Bankr. D. Del. 2004), aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other grounds, 2005 WL 2401955 (D. Del. Sept. 29, 2005) (automatic stay “continues until the bankruptcy case is closed, dismissed, or discharge is granted or denied, or until the bankruptcy court grants some relief from the stay.”) (citing Maritime Elec. Co., Inc. v. United Jersey Bank, 959 F.3d 1194, 1206 (3d Cir. 1991)); U.S. v. White, 466 F.3d 1241 (11th Cir. 2006) (debtor discharged and automatic stay terminates on date of confirmation of debtor’s reorganization plan even when plan contains a later effective date). If a case is filed by or against a debtor who is an individual and a case of the debtor was pending within the preceding one year period but was dismissed, the automatic stay “with respect to any action taken with respect to a debt or property
securing such debt or with respect to any lease shall terminate with respect to the debtor on the 30th day after the filing of the later case.”

11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3)(A). See Jumpp v. Chase Home Finance, LLC (In re Jumpp), 356 B.R. 789 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 2006) (interpreting § 362(c)(3)(A) automatic stay terminates only in regard to debtor; stay continues, though, in regard to property of estate).

• As of October 17, 2005, automatic stay terminates 60 days after a request for relief from stay unless final decision on request is rendered by court within the 60-day period or period is extended by agreement or by court for specific period of time found necessary for good cause.2

2 The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 was enacted on April 20, 2005, and many of its provisions became effective on October 17, 2005.

IV. Acts Stayed. Section 362(a) is broad in scope, but specifically lists eight categories that are subject to its injunctive power.

a. Appeals: stay covers all proceedings originally brought against the
debtor, regardless of whether the debtor is appellant or appellee.4 Halmar
Robicon Group, Inc. v. Toshiba Int’l Corp., 127 Fed. Appx. 501, 503 (Fed.
Cir. 2005) (automatic stay only operates as against actions in which debtor
is in defensive posture); Nielson v. Price, 17 F.3d 1276, 1277 (10th Cir.
1994) (“[t]he 362(a)(1) stay applies to actions that are ‘against the debtor’ at their inception, regardless of the subsequent appellate posture of the case”); Ellis v. Consolidated Diesel Elec. Corp., 894 F.2d 371, 373 (10th Cir. 1990) (operation of stay should not depend upon whether district
court finds for or against the debtor). But see In re Mid-City Parking,
Inc., 322 B.R. 798 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2005) (debtor may unilaterally waive
protections of automatic stay by pursuing appeal without first obtaining
bankruptcy court order lifting stay; debtor could not be held liable for
damages to creditor-appellee arising from debtor’s alleged “willful stay
violation).

________________________________

_______________________________

6 Courts may stay actions against a non-debtor third-party defendant under “unusual circumstances” when “there is such identity between the debtor and third-party defendant that the debtor may be said to be the real party defendant and that a judgment against the third-party defendant will in effect be a judgment … against the debtor.” A.H. Robins Co. v. Piccinin, 788 F.2d 994, 999 (4th Cir. 1986). See also In re Nat’l Century Fin. Enter., 423 F.3d 567 (6th Cir. 2005) (commencement of civil action to recover accounts receivable held in collection account in debtor’s name violated automatic stay even though debtor was not named as defendant because action sought to recover estate property); Global Industrial Technologies, Inc. v. Ace Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (In re Global Industrial
Technologies), 303 B.R. 753 (W.D. Pa. 2004), vacated in part, modified in part on other grounds, 2004 WL 555418 (Bankr. W.D.Pa. Mar. 19, 2004) (held, state court action brought by insurers for declaratory judgment regarding non-debtor’s rights in insurance policies it shared with debtor violated automatic stay even though debtor was not named as defendant in state court action because outcome of state action could affect debtor’s rights in shared insurance); Teachers Ins. & Annuity Assoc. of America v. Butler, 803 F.2d 61, 65 (2d Cir. 1986) (referred to A.H. Robins decision as case with “unusual circumstances”). Compare In re Transervice Logistics, Inc., 304 B.R. 805 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2004) (declining to extend automatic stay to non-debtor co-defendants because, unlike situation in A.H. Robins, defendant-debtor only faced one suit, not thousands, and thus would not be barraged by discovery and litigation).

g. Proceedings or claims arising post-petition are not subject to automatic stay, although successful plaintiff must obtain relief from stay if it seeks to enforce judgment against estate.8 Bellini Imports, Ltd. v. Mason & Dixon Lines, Inc., 944 F.2d 199 (4th Cir. 1991) (automatic stay did not bar institution of action arising out of alleged postpetition breach of contract); Erickson v. Polk, 921 F.2d 200 (8th Cir. 1990) (lessor of farmland did not violate automatic stay when it retook possession of property following postpetition expiration of lease); In re Dominguez, 312 B.R. 499 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2004) (prepetition lapse of debtor-taxpayer’s redemption period may constitute “cause” for lifting stay to allow tax authority to exercise its
rights in debtor’s real property; it did not relieve taxing authority’s obligation to move first for modification of stay).

h. Automatic stay does not apply to post-petition defensive actions in a
prepetition lawsuit brought by a debtor. Stanwyck v. Beilinson, 104 Fed.
Appx. 616 (9th Cir. 2004).

