Source: https://lundinonchapter13.com/Content/Section/64.1
Timestamp: 2019-08-22 23:00:37
Document Index: 515701713

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 64', '§ 64', '§ 362', '§ 362', '§ 363', '§ 363', '§ 362', '§ 48', '§ 47', '§ 57', '§ 48', '§ 47', '§ 1326', '§ 1322', '§ 362', 'in casu', '§ 362', '§ 297', '§ 136', '§ 363', '§ 48', '§ 47', '§ 51', '§ 57', '§ 363', '§ 362', '§ 82', '§ 64', '§ 547', '§ 362', '§ 362', '§ 109', '§ 362', '§ 362', '§ 362', '§ 506', '§ 542', '§ 506', '§ 1325']

§ 64.1 Lack of Adequate Protection
Cite as: Keith M. Lundin, Lundin On Chapter 13, § 64.1, at ¶ ____, LundinOnChapter13.com (last visited __________).
Updater Cases (58)
The quid pro quo for a Chapter 13 debtor’s possession and use of estate property before confirmation is the lienholder’s right to demand adequate protection of its collateral.1 Lack of adequate protection is the one cause for relief from the stay specifically enumerated in § 362(d)(1). It has been said that an unconfirmed plan, even one that proposes to make significant payments to a secured claim holder, is not alone adequate protection.2 However, the commencement of payments by a Chapter 13 debtor to the trustee or directly to a creditor before confirmation consistent with the proposed plan is probably the most common form of adequate protection in Chapter 13 cases.3 Although it is rare in Chapter 13 cases, a substantial equity cushion—value in the collateral in excess of the amount owed to the secured claim holder—can constitute adequate protection and preclude relief from the stay.4
Under § 362(g), when a motion for relief from the stay alleges a lack of adequate protection, the creditor has the burden of proof with respect to the debtor’s equity in the collateral, but the debtor has the burden of proof “on all other issues.”5 Typically, this assignment of the burden of proof requires the creditor to first come forward with evidence with respect to the value of its collateral and the amount of its debt. When there is no evidence from which the court can determine whether there is equity, relief from the stay based on lack of adequate protection is not appropriate.6
Many circumstances constitute lack of adequate protection: the debtor is continuing to use collateral without making periodic payments;7 insurance has lapsed;8 the debtor is not properly maintaining or protecting the property; other liens or claims are eating into the creditor’s interest in the collateral.9 If collateral is not insured or is depreciating, the secured claim holder is entitled to some relief. The request for relief from the stay will at least force the debtor to insure the car and may require the debtor to make payments to the trustee10 or to the secured claim holder pending confirmation. In response to a motion for relief from the stay or for adequate protection, the debtor has the burden to offer adequate protection and to prove that the protection offered is adequate; failure to do so typically results in relief from the stay.11 If the request for relief from the stay is denied conditioned that the debtor provide some form of adequate protection, and if that adequate protection fails, the creditor may assert an administrative expense and may claim superpriority rights against the debtor.12
The 1994 amendments to § 363(e) recognize that lessors of personal property can demand adequate protection as a condition to the Chapter 13 debtor’s use of leased property before confirmation.13 The lessor’s adequate protection right in § 363(e) is limited “to the exclusion of such property being subject to an order to grant relief from the stay under § 362.”14 Though awkwardly worded, this exception puts the lessor of personal property to a choice in Chapter 13 cases—adequate protection as a condition to the debtor’s use of leased property or relief from the stay, presumably based on lack of adequate protection. Proving the adequacy of protection at the hearing on a lessor’s motion for relief from the stay could be really interesting when the rental property involved is used furniture or appliances.15
Most motions for relief from the stay based on lack of adequate protection are resolved by agreed orders between the debtor and the lienholder. It is common for negotiated orders to condition continuation of the stay that adequate protection be provided in a clearly specified form such as periodic payments, insurance or a substitute lien on other property. Often such negotiated orders provide for automatic relief from the stay if a specified condition fails and sometimes include provisions for prospective relief from the stay if the current Chapter 13 case fails.16
1 See §§ 48.1 [ Adequate Protection of Lienholders prior to Confirmation ] § 47.1 Adequate Protection of Lienholders before Confirmation and 67.2 [ Adequate Protection Rights ] § 57.2 Adequate Protection Rights.
