11 U.S.C. § 362

271 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• In re Atl. Bus. & Cmty. Corp. v. Atl. Bus. & Cmty. Dev. Corp.
  901 F.2d 325· 3d Cir.· 1990-04-18 ·cited 16×
  A debtor's possessory interest in property, even under a tenancy at sufferance, is protected by the automatic stay, and intentional interference with that interest constitutes a willful violation warranting damages.
• In re Am. Hardwoods, Inc. v. Deutsche Credit Corp.
  885 F.2d 621· 9th Cir.· 1989-09-15 ·cited 16×
  The bankruptcy court lacks the power under 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) to issue a permanent injunction against a creditor enforcing a state court judgment against nondebtor guarantors, as this would effectively discharge their liability, which is prohibited by 11 U.S.C. § 524(e).
• In re Ahlers v. Norwest Bank Worthington & Fed. Land Bank
  794 F.2d 388· 8th Cir.· 1986-07-02 ·cited 16×
• United States v. Sutton
  786 F.2d 1305· 5th Cir.· 1986-04-16 ·cited 16×
  A debtor in Chapter 11 reorganization is not entitled to a monthly allowance for the support of his spouse from the bankruptcy estate.
• In re Johnson v. Righetti
  756 F.2d 738· 9th Cir.· 1985-03-28 ·cited 16×
  A motion for relief from the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d) is an action governed by federal law, not an "action on a contract" to which state law, including state statutes providing for attorney's fees, applies.
• In re H & H Bev. Distribs. v. Dep't of Revenue of the Commonwealth of Pa. Appeal of Commonwealth of Pa.
  850 F.2d 165· 3d Cir.· 1988-06-24 ·cited 15×
  Conducting a sales tax audit and issuing a notice of audit assessment does not violate the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362, as it is the functional equivalent of a notice of tax deficiency permitted by § 362(b)(9).
• In re Baldwin-United Corp. Litig. Vincent Erti v. Paine Webber Jackson & Curtis, Inc.
  765 F.2d 343· 2d Cir.· 1985-06-17 ·cited 15×
  The district court's injunction prohibiting the debtor from seeking relief in the bankruptcy court regarding the automatic stay was an improper use of equitable power and is vacated.
• Bacelli v. MFP, Inc.
  729 F. Supp. 2d 1328· M.D. Fla.· 2010-07-28 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a debt collector's reliance on a creditor for bankruptcy information is unreasonable without an agreement or evidence of effectiveness, and that the Bankruptcy Code does not preempt FDCPA claims arising from violations of the automatic stay or discharge injunc
• In re Colon v. Royal Hart
  941 F.2d 242· 3d Cir.· 1991-08-13 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a bankruptcy court's order resolving the merits of an adversary proceeding is a final decision for appeal purposes, even if attorneys' fees are pending, and that the district court erred in dismissing the appeal of the fee award as untimely.
• In re Wayne D. and Annie M. Thompson v. Spears-Appellee
  894 F.2d 1227· 10th Cir.· 1990-01-30 ·cited 14×
  The court held that debtors retain the right to cure mortgage defaults under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code until the foreclosure sale, even after a state court judgment. This right is a matter of federal law, not strictly dictated by state property law concepts.
• In re Martin Exploration Co. v. Martin Exploration Co. & Superior Supply Co.
  731 F.2d 1210· 5th Cir.· 1984-05-14 ·cited 14×
  The court held that Superior's unrecorded vendor's privilege primed Explorer's lien because the pipe remained movable property and the specific statute for well-related movables did not require recordation to perfect the privilege. The court also affirmed the bankruptcy court's c
• Md. Nat'l Bank v. The Mayor & City Council OF Baltimore
  723 F.2d 1138· 4th Cir.· 1983-12-19 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the City's lien for 1980-81 real estate taxes was not avoidable by the bankruptcy trustee under 11 U.S.C. § 545 because Maryland law permitted the perfection of this interest post-petition under 11 U.S.C. § 546(b).
• Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. CO Petro Mktg. Grp., Inc.
  700 F.2d 1279· 9th Cir.· 1983-03-11 ·cited 14×
  The district court had jurisdiction to order the return of funds despite a bankruptcy filing, as the order enforced a prior injunction under the police or regulatory exception to the automatic stay, and the appellant violated that injunction by depositing the funds.
• Diebel v. S.B. Trucking Co.
  262 F. Supp. 2d 1319· M.D. Fla.· 2003-04-09 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the notice of removal was procedurally defective because not all defendants consented, and this defect could not be cured after the 30-day period expired. The court also noted potential issues with diversity jurisdiction.
• In re Schwartz v. United States
  954 F.2d 569· 9th Cir.· 1992-01-22 ·cited 13×
  Violations of the Bankruptcy Code's automatic stay provision are void, not merely voidable.
• Carolin Corp. v. Miller
  886 F.2d 693· 4th Cir.· 1989-09-28 ·cited 12×
  The court should have remanded the case to consider statutory grounds for dismissal before relying on a judicially created 'lack of good faith' requirement.
