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 Foster v. Heitkamp
  670 F.2d 478· 5th Cir.· 1982-03-01 ·cited 8×
  A Chapter 13 plan cannot provide for current mortgage payments to be made outside the plan while simultaneously curing the arrearage on that same mortgage claim under the plan pursuant to § 1322(b)(5). However, fully secured claims may generally be treated outside a plan, and deb
• Dennis v. A.H. Robins Co., Inc.
  860 F.2d 871· 8th Cir.· 1988-11-08 ·cited 7×
  The district court erred in dismissing the case with prejudice after an automatic bankruptcy stay was imposed, as the stay did not preclude the court from managing its docket.
• In re River Hills Apts. Fund v. River Hills Apts. Fund
  813 F.2d 702· 5th Cir.· 1987-04-06 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the foreclosure sale was valid because the automatic stay had expired, the debtor was not denied a required hearing, and the sale price was not grossly inadequate under Texas law.
• Riggs Nat'l Bank OF Wash. v. Perry
  729 F.2d 982· 4th Cir.· 1984-03-16 ·cited 7×
  The court held that while a due-on-bankruptcy clause alone is not cause to lift the automatic stay, the debtor's lack of equity in property requires the court to grant relief from the stay unless adequate protection is provided.
• McMAHON v. Janice M.A. Ryan
  964 So. 2d 198· Fla. 5th DCA· 2007-08-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that actions taken in violation of the automatic bankruptcy stay are void and that the trial court erred in refusing to quash service of process when the stay had not been annulled by a bankruptcy court.
• Bel-Bel Int'l Corp. v. Barnett Bank of S. Fla., N.A.
  158 B.R. 252· S.D. Fla.· 1993-08-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendants' motions to stay proceedings and dismiss counterclaims were unpersuasive, denying the stay and granting the dismissals.
• Carlton v. Firstcorp
  967 F.2d 942· 4th Cir.· 1992-06-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Financial Institutions Supervisory Act, specifically 12 U.S.C. § 1818(i)(1), supersedes the bankruptcy automatic stay, precluding its application to OTS administrative proceedings and temporary cease and desist orders.
• In re Lomas Fin. Corp. v. The N. Tr. Co.
  932 F.2d 147· 2d Cir.· 1991-05-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that it must determine the finality of the bankruptcy court's preliminary injunction order to establish appellate jurisdiction, directing parties to seek clarification from the bankruptcy court.
• United States v. McPECK
  910 F.2d 509· 8th Cir.· 1990-08-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while the IRS is bound by the automatic stay, sovereign immunity requires monetary awards for willful violations to be offset against the IRS's claims under 11 U.S.C. § 106(b), rather than an affirmative judgment, unless attorneys' fees are awarded affirmative
• In re Lockard v. Lockard
  884 F.2d 1171· 9th Cir.· 1989-09-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the state court's unsigned minute entry order was not sufficiently final or appealable to have preclusive effect, and that the contractor's license bond was not property of the bankruptcy estate, thus the automatic stay did not apply to the action against the
• In re Shamblin v. Shamblin
  890 F.2d 123· 9th Cir.· 1989-06-30 ·cited 6×
  A tax sale under Illinois law, which grants a lien rather than a property transfer, does not constitute a "transfer of property of the estate" under 11 U.S.C. § 549, and therefore, the exceptions within § 549, including the provision for a good faith purchaser's lien, do not appl
• In re Hunters RUN Ltd. P'ship v. Hunters RUN Ltd. P'ship
  875 F.2d 1425· 9th Cir.· 1989-05-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that 11 U.S.C. § 108(c) tolled the statutory enforcement period for a mechanic's lien when the property owner filed for bankruptcy. The court reversed the lower courts' decisions that the lien had expired.
• In re Globe Inv. & Loan Co., Inc. v. Globe Inv. & Loan Co., Inc.
  867 F.2d 556· 9th Cir.· 1989-02-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that appellants lacked standing under 11 U.S.C. § 362 to challenge the trustee's sale because they sought title adverse to the estate, and lacked standing under 11 U.S.C. § 363 because they were not creditors at the time of the sale.
• Perkins v. Scharffe
  817 F.2d 392· 6th Cir.· 1987-05-05 ·cited 6×
• In re Allen
  816 F.2d 325· 7th Cir.· 1987-04-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a foreclosure sale transfer to a purchaser with knowledge of the bankruptcy case's commencement is voidable, even if it was a judicial sale, and that the bankruptcy court's order voiding the sale was a final, appealable order.
• Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.
  814 F.2d 844· 1st Cir.· 1987-04-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Soler was barred by res judicata from raising its inability to finance arbitration as a defense, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in vacating the automatic stay.
• Bankruptcy v. Eakin
  814 F.2d 1501· 10th Cir.· 1987-03-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not err in lifting the automatic stay, and that the issue of rejecting the bankruptcy judge's findings was moot due to the district court's subsequent abstention.
