Violation Of Automatic Stay

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

• In re Bialac v. Bialac
  712 F.2d 426· 9th Cir.· 1983-08-04 ·cited 56×
  A pre-foreclosure right to redeem collateral, even if held by a debtor with only a fractional interest, constitutes 'property of the estate' protected by the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362.
• In re Brown v. Pa. State Emps. Credit Union. Appeal of Pa. State Emps. Credit Union
  803 F.2d 120· 3d Cir.· 1986-10-15 ·cited 38×
  The court held that an order is not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d) if it does not affect the distribution of a debtor's assets or the relationship among creditors, and damages have not yet been assessed.
• In re Brown v. Pa. State Emps. Credit Union
  851 F.2d 81· 3d Cir.· 1988-06-27 ·cited 34×
  A creditor does not violate the automatic stay or discharge injunction by informing a debtor that it will refuse future services unless the debt is reaffirmed, as the bankruptcy code does not require a creditor to continue doing business with a debtor.
• United States v. Norton
  717 F.2d 767· 3d Cir.· 1983-09-12 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the IRS's retention of a debtor's tax overpayment, without seeking relief from the automatic stay, constituted a violation of the stay, but reversed the contempt citation due to lack of fair warning.
• Martin-Trigona v. Champion Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n
  892 F.2d 575· 7th Cir.· 1989-12-26 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the automatic stay in bankruptcy does not apply to suits initiated by the bankrupt, and a district court may decide a pendent state law claim if it is clear it can only be decided one way.
• In re Ezella M. Taylor v. Ezella M. Taylor
  884 F.2d 478· 9th Cir.· 1989-09-05 ·cited 24×
  The court held that a bankruptcy court order lifting the automatic stay is invalid if entered after the underlying bankruptcy case has been dismissed, and that creditors who violate the automatic stay with knowledge of the bankruptcy filing are liable for damages, even if they re
• Small Bus. Admin. v. Rinehart
  887 F.2d 165· 8th Cir.· 1989-10-06 ·cited 22×
  The SBA violated the automatic stay by holding farm program payments, but punitive damages against the United States are barred by sovereign immunity as interpreted by Hoffman v. Connecticut Department of Income Maintenance.
• In re Edith Bloom, M.D. v. Edith Bloom, M.D.
  875 F.2d 224· 9th Cir.· 1989-05-15 ·cited 22×
  The court held that filing motions to collect on a pre-bankruptcy judgment and to withdraw the reference after notice of bankruptcy constitutes a willful violation of the automatic stay, but remanded for recalculation of interest.
• Budget Serv. Co. & Allen Bunch v. Better Homes OF Va., Inc.
  804 F.2d 289· 4th Cir.· 1986-11-03 ·cited 22×
  The court held that sanctions under 11 U.S.C. § 362(h) are appropriate for a willful violation of the automatic stay, and the term 'individual' in that section includes corporate debtors.
• LEE v. Schweiker
  739 F.2d 870· 3d Cir.· 1984-06-29 ·cited 19×
  The Social Security Administration (SSA) cannot recoup pre-bankruptcy overpayments from a debtor's post-petition benefit checks due to the automatic stay, but it can retain pre-petition deductions as they do not violate the 'improvement in position' test.
• Acosta, Inc. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburg
  39 So. 3d 565· Fla. 1st DCA· 2010-07-30 ·cited 18×
  Acosta, Inc. appealed a summary judgment denying insurance coverage for a lawsuit brought by a creditors' trust, holding that a prior litigation exclusion in the insurers' policies barred coverage because the underlying suit arose out of a related prior turnover suit. The court a
• 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 Computer Commc'ns, Inc. v. Codex Corp.
  824 F.2d 725· 9th Cir.· 1987-08-07 ·cited 16×
  The court held that Codex violated the automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy Code by unilaterally terminating its contract with CCI without seeking relief from the bankruptcy court.
• 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 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 Nita B. Smith v. First Am. Bank, N.A.
  876 F.2d 524· 6th Cir.· 1989-05-26 ·cited 14×
  The sale of collateral after a bankruptcy petition was filed but before the creditor received notice violates the automatic stay and is void, absent inequitable conduct by the debtor. Awards of costs against an attorney are vacated when the underlying judgment is reversed.
• In the Matter of: Arthur R. Matthews, Jr. v. Rosene
  739 F.2d 249· 7th Cir.· 1984-06-29 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the doctrine of laches can bar a debtor's attempt to nullify a state court judgment, even if the judgment was obtained in violation of the automatic stay, when the debtor unreasonably delayed asserting their claim and the creditor would be prejudiced.
• 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.
• 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.