2 See Hooper v. United States (In re Hooper), 152 B.R. 309 (Bankr. D. Colo. 1993) (Proposed Chapter 13 plan calling for payment of the IRS claim fails to adequately protect the security interest held by the IRS as the result of a prepetition levy on the debtor’s wages.). Accord In re Stienes, 285 B.R. 360 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2002) (Cause for stay relief to permit setoff of prepetition tax refund against prepetition tax liability that payments through the plan over time are not adequate protection for the immediate use of the tax refund.); In re Madden, 274 B.R. 551 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2001) (Mechanic’s lienholder with prebankruptcy judgment has a continuing lien and is entitled to relief from the automatic stay unless Chapter 13 debtor furnishes adequate protection.); In re Zeoli, 249 B.R. 61, 64–65 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2000) (Cause for relief from the stay that debtors did not offer or make adequate protection payments with respect to an undersecured car loan notwithstanding that plan proposed to cram down car lender. “These facts—collateral worth less than the debt which it secures, continuing erosion in the value of the collateral and debtors without the assets, income or inclination to provide ‘adequate protection’—present an archetype of ‘cause’ for relief from stay under Section 362(d)(1). . . . [T]he debtors have not made any payment to the Bank since November 1999 and apparently do not intend to do so unless and until their cram down plan is confirmed, thereby placing the entire risk of loss on the Bank. The debtor’s failure to tender any adequate protection conflicts with the statute, Section 362(d)(1), and is particularly unacceptable where the debtor controls and continues to use and depreciate the collateral . . . . Assuming in this case, without deciding, that the debtors would be entitled to confirm a plan which would cram down the Bank’s car loan, that putative entitlement does not override the Bank’s right to relief from the stay. To the contrary, Section 362(d) may operate to render an otherwise confirmable plan unconfirmable by lifting the stay to allow a creditor to foreclose on property that is essential to the debtor’s plan. The primacy of Section 362(d) over a debtor’s prospective right to confirm a plan is manifest . . . . In this case the Bank and the debtors extended credit and incurred a debt which was improvident for both because the amount of the loan probably exceeded the value of the vehicle from the outset. But bad judgment cannot be invoked as a sword or a shield by either the Bank or the debtors.”); In re Ennis, 178 B.R. 177 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 1995) (Relief from the stay for cause is appropriate where former spouse has a lien on the debtor’s entitlement to an inheritance and the debtor has not offered adequate protection for the use of the inheritance to fund the proposed plan.); In re Olson, 175 B.R. 30, 33 (Bankr. D. Neb. 1994) (IRS is entitled to relief from the stay after confirmation to set off debtors’ tax refund against prepetition taxes where debtors are not able to provide adequate protection for the IRS’s interest in the tax refund. “By establishing its right of setoff, the IRS has made a prima facie showing of ‘cause’ for relief from stay. . . . The debtors did not submit any evidence at the hearing that they could provide the IRS with additional adequate protection of the collateral. . . . If the debtors are going to use the $299 for ordinary living expenses, the debtors must offer new collateral or make cash payments to the IRS equal to the diminution in the value of the collateral as the debtors spend the money. The debtors’ argument that the plan payments will pay the IRS’s claim in full and therefore constitutes adequate protection of the IRS’s setoff right is without merit.”); In re Hinckley, 40 B.R. 679 (Bankr. D. Utah 1984).
3 See below in this section, and see § 48.1 [ Adequate Protection of Lienholders prior to Confirmation ] § 47.1 Adequate Protection of Lienholders before Confirmation. See, e.g., In re Rogers, 239 B.R. 883 (Bankr. E.D. Tex. 1999) (On car lender’s motion for relief from the stay in a district that delays confirmation, stay is conditioned that the debtor maintain insurance, that plan provide that one-half of the payments to the trustee between the filing and confirmation go to secured claim holders ahead of administrative expenses and that in the event of conversion or dismissal, secured claim holders get funds held by trustee ahead of debtor’s right to return under § 1326(a)(2).); In re Self, 239 B.R. 877 (Bankr. E.D. Tex. 1999) (In contrast to In re Rogers, 239 B.R. 883 (Bankr. E.D. Tex. 1999), lender failed to prove that truck was at unusual risk for depreciation or that debtor was unreasonably likely to convert or dismiss; accordingly, maintaining insurance and making payments to trustee adequately protected the lender without the special conditions required in Rogers.).