• In re Franklin v. Franklin
  802 F.2d 324· 9th Cir.· 1986-10-10 ·cited 6×
  A bankruptcy court retains jurisdiction to construe its own prior orders, even after the underlying bankruptcy proceeding has been dismissed, if the action arises under Title 11.
• In re Colony Square Co. v. Prudential Ins. Co. OF Am.
  779 F.2d 653· 11th Cir.· 1986-01-10 ·cited 6×
  The automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 did not prevent enforcement of a plan commenced under the former Bankruptcy Act, and mismanagement claims must be brought separately.
• Vreugdenhil v. Hoekstra
  773 F.2d 213· 8th Cir.· 1985-09-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the appellants' suit without prejudice because the claims belonged to the bankruptcy estate and should have been brought by the trustee in the bankruptcy court.
• Sovran Bank, N.A. v. Darl Duane Anderson
  743 F.2d 223· 4th Cir.· 1984-09-11 ·cited 6×
  The bankruptcy court did not err in modifying the automatic stay to permit foreclosure on property held by the entireties, as there was cause for lifting the stay.
• Dora Puig, The Puig Grp., & Dora Puig, P.A. v. Padc Mktg., LLC
  26 So. 3d 45· Fla. 3d DCA· 2009-12-23 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the trial court departed from clear legal precedent by indefinitely staying the entire action against non-debtor defendants pending the resolution of a co-defendant's bankruptcy proceeding.
• In re Colonial Realty Co. v. Hal M. Hirsch
  980 F.2d 125· 2d Cir.· 1992-11-20 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the FDIC's action to recover fraudulently transferred assets is subject to the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362, as it constitutes an action to recover a claim against the debtor, and the FDIC's statutory rights do not implicitly repeal or limit the automatic
• In re Jensen
  946 F.2d 369· 5th Cir.· 1991-10-22 ·cited 5×
  A debtor's filing of a bankruptcy petition does not waive their Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial for pre-petition claims against third parties, and such claims retain their legal character for jury trial purposes.
• In re Prudential Lines Inc. v. PSS S.S. Co., Inc.
  928 F.2d 565· 2d Cir.· 1991-03-20 ·cited 5×
  The court held that a Net Operating Loss (NOL) carryforward attributable to a bankrupt subsidiary is property of the subsidiary's bankruptcy estate, and the parent company cannot take a worthless stock deduction that would eliminate the NOL's value to the estate.
• In re Blehm Land & Cattle Co. v. Am. Agcredit Corp.
  859 F.2d 137· 10th Cir.· 1988-09-29 ·cited 5×
  The court held that failure to obtain prior court approval of an adequate protection agreement does not automatically preclude a superpriority administrative expense claim, and the agreement in question was not a settlement or compromise nor violative of statutory provisions.
• In re Allstar Bldg. Prods., Inc. v. Allstar Bldg. Prods., Inc.
  809 F.2d 1534· 11th Cir.· 1987-02-17 ·cited 5×
  The court held that a creditor's security interest in a bankrupt's personal property was invalid because it was not authorized by the corporation's board of directors as required by Alabama law.
• In re Duque
  48 B.R. 965· S.D. Fla.· 1984-11-20 ·cited 5×
  A Chapter 11 debtor-in-possession cannot use estate funds to pay for criminal counsel defending against federal charges arising from pre-bankruptcy activities.
• In re Saez v. Saez
  721 F.2d 848· 1st Cir.· 1983-11-22 ·cited 5×
  The Court of Appeals held that the automatic stay terminated upon the dismissal of the bankruptcy petition, and therefore the subsequent sale of the debtor's house did not violate the stay, invalidating the damages award.
• In re Glasply Marine Indus., Inc. v. Seattle-First Nat'l Bank
  971 F.2d 391· 9th Cir.· 1992-07-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that post-petition property taxes do not have priority over a secured creditor's mortgage and are barred by the automatic stay unless a specific statutory exception applies.
• Interstate Commerce Comm'n v. Holmes Transp., Inc.
  931 F.2d 984· 1st Cir.· 1991-05-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court must first determine whether the automatic stay under the Bankruptcy Code applied to the ICC action and contempt proceedings, as this issue was not addressed below and could render the district court's orders void.
• In re Sutton v. Bank One
  904 F.2d 327· 5th Cir.· 1990-07-03 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court's findings of no equity and unlikely reorganization were not clearly erroneous, thus affirming the lifting of the automatic stay.
• In re Knaus v. Concordia Lumber Co., Inc.
  889 F.2d 773· 8th Cir.· 1989-11-13 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a creditor's refusal to return property lawfully seized before a bankruptcy petition filing violates the automatic stay, and such willful violations can warrant attorney's fees and punitive damages.
• In re Knightsbridge Dev. Co. Inc. v. McCARTHY Constr. Co.