3. “[A]ny act” to obtain possession of debtor’s property, or to exercise
control over such property. 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3).

_____________________________________

7 The court ignored its own precedent in coming to this bizarre result, but justified it by reasoning that adjudication of a claim against the wholly-owned corporation would have an “immediate adverse economic impact” on the debtor. But see Feldman v. Trustees of Beck Ind., Inc. (In re Beck Ind., Inc.), 725 F.2d 880 (2d Cir. 1973) (court cannot enjoin suit against solvent independent subsidiary of debtor merely because stock is held by debtor in reorganization); In re Unishops, Inc., 374 F.Supp. 424 (S.D.N.Y. 1974) (bankruptcy court lacks jurisdiction to grant a stay of court proceedings against subsidiaries).

e. Debtor’s Tax Benefits. Circuits apparently are split regarding whether
a debtor’s tax benefits (e.g., net operating losses) are property of the estate, thus subject to the automatic stay. See In re UAL Corp., 412 F.3d 775 (7th Cir. 2005) (finding bankruptcy court’s injunction restricting trading in debtor’s securities to protect tax benefits to be “problematic on the merits,” and questioning court’s reliance on Bankruptcy Code §§ 105(a) and 362 as basis for trading procedures order). Compare In Prudential Lines, Inc., 928 F.2d 565 (2d Cir. 1991) (finding debtor’s tax benefits to be estate property, and that automatic stay thus enjoined debtor’s parent from taking worthless stock deduction on parent’s tax return).

__________________________________

9 The mechanic’s lienor will ordinarily be able to perfect its lien after bankruptcy for work performed prior to bankruptcy. See generally, In re Yobe Electric, Inc., 728 F.2d 207, 208 (3d Cir. 1984) (per curiam) (service of notice of intent to file mechanic’s lien did not violate stay since under state statute “perfection of mechanic’s lien ‘relates back’ to the installation of the first material”); In re Lionel Corp., 29 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1994) (held, no automatic stay violation resulted from mechanics’ lienors’ post-petition serving notice of lien upon lessors and chapter 11 debtor lessee, when New York law permitted perfection of filed mechanics’ lien after another entity had acquired rights to the property).

See In re Fuller, 134 B.R. 945 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1992) (held, automatic stay prevents creation or perfection of lien, even by operation of law).
a. Sections 362(b)(3) and 546(b)(1)(A), read together, set the
boundaries of this exception.

(i) Section 362(b)(3) subjects a creditor’s right to “perfect, or to maintain or continue the perfection of, an interest in property” to Section 546(b) of Code. 11 U.S.C. §362(b)(3).

(ii) In turn, Section 546(b) limits the trustee’s powers to avoid statutory liens by providing that they “are subject to any generally applicable law that permits perfection of an interest in property to be effective against an entity that acquires rights in such property before the date of perfection.” 11 U.S.C. §546(b)(1)(A) (emphasis added); see, e.g., In re AR Accessories Group, Inc., 345 F.3d 454, 458 (7th Cir. 2003) (held, priming statute need not contain language expressly providing for retroactive perfection in order to trigger exception provided in 11 U.S.C. §546(b)(1)(A)); In re Hayden, 308 B.R. 428 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2004) (held, towing operator did not violate automatic stay in refusing to surrender possession of debtor’s vehicle, which was towed prepetition, unless debtor first paid towing charges because towing operator was merely acting to maintain or continue possession of its lien, not to enforce it).

5. Any act to create, perfect, or enforce a lien against debtor’s property for
prepetition claims. 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(5). See, e.g., In re Birney, 200 F.3d 225 227 (4th Cir. 1999) (Section 362(a)(5) prohibits “any act to create, perfect, or enforce against property of the debtor any lien to the extent that such lien secures a claim that arose before the commencement of the case under this title”).

6. “Any act to collect, assess, or recover a prepetition claim against the
debtor.” 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(6). Pertuso v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 233 F.3d 417, 423 (6th Cir. 2000) (a course of conduct violates § 362(a)(6) if it “(1) could reasonably be expected to have a significant impact on the debtor’s determination as to whether to repay, and (2) is contrary to what a reasonable person would consider to be fair under the circumstances”) (quoting In re Briggs, 143 B.R. 438 453 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1992)); see also In re Diamond, 346 F.3d 224, 227-28 (1st Cir. 2003) (settlement negotiations challenging Chapter 7 debtor’s discharge do not violate the automatic stay per se, but creditor’s threat to seek revocation of debtor’s real estate license during negotiations was coercive, thus dismissal of
debtor’s complaint proper); In re Optel, Inc., 60 Fed.Appx. 390 (3d Cir. March 25, 2003) (sale agreement between creditor and debtor provided that debtor either pay $6 million lump sum payment or, if creditor requested, $10 million over time; held, automatic stay prohibited creditor from requesting the $10 million deferred payment, therefore creditor was only entitled to distribution on $6 million claim); In re Jamo, 283 F.3d 392, 399 (1st Cir. 2002) (“a creditor may engage in post petition negotiations pertaining to a bankruptcy-related reaffirmation agreement so long as the creditor does not engage in coercive or harassing tactics”).

