BRUCE

v.

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

This matter is before the Court on Appellant Alice Marie Bruce’s pro se appeal of the bankruptcy court’s order partially lifting the automatic stay. (Docs. 1; 4-152; 4-163). The appeal is fully briefed. (Docs. 17; 28; 30). After reviewing the parties’ briefs, the court file, and the record, the court finds as follows: Background Appellee commenced a foreclosure suit against Appellant in state court. (Doc. 28-1, App. at 101). While the foreclosure suit was pending, Appellant filed a petition for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. (Docs. 4-5; 28-1, App. at 101). Appellant also filed an adversary proceeding, which Appellee moved to dismiss. (Doc. 4-190). The bankruptcy court held a hearing on Appellee’s motion to dismiss the adversary proceeding. (Doc. 4-193). At the hearing, the court granted Appellee’s motion to dismiss because Appellant had raised no arguments other than defenses to the state court foreclosure suit, which properly belonged in that state court proceeding. (Docs. 4-202; 28-1, App. at 103-107). The court also sua sponte partially lifted the automatic stay in the main bankruptcy case to allow the state foreclosure case to proceed and to allow Appellant to raise any defenses in state court while simultaneously pursuing bankruptcy if needed. (Docs. 4-152; 28-1, App. at 103-07, 106). Appellant filed a motion for reconsideration. (Docs. 4-157; 158). Appellant’s only argument was that she had filed a new adversary proceeding. (Doc. 4-157). The bankruptcy court held a hearing on the motion at which it considered and denied the motion. (Doc. 28-1, App. at 94-96).1 Appellant appealed the bankruptcy court’s partial lifting of the automatic stay. (Doc. 4-1). Other proceedings continued in the bankruptcy court until it dismissed the entire case in February 2023. (Doc. 28-1, App. at 92). Appellant has appealed that dismissal. (Doc. 28-1, App. at 97).2

Appellant argues also that the court erred in terminating the automatic stay without first providing “notice and a hearing” pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 352(d). (Doc. 17 at 7-9). However, 11 U.S.C. § 362(d) only requires such “notice and a hearing” when “a party in interest” requests relief from the automatic stay. Here, the court clearly stated both at the hearing and in its written order that it was lifting the stay as to the foreclosure action “on its own.” (Docs. 4-152; 28-1, App. at 106).

Additionally, Appellant herself raised the issue of the state foreclosure action by filing her adversary proceeding. After Appellant filed her motion for reconsideration, the bankruptcy court held a hearing on this issue at which it reconsidered her arguments and rejected them. (Docs. 4-157; 4-158; 28-1, App. at 120-21). Therefore, Appellant did receive notice and a hearing on this issue. Accordingly, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:

1. The bankruptcy court’s “Order Granting Relief from Stay as to Final Judgment of Foreclosure” and “Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration” (Docs. 1; 4-152; 4-163) are AFFIRMED.
2. The Clerk is directed to transmit a copy of this Order to the bankruptcy court, and thereafter close this case. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 30th day of September, 2023.

[| Ld —~ a Phi

TOM BARBER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE