Property interests are created and defined by state law. Unless some federal interest requires a different result, there is no reason why such interests should be analyzed differently simply because an interested party is involved in a bankruptcy proceeding. CFSC's self-serving misrepresentations of fact and law fall far short of meeting the burden of proof mandated by Congress. Accordingly, its motion for relief from stay is denied. Debtor's objection is equally objectionable.
Debtor bears the burden of proof on adequate protection.
The first two methods are not applicable here, because Debtor isn't not offering to pay cash or provide additional security. Debtor offered no evidence in support of its opinion. Nothing was substantiated. Moreover, our patience is wearing thin with pleadings full of fatuous assertions with no factual basis. That assurance can be provided in a variety of ways.