Opinion ID: 702321
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: analysis

Text: 6 The Joneses maintain that the foreclosure and subsequent sale of their Beaumont property is void because it occurred after the effective date of the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. Sec. 362(a) and, therefore, the Garcias have no legal right to evict them. The Joneses misperceive the law. It is well-settled that actions taken in violation of the automatic stay are not void, but rather they are merely voidable, because the bankruptcy court has the power to annul the automatic stay pursuant to section 362(d). 3 7 Of particular significance to today's disposition is the power of the courts a quo to terminate, annul, modify, or condition the automatic stay, insofar as it concerns an act against single asset real estate, in favor of a creditor whose claim is secured by an interest in such real estate. 4 The judgment appealed specifically relies upon section 362(d) for its modification of the automatic stay. Given the fact that the Garcias, who are not commercial lenders, received neither actual nor presumed constructive notice of the Joneses' bankruptcy filing until after title had transferred to them, 5 we perforce conclude that there was neither error nor an abuse of the discretion afforded the court by section 362(d). 6 8 The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.