4 See In re Olick, 221 B.R. 146, 161 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1998) (Mortgage holder with lien on commercial and residential property is not entitled to relief from the stay for cause because it is the holder of an oversecured claim that is adequately protected by insurance on the property and by “sufficient equity cushions.”); In re Parks, 193 B.R. 361, 366–67 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 1995) (No cause for relief from stay where mortgage holder is oversecured and debtors propose to cure defaults within a reasonable time consistent with § 1322(b)(5). “Debtors’ proposal adequately protects the Movant’s interest. The Movant is oversecured. . . . Mr. Parks has been employed at the same business for 31 years. He testified that he no longer participates in certain extracurricular activities. The Debtors regularly pay their chapter 13 plan payments through a payroll deduction plan. . . . The Parks have the ability to propose a modification that will cure the default in their mortgage . . . . The Parks should be given that opportunity.”); In re Bellinger, 179 B.R. 220, 222 (Bankr. D. Idaho 1995) (Substantial equity in real property precludes relief from the stay based on postpetition and postconfirmation defaults. Debtor’s real property was worth $60,000. The amount due under the mortgage including arrearage was approximately $40,000. The debtor was delinquent on seven prepetition payments and six postpetition payments. In response to debtor’s motion to modify the plan to cure postpetition defaults, mortgage company moved for relief from the stay. Stay relief was denied because mortgage company “failed to show the debtor has no equity in the property.”); In re Novak, 121 B.R. 18 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 1990) (When there is overwhelming value in an asset, bankruptcy court will be extremely reluctant to lift the stay to allow foreclosure. Debtor purchased 7,000-square-foot house for $248,000 in 1983. Debtor currently owes $114,000. Creditor is adequately protected.); In re Heath, 79 B.R. 616 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1987) (Cause not found for stay relief, notwithstanding debtor’s failure to make postpetition mortgage payments for 22 months, when mortgage holder had 39% equity cushion.). But see In re Jones, 189 B.R. 13 (Bankr. E.D. Okla. 1995) (Failure to make regular mortgage payments after the petition and allowing insurance to lapse are cause for stay relief notwithstanding that the property appears to have equity.); In re Hamm, 157 B.R. 137, 140–41 (Bankr. E.D. Mo. 1993) (Notwithstanding equity in the debtor’s real property, court grants relief from the stay where the interests of mortgage holders “are not adequately protected because this is the Debtor’s third Chapter 13 case, and because the Debtor has again failed to submit a repayment plan that is capable of being confirmed.”).
5 11 U.S.C. § 362(g)(2).
6 See, e.g., In re Harrington, 282 B.R. 637, 639 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2002) (Bank failed to establish prima facie case of lack of adequate protection with respect to a Kenworth tractor because the bank never filed a proof of claim and presented no testimony, and “the debtor showed that the lease payments were, in fact, made according to the chapter 13 trustee’s records . . . . The debtor also produced evidence of an insurance policy on the tractor.”); In re Howery, 275 B.R. 852, 854 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2002) (Motion for relief from stay based on lack of adequate protection fails because bank offered no evidence of any decline in the value of its collateral. “Only if Provident Bank establishes a prima facie case does the burden shift to the debtor to produce evidence showing that Provident Bank is adequately protected. . . . While Provident Bank arguably established that it was owed a debt by the debtor and possessed a valid mortgage securing this debt, it did not present any evidence during its case-in-chief that the property was declining in value.”).
7 See, e.g., In re Hyde, 227 B.R. 170 (Bankr. W.D. Ark. 1998) (Cause for relief from stay that debtor failed to make required payments to the Chapter 13 trustee and thus car lender whose claim is to be paid through the plan is not adequately protected.).
8 See In re Kowalsky, 235 B.R. 590, 596 (Bankr. E.D. Tex. 1999) (Lack of adequate protection that debtor allowed uninsured, teenage son to drive car before the petition; debtor must “eliminate the risk to the Movant either by taking measures to insure that the vehicle is never operated by their son or by obtaining insurance coverage in the event that he drives the vehicle.”); In re Jones, 189 B.R. 13 (Bankr. E.D. Okla. 1995) (Failure to maintain casualty insurance is “a threat of a decline in the value of the property” justifying relief from the stay.).
9 See, e.g., In re Rosen, 208 B.R. 345, 356–57 (D.N.J. 1997) (Cause for relief from the stay that the debtor stopped paying real estate taxes while battling an undersecured mortgage holder over cram down. “[A] lack of adequate protection arose, in part, because Debtor was not paying real estate taxes . . . . [T]here was no equity.”); In re McPherson, 225 B.R. 203 (Bankr. D. Idaho 1998) (Cause for relief from the stay to junior mortgage holder that there is no equity in the property, the passage of time is eating into the second mortgage, budget is so tight that adequate protection of the second mortgage holder is difficult or not possible.).
10 See GMAC v. Johnson (In re Johnson), 145 B.R. 108, 114 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 1992) (Between filing and confirmation, debtor provides adequate protection to each secured claim holder “by making preconfirmation payments to the Chapter 13 trustee.”); In re Holly, 109 B.R. 524 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 1989) (Debtor can provide adequate protection to each secured claim holder before confirmation by making payments to the Chapter 13 trustee.).
