11 U.S.C. § 362(A)

78 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Johnson v. First Nat'l Bank of Montevideo
  719 F.2d 270· 8th Cir.· 1983-10-11 ·cited 86×
  A bankruptcy court cannot use its general equitable powers under 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) to suspend a state statutory redemption period, nor does the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) apply to the mere running of such a period.
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. The Rath Packing Co.
  787 F.2d 318· 8th Cir.· 1986-03-20 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the district judge did not abuse his discretion in denying retroactive competitive seniority and in defining the relevant labor pool for backpay calculations.
• In re Martin v. United States
  761 F.2d 472· 8th Cir.· 1985-05-07 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court applied an incorrect legal standard for determining "adequate protection" under 11 U.S.C. § 361(3) by failing to properly consider the value of the secured creditor's interest and the risks to that value. The court remanded for further ana
• Algeran, Inc. v. Advance Ross Corp.
  759 F.2d 1421· 9th Cir.· 1985-05-09 ·cited 39×
  The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over both the appeal from the order lifting the automatic stay and validating the foreclosure sale, and the appeal from the sanctions order against the attorneys.
• Cathey v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp.
  711 F.2d 60· 6th Cir.· 1983-07-01 ·cited 38×
  The automatic stay of proceedings imposed by 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) applies to appellate proceedings against a debtor, regardless of whether the debtor is the appellant or appellee, and only the bankruptcy court can grant relief from this stay.
• In re Benny L. Roach and Edith Roach
  824 F.2d 1370· 3d Cir.· 1987-07-31 ·cited 35×
  A Chapter 13 debtor's right to cure a home mortgage default under § 1322(b) terminates upon the entry of a foreclosure judgment under New Jersey law, as the mortgage merges into the judgment and the cure provisions do not extend to rights created by a final judgment.
• Gatx Aircraft Corp. v. M/V Courtney Leigh
  768 F.2d 711· 5th Cir.· 1985-08-19 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the guarantors were liable for the full amount of the guarantee, as the contract allowed the creditor to proceed against them without first pursuing the debtor or other guarantors, and Louisiana law permits such contractual modifications of in solido liability
• In re Glenn v. Glenn
  760 F.2d 1428· 6th Cir.· 1985-04-16 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the right to cure a mortgage default under Chapter 13 is lost upon the foreclosure sale of the property, and that the automatic stay does not toll statutory redemption periods.
• Barnett v. Burton L. Stern
  909 F.2d 973· 7th Cir.· 1990-08-02 ·cited 23×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction over the appeals of Barnett and Liss due to defects in their notice of appeal, but reversed the district court's res judicata dismissal of Levit's RICO claim against Todd Stern, finding it was not a core bankruptcy proceeding.
• In re Stringer v. Aristela Huet
  847 F.2d 549· 9th Cir.· 1988-05-24 ·cited 21×
  The court held that a state court's modification of a child support order is not exempt from the automatic stay in bankruptcy proceedings.
• In re Natural Land Corp. v. Baker Farms, Inc.
  825 F.2d 296· 11th Cir.· 1987-08-21 ·cited 21×
  A bankruptcy court may dismiss a Chapter 11 petition for lack of good faith before a reorganization plan is filed, especially when the debtor is a shell corporation created solely to delay creditors.
• In re Farmers Mkts., Inc. v. Farmers Mkts., Inc.
  792 F.2d 1400· 9th Cir.· 1986-06-26 ·cited 21×
  The Bankruptcy Code did not change the law regarding the state's interest in liquor licenses under its tax statute, and the debtors' estates took the licenses subject to this restriction.
• In re Briggs Transp. Co. v. Briggs Transp. Co.
  780 F.2d 1339· 8th Cir.· 1985-12-26 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court has discretion to determine if adequate protection includes compensation for lost opportunity costs to an undersecured creditor.
• Sikes v. Global Marine, Inc.
  881 F.2d 176· 5th Cir.· 1989-08-25 ·cited 18×
  The bankruptcy court's orders modifying the automatic stay did not validate the Sikes' otherwise void personal injury complaint filed in violation of the stay.
• In re Crysen/Montenay Energy Co. v. Esselen Assocs., Inc.
  902 F.2d 1098· 2d Cir.· 1990-05-09 ·cited 15×
  A tort cause of action arising from events prior to bankruptcy is property of the bankruptcy estate if the debtor held title, insurable interest, or risk of loss, and thus is subject to the automatic stay. Sanctions for violating the automatic stay are not warranted if the legal
• Cournoyer v. Town OF Lincoln
  790 F.2d 971· 1st Cir.· 1986-05-09 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the Town's enforcement of its zoning ordinance is exempt from the automatic stay provisions of the Bankruptcy Code under 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(4) and (5).
• In re Parr Meadows Racing Ass'n, Inc. v. Suffolk Cnty. Treas.