7. Setoffs of any prepetition debt owing to the debtor. 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(7). See Newbery Corp. v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 95 F.3d 1392 (9th Cir. 1996) (right of setoff is subject to automatic stay provisions of chapter 11); Citizens Bank of Maryland v. Strumpf, 516 U.S. 16 (1995) (temporary administrative freeze by bank not a stay violation or setoff; intent to settle accounts permanently is required for setoff within meaning of automatic stay provisions). Compare Jimenez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 335 B.R. 450 (Bankr. D. N.M. Dec. 21, 2005) (temporary administrative freeze by bank, without right of setoff, violated automatic stay); In re Calvin, 329 B.R. 589 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2005) (bank’s administrative freeze of debtor’s account violated automatic stay when bank was not creditor of debtor and thus had no right of setoff); In re Cullen, 329 BR. 52
(Bankr. N.D. Iowa 2005) (bank’s administrative freeze of account jointly held by debtor and debtor’s father violated automatic stay because freeze was intended to continue indefinitely until bankruptcy case was closed; bank did not have valid right of setoff because funds in account were property of debtor’s father and mutuality requirement for setoff thus was lacking).

a. N.B.: The automatic stay, however, does not prevent a creditor
from exercising its right of recoupment.10 See, e.g., In re Slater Health
Center, Inc., 398 F.3d 98 (1st Cir. 2005) (right of recoupment entitled
government to recoup prepetition overpayments to debtor-health care
provider by reducing postpetition payments to debtor); In re Holyoke
Nursing Home, 372 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2004) (same); In re Anes, 195 F.3d
177 (3d Cir. 1999) (held, doctrine of recoupment did not apply so as to
permit pension plans to deduct loan payments from debtors’ postpetition
paychecks because the payments were not part of the same transaction); In re Delicruz, 300 B.R. 669 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2003) (“recoupment reduces
or extinguish[es] a debt arising from the same transaction, and is not
stayed by the bankruptcy”). But see York Linings Int’l, Inc. v. Harbison-
Walker Refractories Co., 839 N.E.2d 766 (Ind. App. 2005) (although
automatic stay does not bar creditor from exercising right of recoupment,
stay does prevent creditor from asserting counterclaim for recoupment in
litigation because such a counterclaim seeks affirmative relief).

____________________________________

10 “Recoupment” has been defined as follows: “. . . so long as the creditor’s claim arises out of the identical transaction as the debtor’s, that claim may be offset against the debt owed to the debtor, without concern” for the Code’s setoff limitations. In re University Medical Center, 973 F.2d 1065, 1080 (3d Cir. 1992). Recoupment in bankruptcy has been narrowly construed by courts because it violates the basic bankruptcy principle of equal distribution. In re B & L Oil Co., 782 F.2d 155, 158 (10th Cir. 1986) (“[a] fundamental tenet of bankruptcy law is that . . . [once] a petition is filed, debts that arose before the petition may not be satisfied through post-petition transactions. This is seen in bankruptcy restrictions on setoffs [and recoupment].”); In re McMahon, 129 F.3d 93, 97 (2d Cir. 1997) (“in light of the Bankruptcy Code’s strong policy favoring equal treatment of creditors, recoupment . . . should be narrowly construed”).

• As of October 17, 2005, § 362(a)(8) is limited to proceedings
concerning corporate debtor’s tax liability for taxable period the
bankruptcy court may determine or, if debtor is individual, to tax
for taxable period ending before date of order for relief.

9. Only affirmative acts are stayed. Section 362 applies only to affirmative
acts against the debtor or its estate.

When Homeowner’s good faith attempts to amicably work with the Bank in order to resolve the issue fails;

FightForeclosure.net

~ Your "Pro Se" Foreclosure Fight Solution!

Tag Archives: automatic stay

What Homeowners Must Know After they Have Been Sued in a Bankruptcy Adversary Proceeding

Introduction

Step 1: Answer

Step 2: Pre-Trial Conference

Step 3: Discovery

Step 4: Motions

Step 5: Trial

DEALING WITH THE LAW

Effective Use of Injunctions Can Make or Break Homeowner’s Foreclosure Case

Why Homeowners Must Effectively Use Court Injunctions To Save Their Homes

How Homeowners Can Effectively Use Automatic Stay Provisions of the Bankruptcy Code

What Homeowners Need to Know About Bankruptcy Automatic Stay

Introduction

Step 1: Answer

Step 2: Pre-Trial Conference

Step 3: Discovery

Step 4: Motions

Step 5: Trial

DEALING WITH THE LAW

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: