Smith v. IH4 Prop. W. LP (In re Smith)

2 Citing cases

  1. In re Aurora Commercial Corp.

    Case No. 19-10843 (SCC) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Jan. 2, 2020)   Cited 1 times

    This dispute has a long history. The details of this history are set forth in decisions issued by numerous courts, including (a) the decisions of the California Court of Appeal in Smith v. American Mortgage Network, et al., No. B252585, 2015 WL 2438819 (Cal. Ct. App. May 21, 2015) ("Smith I"); Smith v. American Mortgage Network, et al., No. B271362, 2018 WL 4075908 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 27, 2018) ("Smith I.A"); and Smith v. IH4 Property West, LP, et al., Nos. B271813, B278477, B279562, 2019 WL 1417157 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 29, 2019) ("Smith II"); (b) the decision of the U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit in Smith v. IH4 Property West LP (In re Smith), BAP No. CC-16-1414-FLKu, 2018 WL 669120 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Feb. 1, 2018) ("Smith v. IH4"); and (c) two decisions of this Court in In re Residential Capital, LLC, 518 B.R. 720 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2014) (MG) ("ResCap I") and In re Residential Capital, LLC, Case No. 12-12020 (MG), 2016 WL 3240256 (Bankr.

  2. In re Paxton

    596 B.R. 686 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2019)   Cited 4 times

    Although Respondents' actions, defending the appeal, were a continuation of a judicial proceeding that was in violation of the automatic stay, those actions did not violate the automatic stay. A party does not violate the stay by defending actions commenced by the debtor. In re Palmdale Hills Property LLC , 654 F.3d 868, 875 (9th Cir. 2011) ("[t]he stay does not ... prevent a defendant from protecting its interests against claims brought by the debtor"); In re Merrick , 175 B.R. 333, 338 (9th Cir. BAP 1994) ("an equitable principle of fairness requires a defendant to be allowed to defend himself from [a debtor's claims] without imposing on him a gratuitous impediment ... [t]he automatic stay should not tie the hands of a defendant while the plaintiff debtor is given free rein to litigate"); In re Smith , 2018 WL 669120, *5 (9th Cir. BAP Feb. 1, 2018) ("[t]he stay does not apply to actions commenced by the debtor against a third party").Therefore, Respondents did not violate the stay by defending the appeal. And certainly not for defending an appeal that should have been stayed in the first place. The court shares the concern expressed by the Ingersoll-Rand court in that there is an obvious unfairness if a debtor is allowed to appeal an adverse judgment rendered in an action against the debtor, yet, at the same time, the automatic stay would prevent a creditor from doing the same or appealing an appellate court judgment to a higher court. Ingersoll-Rand , 817 F.2d at 1426 (quoting Ass'n of St. Croix Condo. Owners v. St. Croix Hotel Corp. , 682 F.2d 446, 449 n.2 (3d Cir. 1982).