• Archer v. MacOmb Cnty. Bank
  853 F.2d 497· 6th Cir.· 1988-08-11 ·cited 12×
  The court held that while the bank willfully violated the automatic stay, the damages awarded were based on insufficient and speculative evidence, requiring a remand for a new damages hearing.
• In re Titan Energy v. Titan Energy, Inc.
  837 F.2d 325· 8th Cir.· 1988-01-19 ·cited 12×
  The bankruptcy court has jurisdiction over National Union's action concerning insurance policies that are property of the debtor's estate, but abstention is appropriate because the issues are primarily state law matters with only a peripheral impact on the estate.
• Boone Coal & Timber Co. v. William J.M. Polan (85-5400)
  787 F.2d 1056· 6th Cir.· 1986-04-08 ·cited 12×
  A district court's order remanding a case to state court is not reviewable on appeal, and a lease termination notice is effective upon mailing if the lease so provides, even if harsh.
• In re LHD Realty Corp.
  726 F.2d 327· 7th Cir.· 1984-01-16 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a mortgage holder's election to accelerate the debt, by filing for relief from the automatic stay to foreclose, waived its right to a prepayment premium, even in bankruptcy. However, late payment charges were properly allowed.
• In re Kovacs v. Kovacs
  681 F.2d 454· 6th Cir.· 1982-06-16 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the state's action to collect money from the debtor's post-petition earnings to fund a cleanup obligation was not excepted from the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(5).
• In re Hillard T. Roach v. Hillard T. Roach
  660 F.2d 1316· 9th Cir.· 1981-09-30 ·cited 12×
  The court held that notices of postponement of sale, which specify a new sale date, do not violate the automatic stay and that the denial of Roach's motions was not an abuse of discretion.
• In re Mansfield Tire & Rubber Co. v. Mansfield Tire & Rubber Co.
  660 F.2d 1108· 6th Cir.· 1981-09-29 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Industrial Commission of Ohio's adjudication of workers' compensation claims falls under the police or regulatory power exception to the automatic stay in bankruptcy proceedings.
• United States v. Fernandez (In Re Fernandez)
  132 B.R. 775· M.D. Fla.· 1991-10-01 ·cited 11×
  The court held that while the IRS willfully violated the automatic stay and sovereign immunity was waived for attorney fees, the award was improper without proof of actual fees incurred.
• Borman v. Raymark Indus., Inc.
  946 F.2d 1031· 3d Cir.· 1991-10-21 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) applies to appeals against a debtor, even if a supersedeas bond was posted before bankruptcy, and that the prior ruling in Mid-Jersey is no longer applicable under the current Bankruptcy Code.
• Pettibone Corp. v. Easley
  935 F.2d 120· 7th Cir.· 1991-06-13 ·cited 10×
  Bankruptcy courts lack jurisdiction to resolve statute of limitations defenses for tort suits that have passed through reorganization.
• Savers Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Horst R. Reetz and Kathleen K. Reetz
  888 F.2d 1497· 5th Cir.· 1989-11-30 ·cited 10×
  The court held that Texas law dictates that the credit on a debt for deficiency judgment purposes is the amount received at a valid nonjudicial foreclosure sale, not the property's fair market value, unless there was an irregularity in the sale contributing to an inadequate price
• In re Chateaugay Corp. v. Chateaugay Corp.
  880 F.2d 1509· 2d Cir.· 1989-06-30 ·cited 10×
  The denial of a motion for relief from the automatic stay, even with provisions for interim relief and future reconsideration, is a final and appealable order.
• Noli v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  860 F.2d 1521· 9th Cir.· 1988-11-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Tax Court did not err in dismissing the petition for failure to prosecute, nor in proceeding with the trial after the bankruptcy court lifted the automatic stay, and that the judge did not exhibit disqualifying bias.
• In re Ward
  837 F.2d 124· 3d Cir.· 1988-01-15 ·cited 10×
  A foreclosure sale conducted in violation of the automatic stay of a bankruptcy petition is void, and the good-faith purchaser exception does not apply if title was not perfected under applicable state law.
• Brock v. Morysville Body Works, Inc.
  829 F.2d 383· 3d Cir.· 1987-09-17 ·cited 10×
  The court should refer the petition for enforcement of a noncontested citation to the bankruptcy court due to its superior ability to handle related bankruptcy estate matters and develop facts.
• In re Elcona Homes Corp.
  810 F.2d 136· 7th Cir.· 1987-01-23 ·cited 10×
  A district court lacks the statutory authority to refer appeals from bankruptcy court decisions to a magistrate, even with the parties' consent.
• Pope v. Manville Forest Prods. Corp.
  778 F.2d 238· 5th Cir.· 1985-12-12 ·cited 10×
  The district court's sua sponte dismissal of the Title VII claim was prohibited by the automatic bankruptcy stay.
• NLT Computer Servs. Corp. v. Cap. Computer Sys., Inc.
