In Cruz v. Strauss (In re Cruz), 2014 Bankr. LEXIS 3687(B.A.P. 9th Cir. Aug. 29, 2014), the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed retroactive annulment of the automatic stay to validate a foreclosure sale. In Cruz, a five-percent interest in residential real property was transferred to the debtor post-petition. The deed transferring the five-percent interest to the debtor was recorded at 12:52 p.m. on July 15, 2013, and on the same day, at approximately 2:18 p.m., the property was sold at a trustee’s sale. At the time of the sale, the trustee was unaware of the debtor’s bankruptcy; however, after becoming aware of the debtor’s bankruptcy filing, the trustee moved the bankruptcy court to annul the automatic stay to validate the sale or, in the alternative, to confirm that no stay was in effect at the time of the sale. The Court held that a stay violation could be cured by retroactive annulment where cause exists to annul the stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d). The Court reasoned that although the property interest was transferred post-petition, the automatic stay was in effect at the time of the trustee’s sale pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(5); however, the Court further reasoned that an action taken in violation of the automatic stay that would otherwise be void may be declared valid if cause exists for retroactive annulment of the stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d). The Court concluded that a bankruptcy court could find that cause existed where a debtor, who had filed a skeletal chapter 7 case in bad faith, took a fractionalized interest in residential property on the day it was sold in foreclosure, the buyer had no knowledge of the stay at the time of sale, and the buyer acted promptly to obtain relief from stay once it learned of the debtor’s bankruptcy.
Blog
VALIDATION OF A FORECLOSURE SALE THROUGH RETROACTIVE ANNULMENT OF THE AUTOMATIC STAY
On Behalf of Shulman Bastian Friedman & Bui LLP | Sep 24, 2014 | Bankruptcy Appellate Panel |
Categories
- Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (19)
- Business Litigation (68)
- Chapter 11 (36)
- Contract Disputes (24)
- Employment (11)
- Firm News (22)
- Mergers & Acquisitions (51)
- Potential Claims (1)
- Sales & Dissolutions (15)
Archives
- March 2022 (1)
- February 2022 (1)
- December 2021 (2)
- July 2021 (1)
- March 2021 (3)
- February 2021 (1)
- December 2020 (2)
- July 2020 (3)
- June 2020 (1)
- May 2020 (2)
- April 2020 (3)
- December 2019 (2)
- November 2019 (1)
- October 2019 (3)
- September 2019 (3)
- August 2019 (2)
- July 2019 (1)
- June 2019 (1)
- May 2019 (2)
- February 2019 (1)
- January 2019 (1)
- September 2018 (1)
- June 2018 (2)
- May 2018 (5)
- April 2018 (6)
- March 2018 (1)
- February 2018 (2)
- December 2017 (1)
- November 2017 (1)
- October 2017 (5)
- August 2017 (10)
- July 2017 (1)
- June 2017 (3)
- March 2017 (1)
- February 2017 (2)
- January 2017 (4)
- November 2016 (6)
- October 2016 (4)
- September 2016 (2)
- August 2016 (2)
- July 2016 (2)
- June 2016 (2)
- May 2016 (6)
- April 2016 (10)
- March 2016 (7)
- February 2016 (7)
- January 2016 (10)
- December 2015 (9)
- November 2015 (10)
- October 2015 (7)
- September 2015 (10)
- August 2015 (9)
- July 2015 (10)
- June 2015 (8)
- May 2015 (9)
- April 2015 (11)
- March 2015 (12)
- February 2015 (6)
- January 2015 (12)
- December 2014 (8)
- November 2014 (9)
- October 2014 (10)
- September 2014 (16)
- August 2014 (13)
- July 2014 (10)
- June 2014 (11)
- September 2010 (1)
Recent Posts
- In Harrington v. Mayer (In re Mayer)
- In Stewart Title Guar. Co. v. Park (In re Park)
- Announcing the 2022 IEBF Board of Directors
- Foreclosure of Mechanics’ Lien in Bankruptcy: Section 546(b) Notice Not Tolled by Section 108(c)
- Trustee Must At Least Disclose Intent to Avoid Transfer and Recover Property To Invoke Section 522(g) to Disallow Exemption