11 See, e.g., In re Ledis, 259 B.R. 472, 476 (D. Mass. 2001) (Ex-spouse with perfected security interest in debtor’s veterinary practice is entitled to relief from the stay because “[a]side from the Debtor’s denial in his opposition to Hein’s § 362(d) motion that Heins is not adequately protected, the Debtor has not otherwise refuted Heins’ claim for relief. . . . [T]he Debtor made no attempt to persuade the Court he has in some way adequately protected Heins’ security interest, the Court must find the Debtor has failed to meet his burden of proof.”); In re Zeoli, 249 B.R. 61, 64 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2000) (Cause for relief from the stay that debtors did not offer or make adequate protection payments with respect to an undersecured car loan. “The debtor’s failure to tender any adequate protection conflicts with the statute, Section 362(d)(1).”).
12 See § 297.1 [ Failed Adequate Protection ] § 136.12 Failed Adequate Protection before BAPCPA. See, e.g., Grundy Nat’l Bank v. Rife, 876 F.2d 361 (4th Cir. 1989) (On unusual facts, bank is entitled to administrative expense claim when the debtor used the creditor’s automobiles for nine months without making payments required by the plan and the creditor was not allowed relief from the stay to liquidate its collateral. The court also allowed the bank interest on the revenues it would have received had the debtor timely made payments under the plan.); GMAC v. Johnson (In re Johnson), 145 B.R. 108, 114 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 1992) (“If at confirmation the court determines a secured creditor’s collateral is worth less at confirmation than its value on the date the bankruptcy petition was filed, that is, if after the fact the protection provided the secured party through plan payments proves to be inadequate, the creditor is entitled to a priority expense claim, a ‘superpriority’ payable ahead of all other administrative expense claims, to the extent of the failure of adequate protection.”), rev’d, 165 B.R. 524 (S.D. Ga. 1994). Compare In re Severson, 53 B.R. 8 (Bankr. D. Or. 1985) (Section 507(b) does not allow administrative priority or superpriority when adequate protection fails because creditor failed to demonstrate actual, necessary expenses of preserving the estate between the petition and the confirmation order.).
13 11 U.S.C. § 363(e), discussed in §§ 48.1 [ Adequate Protection of Lienholders prior to Confirmation ] § 47.1 Adequate Protection of Lienholders before Confirmation, 56.1 [ Assume, Reject or Assign Leases, Rental Agreements and Executory Contracts ] § 51.3 Assume, Reject or Assign Leases, Rental Agreements and Executory Contracts and 67.2 [ Adequate Protection Rights ] § 57.2 Adequate Protection Rights.
14 11 U.S.C. § 363(e).
15 The debtor will have the burden of proof. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(g)(2). The debtor may have to promise to keep the cats off the couch.
16 See § 82.1 [ Prospective, In Rem and Automatic Relief from Stay ] § 64.3 Prospective, In Rem and Automatic Relief from Stay.
Rocco v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, No. 06-2438, 2007 WL 4180756 (3d Cir. Nov. 28, 2007) (unpublished) (Ambro, Jordan, Roth) (Lawsuit against mortgagor under Truth-In-Lending, §§ 547 and 548 of the Bankruptcy Code and under Pennsylvania Consumer Protection law is not adequate protection when mortgagor completed foreclosure sale before petition and moves for relief from stay to evict the debtor.).
Russell v. Aurora Bank FSB (In re Russell), No. CC-12-1312-DKiPa, 2013 WL 831165 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Feb. 28, 2013) (unpublished) (Dunn, Kirscher, Pappas) (Stay relief was appropriate without a hearing based on uncontested declaration from mortgagee that debtors defaulted and failed to timely cure payments required by an agreed order for adequate protection.).
Suggs v. Regency Fin. Corp. (In re Suggs), 377 B.R. 198, 201-07 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. Nov. 5, 2007) (Kressel, Mahoney, McDonald) (Local rule that permits car lender to repossess and then ask for relief from stay when insurance lapses during Chapter 13 case is inconsistent with § 362 and Bankruptcy Rule 4001(a). "[A] local rule in the Western District of Missouri requir[es] debtors to maintain insurance coverage on vehicles serving as collateral and permit[s] secured creditors, prior to obtaining relief from the stay, to take possession of such vehicles pending presentation of proof of insurance. . . . The practical effect of this local rule is to permit a creditor to obtain property of the estate or of the debtor without permission from the court and without even filing a motion, in derogation of the limited ex parte relief allowed under Rule 4001(a). The local rule . . . does require the filing of a motion to obtain a judge's order for relief, but the upshot is that the creditor can avail itself of instant self-help relief from the stay by taking possession of the collateral without filing a motion in advance or following the procedure for receiving ex parte relief. . . . [W]e find the Western District of Missouri's Local Rule . . . invalid.").