  880 F.2d 1540· 2d Cir.· 1989-07-24 ·cited 14×
  The automatic stay prohibits postpetition tax liens unless the county had a prepetition interest in the property; the county obtains an interest on the tax status date, entitling it to priority for postpetition interest on valid liens but not penalties.
• In re Chateaugay Corp. v. Farragher
  838 F.2d 59· 2d Cir.· 1988-01-27 ·cited 14×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the district court's order vacating and remanding the bankruptcy court's order was not a final decision.
• In re A.H. Robins Co. v. AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co.
  828 F.2d 1023· 4th Cir.· 1987-09-09 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a bankruptcy court has authority to stay suits against a third-party defendant when those suits, even if disavowing interest in the debtor's assets, would inevitably burden the debtor's officers, directors, and employees, thereby interfering with the reorganiz
• Otoe Cnty. Nat'l Bank v. W & P Trucking, Inc.
  754 F.2d 881· 10th Cir.· 1985-02-11 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the automatic stay provision of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) applies only to the debtor and not to co-debtors or guarantors, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the guarantor's motion to vacate the default judgment.
• In re Income Prop. Builders, Inc. v. The Lomas & Nettleton Co.
  699 F.2d 963· 9th Cir.· 1982-08-23 ·cited 14×
  The court held that an order dismissing a bankruptcy proceeding is not an order closing it, and a motion to vacate such dismissal must be made within one year, making the bankruptcy court without jurisdiction to vacate a dismissal after that period.
• In re Allen v. OLD Nat'l Bank OF Wash.
  896 F.2d 416· 9th Cir.· 1990-02-20 ·cited 12×
• In re The Charter Co. v. The Charter Co.
  876 F.2d 866· 11th Cir.· 1989-06-28 ·cited 12×
  Class proofs of claim are valid in bankruptcy proceedings, and the specific claim filed in this case was timely.
• In re Ketelsen v. Ketelsen
  880 F.2d 990· 8th Cir.· 1989-07-10 ·cited 11×
  The court affirmed the district court's reversal of actual and punitive damages, finding the evidence did not support the bankruptcy court's awards and FmHA's conduct, while willful, was not sufficiently egregious for punitive damages.
• In re Morton v. Nat'l Bank OF NEW York City
  866 F.2d 561· 2d Cir.· 1989-01-24 ·cited 11×
  11 U.S.C. § 108(c) tolls the ten-year expiration period for a New York judgment lien on real property when the property is part of a bankrupt estate protected by the automatic stay, preserving the lien until 30 days after the stay terminates.
• In re Beverly Mfg. Corp. v. Tavormina
  841 F.2d 365· 11th Cir.· 1988-03-28 ·cited 11×
  The court held that an attorney failed to establish a valid retaining lien on stock certificates because he did not prove lawful possession prior to bankruptcy, and that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying the attorney's fee petition due to its inadequacy
• Bakst v. Marks (In Re Marks)
  131 B.R. 220· S.D. Fla.· 1991-08-29 ·cited 10×
  The court held that Florida Statute § 222.21(2)(a) could not be applied retroactively to exempt assets that creditors had a vested interest in prior to the statute's effective date.
• C. James Eddleman also known as Jim Eddleman v. United States Dep't OF Labor
  923 F.2d 782· 10th Cir.· 1991-01-15 ·cited 10×
  The court held that an order applying the automatic stay to a governmental action to enforce its police or regulatory power is an appealable final order, and that the Department of Labor's administrative action to enforce the Service Contract Act was exempt from the automatic sta
• In re Calder v. Calder
  907 F.2d 953· 10th Cir.· 1990-06-29 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a debtor's knowing and fraudulent omission of material information from bankruptcy filings can lead to denial of discharge, and that a debtor may waive the protections of the automatic stay through unreasonable delay and failure to notify creditors.
• In re Compton Corp. v. United States Dep't OF Energy
  889 F.2d 1104· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1989-11-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court's order reversing the bankruptcy court's subordination ruling and remanding for determination of the claim amount is not a final appealable order, thus the court lacks jurisdiction.
• Moffatt & Nichol, Inc. v. B.E.A. Int'l Corp., Inc.
  48 So. 3d 896· Fla. 3d DCA· 2010-10-20 ·cited 8×
  Moffatt & Nichol, a judgment creditor, appealed the denial of its motion for proceedings supplementary against B.E.A. International Corporation after BEAI made a statutory assignment for the benefit of creditors. The court held that under Florida's 2007 amendments to Chapter 727,
• Chippenham Hosp., Inc. v. Bondurant
  716 F.2d 1057· 4th Cir.· 1983-09-07 ·cited 8×
  A debtor cannot exempt entireties property from a joint debt if state law permits creditors to reach that property.
• 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.
