Opinion ID: 3168222
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: BAP Proceedings

Text: The BAP determined that it had jurisdiction over the appeal because Eden Place remained subject to a claim for damages based on the bankruptcy court’s finding that Eden Place violated the automatic stay. After examining its jurisdiction, the BAP turned to the “sole issue” before it: whether “at the time Perl filed his bankruptcy petition, he had any remaining interest in the Residence protected by the automatic stay.” Applying California law, the BAP held that Perl’s ownership interest was terminated prepetition when Eden Place purchased the property at the trustee’s sale. Nevertheless, the BAP held that Perl had a recognizable equitable interest in the property by IN RE PERL 7 virtue of his physical occupancy, notwithstanding the illegality of his continued occupancy. The BAP noted that “changing the locks on the Residence, locking inside Perl’s personal property, which was also property of the estate, was an act to exercise control over property of the estate in violation of” the automatic stay. Thus, the BAP affirmed the bankruptcy court’s ruling, and Eden Place filed a timely appeal to this court.