Gan B, LLC v. Sims, 575 B.R. 375, 386-89 (N.D. Cal. June 13, 2017) (Leinenweber) (Purchaser at Illinois tax sale is not entitled to stay relief under § 362(d)(1) because debtor as owner of property is not obligated to pay postpetition taxes or to insure the property for adequate protection purposes. “Unlike the mortgagee/mortgagor relationship, in which the mortgagee often insists on payment of real estate taxes and maintenance of property insurance as a condition of advancing funds to the mortgagor-debtor, Gan could not have predicated acquisition of its tax claim on . . . performance of such obligations. . . . Gan is adequately protected from any such injury by the Illinois property tax code’s sale-in-error provision: it can petition the circuit court to declare its tax purchase a ‘sale in error’ and demand refund of ‘the amount paid’ ‘subsequent to the tax sale and prior to the issuance of the tax deed.’ . . . [T]he Court’s search turned up no cases supporting the proposition that a tax purchaser is entitled to adequate protection in the form of the debtor’s maintenance of property insurance. . . . [T]he interest in underlying property arising from a certificate of purchase is a unique creature, enjoying only the rights granted under the statutory scheme. . . . [T]he statute does not go so far as to require maintenance of insurance in order to forestall any potential loss on the property. . . . Gan is adequately protected despite Sims’s failure to pay post-petition real estate taxes or carry property insurance.”).
McCullough v. Horne (In re McCullough), 495 B.R. 692 (W.D.N.C. July 10, 2013) (Whitney) (Cause for stay relief included failure to make payments under plan combined with prolonged prepetition default and lack of insurance.).
In re Carter, No. 03-13874C-13G, 2004 WL 3510106 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 29, 2004) (unpublished) (Stocks) (Creditor failed to prove lack of adequate protection when debtor provided proof of insurance.).
In re Donaghy, No. 18-15459 ELF, 2019 WL 1504334 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Apr. 4, 2019) (Frank) (Cause for stay relief that debtor failed to make postpetition mortgage payments and has not offered adequate protection in any form.).
In re White, No. 18-50385-KMS, 2018 WL 4677440 (Bankr. S.D. Miss. Sept. 27, 2018) (Samson) (Bank is entitled to stay relief with respect to Chapter 13 debtor’s strip mall because debtor has not and cannot adequately protect the bank’s undersecured lien. In addition, the debtor is not eligible for Chapter 13 because of excess debt under § 109(e) and no reorganization is possible because debtor failed feasibility test in prior Chapter 11 case and there has been no change in financial circumstances.).
In re Colosi, No. 17-24458 (JNP), 2018 WL 2972342 (Bankr. D.N.J. June 8, 2018) (unpublished) (Poslusny) (Second mortgage holder is denied stay relief when second mortgage is wholly unsecured and can be stripped off.).
In re Bailey, 574 B.R. 15 (Bankr. D. Me. Oct. 3, 2017) (Cary) (IRS lien is not adequately protected and IRS is entitled to stay relief under § 362(d)(1) in F. Lee Bailey’s Chapter 13 case; debtor’s entitlement to pension benefits and Social Security benefits is subject to IRS’s lien and plan does not adequately protect that lien.).
In re Simpson, No. 16-32612-H3-7, 2016 WL 4204026 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Aug. 5, 2016) (Paul) (Cause for stay relief that debtor made no offer of adequate protection and debtor’s spouse is in a Chapter 13 case in which the automatic stay was previously lifted to allow foreclosure of a deed of trust.).
In re Guerrero, 536 B.R. 817 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. Sept. 1, 2015) (Hanan) (Seller under land sale contract not entitled to stay relief because seller failed to prove that property was declining in value for § 362(d)(1) purposes.).
In re Morales, No. 12-32308, 2015 WL 4911791, at *3 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2015) (Montali) (Not cause for stay relief under § 362(d)(1) when movant "is adequately protected by a substantial equity cushion and . . . as long as [movant] receives timely payments of the monthly installment . . . and additional monthly payments to cure a post-petition default[.]").
In re Spencer, 531 B.R. 208 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. May 15, 2015) (Furay) (Cause for stay relief included no payments since 2008, continuing expenses paid by mortgagee for taxes and insurance and broken promises to pay adequate protection.).
In re Parker, No. 14-36467-H3-13, 2015 WL 393409 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Jan. 28, 2015) (Paul) (Credit union granted relief from automatic stay to set off $1,254.54 in checking account when state law granted credit union lien on member deposits and debtor made no offer of adequate protection by plan provision or otherwise.).
