Opinion ID: 694345
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Leased Premises

Text: 23 Salzer asserts that he had a valid lease agreement as of April 1, 1993, for the leased premises. Salzer contends that by denying him access to the leased premises after April 1, 1993, Stinson violated the automatic stay. In addition, he argues that because of the valid lease, Stinson was not an entity in possession, custody, or control of the premises, or personal property located there, and, consequently, he had no obligation under 11 U.S.C. Sec. 542(a) to turn over the property to the trustee. A review of the record reveals that in the bankruptcy and district courts, Salzer asserted that on March 30, 1993, he entered into a second oral, month-to-month lease with Stinson for the leasehold premises to begin on April 1, 1993. (Salzer Aff. in Supp. of Mot. in Opp'n to Sum. J. p 21.) 8 Nevertheless, the original leasehold interest was rejected by the trustee and had also lapsed as a matter of Indiana law. Thus, the protection afforded to Salzer by the automatic stay ended as well. 11 U.S.C. Secs. 365(d)(4) and 362(b)(10); In re James Wilson Assoc., 965 F.2d at 164. Any new leasehold interest that Salzer may have had as the result of an oral agreement with Stinson made on March 30, 1993, was not subject to the automatic stay. Therefore, Stinson's actions that may have violated Salzer's leasehold rights do not give rise to a claim based on 11 U.S.C. Sec. 362(h). 24 As discussed above, the trustee had a right to possess the personal property located in the leasehold premises. Therefore, regardless of any leasehold interest in leased premises, Salzer had no right to possession of those items. The trustee, having the right to possess the personal property, clearly had the right to order Stinson to deny Salzer access to it. If Stinson did so by denying Salzer access to the leased premises, he may arguably have violated the new oral lease, but he did not violate the automatic stay. 25 Stinson's actions regarding the leased premises or the personal property in question did not violate the automatic stay. Therefore, the bankruptcy court properly granted summary judgment in Stinson's favor on Salzer's claims under 11 U.S.C. Sec. 362(h), and the district court's order affirming that decision was proper. For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the district court is affirmed.