• In re James v. Draper
  940 F.2d 46· 3d Cir.· 1991-08-01 ·cited 6×
  Federal bankruptcy and district courts lacked the power to collaterally attack the merits of a facially valid state court judgment, even if the state court's decision was erroneous.
• In re Pearson v. United States
  917 F.2d 1215· 9th Cir.· 1990-10-30 ·cited 6×
• In re Gianakas v. Gianakas
  917 F.2d 759· 3d Cir.· 1990-10-19 ·cited 6×
  An obligation to pay a second mortgage on a former marital home, assumed in a divorce settlement, is in the nature of alimony, maintenance, or support and thus not subject to the automatic stay or dischargeable in bankruptcy, if the parties intended it as such at the time of the
• Aloma Square, Inc. v. Cal. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n (In Re Aloma Square
  116 B.R. 827· M.D. Fla.· 1990-06-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Florida Statute § 697.07, governing assignments of rents in mortgages, is a remedial statute and can be applied retrospectively.
• In re Alden D. Holford v. Powers
  896 F.2d 176· 5th Cir.· 1990-03-16 ·cited 6×
  The court held that withholding rent due to fraud damages from the same lease transaction constituted recoupment, not a setoff, and is therefore not subject to the automatic stay in bankruptcy.
• In re Maanum v. Rieffer
  828 F.2d 459· 8th Cir.· 1987-09-08 ·cited 6×
  The automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) does not stay the statutory time period for a debtor to cure a contract for deed cancellation; this period is temporarily stayed by 11 U.S.C. § 108(b).
• In re Lashley v. First Nat'l Bank OF Live OAK
  825 F.2d 362· 11th Cir.· 1987-08-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a bankruptcy court lacks the authority to retroactively impose an automatic stay, and a foreclosure sale conducted after dismissal of a bankruptcy case but before a stay pending appeal is granted renders the appeal moot.
• In re Griffin Retreading Co. v. Oliver Rubber Co.
  795 F.2d 676· 8th Cir.· 1986-07-17 ·cited 6×
  When a seller has a right to reclaim goods under 11 U.S.C. § 546(c) but the goods have been sold in the ordinary course of business, the court must grant an administrative expense claim or secure the claim with a lien.
• Citizens Bank of Md. v. Strumpf
  516 U.S. 16· U.S.· 1995-10-31 ·cited 5×
  A creditor's temporary withholding of payment of a debt owed to a debtor in bankruptcy, while seeking relief from the automatic stay to exercise its setoff rights, does not constitute a setoff in violation of the automatic stay.
• United States v. DOS Cabezas Corp.
  995 F.2d 1486· 9th Cir.· 1993-06-21 ·cited 3×
  A suit to recover a deficiency debt after foreclosure is an action for money damages founded upon a contract, subject to the six-year limitations period under 28 U.S.C. § 2415(a). The automatic bankruptcy stay does not toll the limitations period for actions against non-debtor co
• In re Lafayette Radio Elecs. Corp. v. Jonnet Dev. Corp. & Roamon's Stores of Pa., Inc.
  761 F.2d 84· 2d Cir.· 1985-04-03 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the district court had ancillary jurisdiction to enforce the bankruptcy court's prior judgment, and that the Emergency Rule's limited delegation of authority to bankruptcy judges did not violate Article III.
• Steffen v. United States (In Re Steffen)
  405 B.R. 486· M.D. Fla.· 2009-04-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Government's objection to the homestead exemption was timely filed and that the debtor did not possess a sufficient legal or equitable interest in the property, titled in a partnership's name, to claim it as a homestead exemption.
• In re Richards v. Richards
  994 F.2d 763· 10th Cir.· 1993-05-28 ·cited 2×
  The 240-day assessment period for tax priority under 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(7)(A)(ii) is tolled during the pendency of a prior bankruptcy proceeding.
• Willis v. The Celotex Corp.
  978 F.2d 146· 4th Cir.· 1992-10-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court properly exercised its authority under 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) to stay execution against a surety on a supersedeas bond, as immediate execution would have detrimentally affected the debtor's reorganization process.
• In re Grynberg v. Danzig Claimants
  966 F.2d 570· 10th Cir.· 1992-06-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the automatic stay did not bar the award of appellate costs incurred by the prevailing party in a state court appeal that was part of a bankruptcy adversary proceeding to determine the validity of a lien or dischargeability of a debt.
• In re Weiner Merchant v. Weiner Merchant
  958 F.2d 738· 6th Cir.· 1992-03-11 ·cited 2×
  Educational loans guaranteed by a nonprofit institution and credit extensions for educational expenses are not dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8), but withholding a transcript for such debts violates the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a).
• The City OF NEW York v. Exxon Corp.
  932 F.2d 1020· 2d Cir.· 1991-05-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the City's CERCLA action to recover cleanup costs falls under the police and regulatory exemption to the automatic stay in bankruptcy, and that the district court properly enjoined further litigation of the City's claims in the California bankruptcy proceeding