Liggins v. Crossgate Motors, Inc. (In re Liggins), No. 12-4058, 2013 WL 214238 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. Jan. 14, 2013) (Davis) (Stay lifted when adequate protection offered to automobile lender was insufficient.).
In re Hoang, No. 12-34935-H3-13, 2012 WL 3782551 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Aug. 31, 2012) (Paul) (Stay relief appropriate when debtor made no offer of adequate protection to foreclosing creditor.).
In re Franklin, 476 B.R. 545 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Aug. 15, 2012) (Schmetterer) (Debtor had not offered adequate protection to secured creditor to prevent stay relief after prebankruptcy appointment of receiver for rental property.).
In re Crawford, No. 11-24158-SBB, 2012 WL 930281 (Bankr. D. Colo. Mar. 19, 2012) (Brooks) (Oversecured creditor was adequately protected by substantial equity, and plan could sell property within reasonable time without regular payments; however, plan was not confirmable without default provision if farm property did not sell within specific time.).
In re Keele, No. 11-21383-13, 2012 WL 893351 (Bankr. D. Kan. Mar. 14, 2012) (Somers) (Adequate protection not required until creditor asks for it—a more appropriate rule than requiring adequate protection payments retroactively to date of bankruptcy filing.).
In re Benjamin, No. 11-34746-H3-13, 2011 WL 5825426 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Nov. 17, 2011) (Paul) (When insurance on vehicle had lapsed, stay relief would be granted unless debtor provided proof of insurance as adequate protection.).
In re Hernandez-Campbell, No. 11-90812, 2011 WL 5037068 (Bankr. C.D. Ill. Oct. 21, 2011) (Fines) (Stay relief denied when equity cushion and insurance provided adequate protection.).
In re Neals, 459 B.R. 612 (Oct. 6, 2011) (Waites) (Cause for stay relief that debtors defaulted on postpetition direct payments of mortgage and debtors failed to demonstrate adequate protection.).
In re Gibson, 450 B.R. 585 (Bankr. D.S.C. May 26, 2011) (Duncan) (Bank holding security interest in retail store collateral was not adequately protected when property had been sold at tax sale and debtor had short redemption period. Stay relief was granted to permit bank to protect its interest in collateral, but not to foreclose, pending confirmation.).
In re Van Horn, No. 1:10-bk-07373MDF, 2011 WL 1900324 (Bankr. M.D. Pa. May 19, 2011) (France) (Cause for stay relief that multi-unit property had no equity to provide adequate protection.).
In re Scott, 449 B.R. 535 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. May 18, 2011) (Schmetterer) (Relief from stay was granted when tax lien purchaser's interest was not adequately protected. Debtor missed payments on delinquent taxes and did not demonstrate ability to make future payments.).
In re Davis, No. CA 10-02249-JW, 2010 WL 5173187 (Bankr. D.S.C. Oct. 12, 2010) (Waites) (Property acquired by debtor in violation of due-on-sale clause became property of bankruptcy estate and was adequately protected by equity and payments through confirmed plan. Under Johnson v. Home State Bank, 501 U.S. 78, 111 S. Ct. 2150, 115 L. Ed. 2d 66 (June 10, 1991), contractual privity was not required. Property had equity cushion, and payment of ongoing mortgage payments and arrearages in plan contributed to adequate protection.).
In re Holt, No. 09-62439-13, 2010 WL 3294693, at *6 (Bankr. D. Mont. Aug. 20, 2010) (unpublished) (Kirscher) (Equity cushion may provide adequate protection, but evidence established that debtor had no equity; secured creditor was entitled to stay relief. "Case law has almost uniformly held an equity cushion of at least 20% constitutes adequate protection. . . . Other courts have held an equity cushion below 12% is rarely adequate.").
In re Stein, No. 10-03458-LA, 2010 WL 3239294 (Bankr. S.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2010) (unpublished) (Mann) (Plausibility of debtor's cross-claims against mortgagee must be assessed in evidentiary hearing to determine whether lack of adequate protection justifies stay relief.).
In re Green, 436 B.R. 91 (Bankr. S.D. Ill. Aug. 11, 2010) (Altenberger) (Wells Fargo Home Mortgage was entitled to adequate protection pending confirmation, and evidence showed that payments were being made sufficient to defeat stay relief.).
In re Ryan, No. 10-60925-13, 2010 WL 3081537 (Bankr. D. Mont. Aug. 6, 2010) (unpublished) (Kirscher) (Postpetition defaults in payments and depressed real estate market entitle lienholder to stay relief for lack of adequate protection.).
