This area is intended for the exclusive use of attorneys. You know the drill – do your own due diligence. We make no representations as to the accuracy or current status of any information cited herein.
If you are NOT an attorney it is important to educate yourself, but this is not the place to do it. You must obtain legal advice from an experienced attorney familiar with your unique situation. Fixing unintentional errors will cost far more than doing it right the first time; if it can be fixed at all.
The information in this web site is not intended to constitute legal advice or to create an attorney-client relationship.
LEASES, OPTIONS, LEASE-BACKS, EQUITABLE MORTGAGE
IMPORTANT: This firm makes NO representations as to the accuracy or current status of any law, case, article or publication cited herein or linked to. Warning – some of these references are pre-BAPCPA.
COURT CAN ENTER ORDER DENYING AUTO STAY - SERIAL FILINGS
In re McCray, 342 B.R. 668 (Bkrtcy.D.Dist.Colo. 2006) S. Martin Teel, JR., Bankruptcy Judge newly enacted provisions of § 362(b)(22) preventing stay of eviction from arising in serial filing cases requires a lease or rental agreement.
NEWLY ENACTED PROVISIONS OF § 362(d)(4) GIVING COURT POWER TO GRANT RELIEF FROM STAY FOR TWO YEARS IN ANY SUBSEQUENT CASE REQUIRES THE CREDITOR TO HOLD A SECURITY INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY
The debtors had filed several petitions to frustrate eviction by an owner who had newly acquired the property in a foreclosure. The court held that there was no lease or rental agreement, nor did the owner have a “security interest” per se because by acquiring ownership its security interest was extinguished, and accordingly new BAPCPA provisions of § 362 did not apply. Nevertheless the court ruled that it had the power under § 105(a) to terminate the stay and issue order preventing stay from arising in any case filed within the next 2 years.
LEASES AND ‘FREE AND CLEAR’ SALES
Lessee’s interest in real property does not survive a “free and clear” sale in bankruptcy court:
Reprint from article published in Lexology (blog – Kate Thomas, Squire Patton Boggs) In the Matter of Spanish Peaks Holdings II, LLC, Do a lessee’s possessory interests in real property survive a “free and clear” sale of the property under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code? In a recent decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said “no,” holding that section 365(h) did not protect the interest of the lessee in the context of a section 363 sale when there had been no prior formal rejection of the lease under section 365. In so holding, the Ninth Circuit joined the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in rejecting the majority view that a sale of real property under 363(f) does not extinguish leasehold interests in that property. The Ninth Circuit’s decision undermines the notion that lessees enjoy special protections under the Bankruptcy Code and underscores the need for lessees to be proactive in protecting their interests when their lessors file bankruptcy.
EQUITABLE MORTGAGE - ARIZONA
An automobile sale/lease-back/option-to-buy agreement that meets Merryweather v. Pendleton test is a security device for a loan and subject to Consumer Lenders Act; latter act is not void for vagueness. SAL Leasing, Inc. v Arizona, 1 CA-CV 99-0631, 10/3/00.
A lender who takes title, then allowing old owner to reside in property under premise of a lease to purchase; Arizona Question regarding Equitable Mortgages There is a good discussion of “disguised real estate security transactions” in Nelson and Whitman’s hornbook on Real Estate Financing, Chapter 3, and an old law review article by Cunningham and Tischler in 26 Rutgers Law Review 1 (1972).
REJECTION OF UNEXPIRED LEASE
Pacific Shores v. At Homes Corp., No. 03-15769 (9th Cir. December 28, 2004) A bankruptcy court may approve retroactively the rejection of an unexpired nonresidential lease.