  755 F.2d 1253· 6th Cir.· 1985-03-04 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the priorities established in the Bankruptcy Code prevail over the federal insolvency statute when bankruptcy proceedings are filed. It also held that the district court lacked the procedural authority to lift the automatic stay and proceed to the merits of th
• Slater v. U.S. Steel Corp.
  820 F.3d 1193· 11th Cir.· 2016-02-24 ·cited 9×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to U.S. Steel, barring Sandra Slater's employment discrimination claims on the grounds of judicial estoppel. The court found that Slater's failure to list the lawsuit as a contingent asset on her bankrup
• Supporters TO Oppose Pollution, Inc. v. The Heritage Grp.
  973 F.2d 1320· 7th Cir.· 1992-08-28 ·cited 9×
  The court held that Supporters to Oppose Pollution (StOP) cannot pursue multiple lawsuits against Heritage Group, an alleged alter ego of Environmental Waste Control (EWC), due to statutory bars, claim preclusion, and bankruptcy stay provisions.
• Credit Alliance Corp. v. Williams
  851 F.2d 119· 4th Cir.· 1988-07-05 ·cited 9×
  The automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy Code does not apply to non-bankrupt guarantors, and res judicata bars relitigation of defenses to a default judgment.
• Tyson v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.
  958 F.2d 756· 7th Cir.· 1992-03-02 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding the appeal frivolous and awarding sanctions against the appellant's counsel.
• Green v. Welsh
  956 F.2d 30· 2d Cir.· 1992-02-04 ·cited 8×
  A bankruptcy discharge injunction under 11 U.S.C. § 524 does not bar a plaintiff from continuing a tort suit against a discharged debtor solely to establish liability for recovery from the debtor's liability insurer.
• In re PAN Am. Corp. v. PAN Am. World Airways, Inc.
  950 F.2d 839· 2d Cir.· 1991-12-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court erred in abstaining from transferring the Coker actions because its reasoning was based on inappropriate considerations, but affirmed the abstention for the Rosenkranz action.
• Willhelm v. E. Airlines, Inc.
  927 F.2d 971· 7th Cir.· 1991-03-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to consider the merits of the appeal because the district court's order was not a final, appealable order.
• In re Walker v. Wilde
  927 F.2d 1138· 10th Cir.· 1991-03-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Higleys could continue their action against Walker to establish their right to recover from the Utah Real Estate Recovery Fund, but affirmed the denial of their motion for an extension of time to challenge the dischargeability of their claim.
• In re Sullivan Cent. Plaza v. Bancboston Real Est. Cap. Corp. & Dallas Cent. Dev. Corp.
  914 F.2d 731· 5th Cir.· 1990-10-16 ·cited 8×
  Appeals from the bankruptcy court's orders lifting the automatic stay and withdrawing injunctive relief are moot because the property was foreclosed upon and sold, and applicable state law does not provide a remedy to undo the sale.
• In re Tucson Ests., Inc. v. Tucson Ests., Inc.
  912 F.2d 1162· 9th Cir.· 1990-08-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court abused its discretion by reimposing the stay on state litigation, as state law governed the issues and abstention was appropriate. The cross-appeal regarding judgment recordation was deemed moot.
• In re Mann v. Alexander Dawson Inc.
  907 F.2d 923· 9th Cir.· 1990-07-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the appeal regarding the foreclosure sale was moot because the debtor failed to obtain a stay pending appeal, and the clarifying orders regarding the unlawful detainer action were proper.
• In re Carroll v. Tri-Growth Ctr. City, Ltd.
  903 F.2d 1266· 9th Cir.· 1990-05-23 ·cited 8×
  The management agreement is property of the estate and protected by the automatic stay, thus Tri-Growth's termination without seeking relief from the stay was a violation.
• In re Elna Kay Brooks v. Wash. Mut. Sav. Bank
  871 F.2d 89· 9th Cir.· 1989-03-23 ·cited 8×
  The trustee of a wife's bankruptcy estate lacks standing to avoid a deed of trust rerecorded in violation of her husband's prior bankruptcy's automatic stay.
• In re Berry Ests., Inc. v. State OF NEW York
  812 F.2d 67· 2d Cir.· 1987-02-19 ·cited 8×
  The bankruptcy court cannot disregard state public policy and allow a landlord to profit from collecting unlawful excess rents, even if tenants do not claim refunds.
• Stephens Indus., Inc. v. Bankruptcy
  789 F.2d 386· 6th Cir.· 1986-04-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Bankruptcy Court did not abuse its discretion in approving the sale of the debtor's assets, including FCC licenses, and in refusing to lift the automatic stay, as there was a sound business purpose for the sale and the debtor had equity in the licenses.
• Garland Coal & Mining Co. v. United Mine Workers OF Am.
  778 F.2d 1297· 8th Cir.· 1985-12-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that post-expiration grievances are not arbitrable under the contract, but pre-expiration grievances remain arbitrable. The court also reversed the dismissal of the Union's counterclaims and third-party complaint.