In re Casey, No. 10-00367-LA13, 2010 WL 2679931 (Bankr. S.D. Cal. June 24, 2010) (unpublished) (Bowie) (In third bankruptcy case filed without supporting schedules, lender's motion for stay relief was granted when creditor had not been offered adequate protection for interest in mortgaged property. Although debtor threatened to file motion to avoid lien, creditor was at risk of loss of adequate protection in event senior creditor foreclosed.).
In re Dessources, 430 B.R. 330 (Bankr. D. Mass. June 1, 2010) (Hillman) (Mortgage creditor moving for stay relief has burden to demonstrate lack of adequate protection; debtor had standing to resist stay relief based on argument that notary acknowledgment was defective. Acknowledgment was not defective when only defect was failure to comply with governor's executive order defining acknowledgment to require that individual executing instrument be identified by notary public through satisfactory evidence of identity. Failure to satisfy executive order did not invalidate documents. Further hearing required to determine value of property and lack of adequate protection.).
In re Ammoune, No. 05-39723-H3-13, 2010 WL 2010928 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. May 14, 2010) (unpublished) (Paul) (Cause for stay relief after confirmation that secured creditor retained security interest in insurance proceeds resulting from loss of collateral and no adequate protection was offered other than pursuit of proceeds.).
In re Snyder, 420 B.R. 794 (Bankr. D. Mont. Nov. 13, 2009) (Kirscher) (No cause for stay relief when equity cushion was sufficient to pay all secured claims in full, plan provided for cure of all defaults through sale of residence by specific date and plan contained short drop-dead date by which debtor would vacate and surrender residence if it did not sell. Plan was proposed in good faith and was feasible based on evidence of marketability within time proposed.).
In re Emrich, No. 09-12038, 2009 WL 3816174, at *1 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2009) (Jaroslovsky) (Failure to make postpetition mortgage payments is cause for stay relief notwithstanding debtor's objection that mortgage creditor must prove it has valid note and deed of trust. "Stay relief hearings do not involve a full adjudication on the merits of claims, defenses, or counterclaims, but simply a determination as to whether a creditor has a colorable claim.").
In re Blixseth, No. 09-60452-11, 2009 WL 1310751 (Bankr. D. Mont. May 11, 2009) (Peterson) (Stay relief granted for lack of adequate protection when there was no equity in four vehicles, present balance of debt was almost $2 million and collision insurance was inadequate.).
In re Goss, 413 B.R. 843 (Bankr. D. Or. Apr. 29, 2009) (Dunn) (Former spouse's interest in real property was adequately protected for two years remaining in plan, and no cause for relief from stay to allow former spouse to pursue lien was shown so long as debtor remains current in support payments.).
In re Swift, No. 07 B 12787, 2009 WL 535986 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Feb. 19, 2009) (unpublished) (Barbosa) (Lack of adequate protection was cause for stay relief when debtors defaulted postpetition on mortgage payments.).
Davis v. Schellhamer (In re Schellhamer), No. 1:08-bk-01673MDF, 2009 WL 222427 (Bankr. M.D. Pa. Jan. 29, 2009) (France) (Significant down payment on purchase price under land-sale contract provided sellers with equity cushion sufficient for adequate protection.).
In re Majors, No. BK 08-72109-CMS-13, 2008 WL 5330002 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. Dec. 18, 2008) (unpublished) (Stilson) (Debtor has interest in one-half of net sale proceeds from former marital residence and equity cushion in sale proceeds adequately protects creditor that plan will pay in full with contract interest.).
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Palmer (In re Palmer), No. 08-11619PM, 2008 WL 2465414, at *1 (Bankr. D. Md. June 12, 2008) (unpublished) (Mannes) (Stay relief is denied when mortgagee is "massively oversecured.").
In re Mitrany, No. 08-40034-ess, 2008 WL 2128162 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. May 16, 2008) (unpublished) (Stong) (Lack of adequate protection entitles landlord to relief from stay: debtor failed to make payments for use of property and debtor's license to occupy property terminated before petition.).
In re McVay, No. BK04-43795, 2008 WL 433953 (Bankr. D. Neb. Feb. 14, 2008) (unpublished) (Mahoney) (Stay relief denied because car lender has substantial equity cushion.).
In re Jones, No. 07-30239, 2007 WL 2702117 (Bankr. M.D. Ala. Sept. 11, 2007) (unpublished) (Williams) (Vehicle is not adequately protected without physical damage insurance, and stream of payments does not protect secured creditor against destruction of vehicle; stay is conditionally lifted if debtor fails to obtain physical damage insurance.).