  884 F.2d 145· 4th Cir.· 1989-09-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a post-petition arbitration award violated the automatic stay because the panel's deliberations occurred after the bankruptcy filing, but a post-petition amendment to a lis pendens did not violate the stay as it had no effect on the bankruptcy estate.
• In re SUN Valley Ranches, Inc. v. The Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y OF the United States
  823 F.2d 1373· 9th Cir.· 1987-08-05 ·cited 4×
  The Ninth Circuit held that an appeal from an order lifting the automatic stay is not moot when the creditor-purchaser is a party to the appeal and the property sold is subject to statutory redemption rights. The court also found no abuse of discretion in making the order effecti
• In re van Iperen v. Prod. Credit Ass'n of Worthington-Slayton Branch
  819 F.2d 189· 8th Cir.· 1987-05-19 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the bankruptcy appeal as moot because the collateral had been sold and adequate relief could no longer be provided to the debtors.
• United States v. Reynolds
  764 F.2d 1004· 4th Cir.· 1985-06-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the IRS's retention of a tax refund constituted a setoff violating the automatic stay, and that the debtors' confirmed Chapter 13 plan provided adequate protection for the IRS's claim.
• First Nat'l Bank OF Louisville v. Hurricane Elkhorn Coal Corp. II
  763 F.2d 188· 6th Cir.· 1985-05-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the bank's claim to the agent's retained funds failed because the bank did not prove the setoff affected the debtor's estate rather than the bank itself.
• In re Hartman Paving, Inc. v. Hartman Paving, Inc.
  745 F.2d 307· 4th Cir.· 1984-10-02 ·cited 4×
• In re Dorwin B. Cook v. T.F. Fletcher, Jr.
  730 F.2d 1324· 9th Cir.· 1984-04-16 ·cited 4×
  The appeal is dismissed as moot because the appellants' subsequent Chapter 7 discharge and failure to seek a stay of the bankruptcy court's orders prevent the court from granting effective relief.
• R.C. DIX v. Richardson
  427 So. 2d 1067· Fla. 1st DCA· 1983-03-09 ·cited 4×
  R.C. Dix sought a writ of prohibition to prevent enforcement of a final judgment against him personally, arguing the trial court lacked jurisdiction because he was not a party to the original proceeding and was protected by bankruptcy stay provisions. The Florida appellate court
• In re Sunbeam Securities Litigation
  261 B.R. 534· S.D. Fla.· 2001-03-26 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the non-debtor defendants are not entitled to an automatic stay of proceedings due to Sunbeam's bankruptcy filing.
• In re Natchez Corp. OF W. Va. v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp.
  953 F.2d 184· 5th Cir.· 1992-01-28 ·cited 3×
  The FDIC, as a creditor, lacks standing under 11 U.S.C. § 549 to avoid post-petition transfers of estate property, even if those transfers violate the automatic stay.
• In re Pointer v. Pointer
  952 F.2d 82· 5th Cir.· 1992-01-14 ·cited 3×
  A creditor lacks standing under 11 U.S.C. § 549 to avoid post-petition tax liens; however, statutory liens do not entitle taxing authorities to post-petition penalties, fees, or costs under 11 U.S.C. § 506(b).
• In re the Charter Co. v. Exxon Co.
  913 F.2d 1575· 11th Cir.· 1990-10-11 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying Exxon's contractual right to offset debts owed by Charter and in awarding interest above the Texas statutory rate, as the net settlement agreement controlled the transactions.
• Seattle-First Nat'l Bank v. Manges
  900 F.2d 795· 5th Cir.· 1990-04-18 ·cited 3×
  The court held that while the district court had the power to issue an injunction to enforce the venue provision, the orders failed to comply with the specificity requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d).
• In re Allstar Bldg. Prods., Inc. v. Allstar Bldg. Prods., Inc.
  834 F.2d 898· 11th Cir.· 1987-12-01 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court improperly shifted the burden of proof to the creditor seeking relief from the automatic stay, rather than requiring the debtor/trustee to prove lack of perfection or adequate protection.
• In re Odom
  702 F.2d 962· 11th Cir.· 1983-04-14 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the debtor's consent alone is insufficient for a direct appeal to the court of appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 1293(b) when creditors with substantial adverse interests exist.
• Lee v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n
  102 F.4th 1177· 11th Cir.· 2024-05-23 ·cited 2×
  Patricia Lee mortgaged a 43-acre Georgia property consisting of a residential structure on 2.5 acres and commercial farmland on the remaining acreage, and sought to modify U.S. Bank's mortgage in a chapter 11 bankruptcy plan. The Eleventh Circuit held that the anti-modification p
• Daewoo Motor Am., Inc. v. Gen. Motors Corp.
  315 B.R. 148· M.D. Fla.· 2004-08-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Korean court's orders approving the Master Transaction Agreement and Modified Reorganization Plan did not violate the automatic stay because DMA's distribution rights under the Distribution Agreement did not extend to vehicles manufactured by GMDAT, and th