• In the Matter of: Glenda Marie Morrell v. Morrell
  880 F.2d 855· 5th Cir.· 1989-08-22 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court's order was not final because it determined liability but left damages to be assessed, and thus the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
• 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 Fugazy Express, Inc. v. Fugazy
  982 F.2d 769· 2d Cir.· 1992-12-17 ·cited 10×
  The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction because the bankruptcy court's order, which required an accounting for damages and fees, was not a final order, and the district court's affirmation of that order was therefore also not final or appealable under the relevant st
• 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 Adelle M. Sherk v. Tex. Bankers Life & Loan Ins. Co.
  918 F.2d 1170· 5th Cir.· 1990-12-11 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a claim for fraudulent transfer of a homestead property belongs to the bankruptcy trustee and is property of the estate, thus a state court suit alleging such a transfer violates the automatic stay. However, the court reversed the imposition of sanctions, find
• 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.
• Rohe v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
  988 F.3d 1256· 11th Cir.· 2021-02-18 ·cited 9×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, holding that the All Writs Act cannot be invoked without an underlying proceeding over which the court has jurisdiction.
• 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 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 Univ. Med. Ctr. v. Sullivan
  973 F.2d 1065· 3d Cir.· 1992-08-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Secretary's withholding of post-petition Medicare reimbursements to recover pre-petition overpayments violated the automatic stay, but the violation was not willful, precluding an award of attorney's fees.
• 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 Chateaugay Corp. v. LTV Steel Co., Inc.
  920 F.2d 183· 2d Cir.· 1990-12-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plain language of Bankruptcy Code § 362(h) limits its application to natural persons ('individuals') and does not permit recovery of damages by corporate debtors.
• 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 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.
• 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 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 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.
• 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.
• In re Yobe Elec., Inc. v. Graybar Elec. Co., Inc.
  728 F.2d 207· 3d Cir.· 1984-02-23 ·cited 4×
  The filing of a mechanic's lien after a contractor files for bankruptcy does not violate the automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy Code if the lien relates back to a pre-bankruptcy date under state law.
• Sweetapple v. Asset Enhancement, Inc.
  87 F.4th 1271· 11th Cir.· 2023-12-05 ·cited 3×
  An order finding contempt but leaving the amount of attorneys' fees to be awarded unspecified is not a final, appealable order until the fees are determined. Therefore, the appeal of the contempt order was timely.
• 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 Pester Ref. Co. v. Mapco GAS Prods., Inc.
  845 F.2d 1476· 8th Cir.· 1988-04-28 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court's finding of a warehouse agreement was clearly erroneous and that Mid-America's lien did not exempt the property from turnover under § 542(a). However, the court reversed the award of punitive damages.
• Singer Furniture Acquisition Corp. v. SSMC Inc. N.V.
  254 B.R. 46· M.D. Fla.· 2000-09-28 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the bankruptcy court's dismissal of Singer's Chapter 11 petition for bad faith filing and affirmed the denial of sanctions, finding the Virginia Order did not violate the automatic stay as it affected non-debtor assets.
• In re Goodman v. Knight
  991 F.2d 613· 9th Cir.· 1993-04-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a corporation cannot recover damages under 11 U.S.C. § 362(h) for willful violation of the automatic stay, but may pursue damages through civil contempt, and that the Knights willfully violated the automatic stay.
• In re Hale v. Carlson
  980 F.2d 1176· 8th Cir.· 1992-12-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court did not err in denying the appellants' motions for recusal and for a stay of proceedings, as the appellants failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion or a compelling reason to infringe upon their Fifth and Seventh Amendment rights.
• In re Keith v. Pinkstaff
  974 F.2d 113· 9th Cir.· 1992-09-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the IRS's filing of a tax lien after a bankruptcy petition was filed constituted a willful violation of the automatic stay, and that the doctrine of sovereign immunity did not shield the government from liability for damages under 11 U.S.C. § 106(a).
• Price v. Rochford
  947 F.2d 829· 7th Cir.· 1991-11-08 ·cited 2×
  11 U.S.C. § 362(h) creates a cause of action that can be enforced after bankruptcy proceedings have terminated, but summary judgment was appropriate for most defendants due to lack of evidence of willful violation.
• United States v. Inslaw, Inc.
  932 F.2d 1467· D.C. Cir.· 1991-05-07 ·cited 2×
  The Court held that the automatic stay under § 362(a) does not apply to a party in possession of property under a claim of right at the time of bankruptcy filing, even if that possession may ultimately prove to violate the bankrupt's rights.
• Laughlin v. United States Internal Revenue Serv.
  912 F.2d 197· 8th Cir.· 1990-08-15 ·cited 2×
  The IRS violated the automatic stay by levying on undistributed funds held by a Chapter 13 trustee, as these funds constitute property of the estate. The Anti-Injunction Act does not bar the trustee's action to enforce the stay.
• In re Nat'l Serv. Corp. v. Nat'l Serv. Corp.
  742 F.2d 859· 5th Cir.· 1984-09-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the proposed billboard message constituted pure speech, and the injunction against it was an impermissible prior restraint on First Amendment rights.
• Johnson v. Ally Fin. Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-08-04
  The court denied the plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.