In re Huie, No. 07-40627, 2007 WL 2317152 (Bankr. E.D. Tex. Aug. 8, 2007) (unpublished) (Rhoades) (Although debtors have burden of proving adequate protection, creditors holding unavoidable judicial lien must make prima facie showing that lien is not adequately protected. When creditors made that showing, adequate protection is ordered in form of payments in plan that will satisfy judgment in full.).
In re Patterson, No. 04-32201DWS, 2007 WL 987306 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Apr. 2, 2007) (unpublished) (Sigmund) (Disputed lien is valid and adequate protection payments are condition of continuing stay pending plan modification to provide for secured claim.).
In re Ramos, 357 B.R. 669 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. Nov. 21, 2006) (Isicoff) (Stay relief denied but adequate protection ordered in form of mortgage reinstatement.).
Trosky v. M & T Mortgage Corp. (In re Trosky), 371 B.R. 701 (Bankr. M.D. Pa. Sept. 7, 2006) (Thomas) (Stay relief granted based on debtors' failure to make postpetition payments to mortgage holder or to escrow funds pending unsuccessful attempts to avoid or strip mortgage.).
In re Kleibrink, 346 B.R. 734 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. Aug. 2, 2006) (Houser) (Mechanic's lien under Texas law is an interest in real property entitled to adequate protection; creditor's failure to prove amount of its debt makes it impossible to determine whether interest is adequately protected.).
In re Nelson, No. 06-11691-RAG, 2006 WL 4671846 (Bankr. D. Md. July 27, 2006) (unpublished) (Gordon) (Termination of automatic stay for lack of adequate protection and relief from codebtor stay are granted when serial filings by debtor and codebtor were used to delay foreclosure.).
In re Sarafoglou, 345 B.R. 19, 25 (Bankr. D. Mass. June 29, 2006) (Somma) (Wachovia is not entitled to relief from the stay in debtor's third Chapter 13 case within a year because $900,000 home adequately protects $485,000 debt. "Wachovia is more than adequately protected by a substantial equity cushion.").
In re Troche Olivieri, No. 05-11635 SEK, 2006 WL 3909914, at *2 (Bankr. D.P.R. May 10, 2006) (unpublished) (DeJesus) (Auto lender's motion for stay relief granted due to lack of adequate compensation for use of its collateral, "which we all know depreciates constantly.").
In re Reyes Ramos, No. 04-90168 GAC, 2006 WL 3898377 (Bankr. D.P.R. Jan. 13, 2006) (unpublished) (Carlo) (Adequate protection found in equity and rental income from commercial property.).
In re Box, 324 B.R. 290 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. May 3, 2005) (Isgur) (Home equity lender is not entitled to relief from the stay based on lack of adequate protection because under the Texas constitution, its lien is unenforceable when the bank required the debtors to apply the proceeds of the home equity loan to an unsecured prior obligation of the debtors to the bank. Under the Texas constitution, a lender may not demand that the proceeds of a home equity loan be used to pay off another debt to the same lending institution as a condition of making the loan. Because the bank would not have made the home equity loan unless the proceeds were applied to its preexisting debt, the constitutional prohibition was violated and the lien against the debtors' homestead was not valid for purposes of the bank's motion for relief from the stay.).
In re Herrin, 325 B.R. 774 (Bankr. N.D. Ind. Apr. 28, 2005) (Klingeberger) (That debtor is in default of preconfirmation payments to trustee is not ground for stay relief when creditor has not established right to receive preconfirmation payments or lack of adequate protection. Failure to pay trustee is ground for dismissal but not necessarily for stay relief.).
In re Caple, No. 05-50213, 2005 WL 1287991, at *8, *9 (Bankr. M.D.N.C. Apr. 4, 2005) (unpublished) (Carruthers) (Adequate protection for creditor that lawfully repossessed vehicle prepetition is not full payment of contractual obligation and repossession expenses; instead, debtor "must propose a plan in which Wells Fargo is being paid the value of the collateral." Adequate protection for repossessing creditor is "determined under §§ 506(b), 1322 and 1325 of the Bankruptcy Code." Debtor may seek turnover under § 542, subject to providing adequate protection, may value creditor's claim under § 506(b) and may treat that claim under § 1325(a)(5).).
In re Miller, 320 B.R. 203 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. Feb. 4, 2005) (Sledge) (Failure to make any payments to mortgage holder and failure to provide for any payments through the plan constitute lack of adequate protection and entitle mortgage holder to relief from the stay notwithstanding that there are defects in the mortgage documentation and the debtor gave timely notice of rescission of the mortgage several years before filing the Chapter 13 case. Separate adversary proceeding will determine whether mortgage was invalid and whether debtor can complete the rescission under Alabama law.).