JAMES T. TAYLOR, A/K/A JAMES THOMAS TAYLOR, AN INDIVIDUAL, AND BERLE S. TAYLOR, A/K/A BERLE SUE TAYLOR, AN INDIVIDUAL, APPELLANTS,
v.
BARNETT BANK OF NORTH CENTRAL FLORIDA, N.A., N/K/A BARNETT BANK, N.A., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The First District Court of Appeal clarified that the automatic stay provision of the federal Bankruptcy Code applies to appellate proceedings regardless of whether the debtor is the appellant or appellee, and stayed the foreclosure appeal pending resolution of the debtors' Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing.
The automatic stay provision of the federal Bankruptcy Code applies on appeal regardless of whether the debtor is an appellant or appellee when the original proceedings were against the debtor. The court aligned itself with the Fourth District's decision in Florida Eastern Development and the Second District's decision in Crowe Group, rejecting the earlier Third District approach in Shop in the Grove.
[1] The automatic stay provision of the federal Bankruptcy Code applies on appeal regardless of whether the debtor is an appellant or an appellee.
[2] Filing a suggestion of bankruptcy triggers an automatic stay of appellate proceedings when the original proceedings were against the debtor.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Title 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) of the code provides for an automatic stay of all legal proceedings 'against the debtor.' We find that the automatic stay provision of the federal Bankruptcy Code applies on appeal regardless of whether the debtor is an appellant or an appellee and acknowledge that there is an automatic stay under these circumstances.”
Establishes the court's core holding on the application of bankruptcy automatic stay to appellate proceedings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA final judgment of foreclosure was entered against the Taylors in favor of Barnett Bank. After the Taylors filed a notice of appeal, they filed a sug…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
PER CURIAM.
The appellants file a motion for clarification asking this court to articulate its position regarding the effect of a bankruptcy proceeding on an appeal. A final judgment of foreclosure was entered against appellants in favor of Barnett Bank. Appellants show that after the notice of appeal was filed, they filed a suggestion of bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. Title 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) of the code provides for an automatic stay of all legal proceedings “against the debtor.” We find that the automatic stay provision of the federal Bankruptcy Code applies on appeal regardless of whether the debtor is an appellant or an appellee and acknowledge that there is an automatic stay under these circumstances.
In Shop in the Grove, Ltd. v. Union Federal Savings & Loan Association of Miami, 425 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), the third district denied motions for stay on the ground that the appeal by the debtor/defendant from judgments rendered against it did not fall within the purview of the federal Bankruptcy Code. The fourth district followed that ruling in Marine Charter & Storage, Ltd. v. Underwriters, 568 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).
In contrast, the second district determined that the stay would apply in Crowe Group, Inc. v. Garner, 691 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).
The. fourth district revisited its Marine Charter decision in Florida Eastern Development Co., Inc. of Hollywood v. Len-Hal Realty, Inc., 636 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).
The fourth district noted that although there was a dearth of law on the subject at the time the third district decided Shop in the Grove in 1982, beginning with Association of St. Croix Condominium Owners v. St. Croix Hotel, 682 F. 2d 446 (3d Cir.1982), the federal circuit courts began considering the issue. Based on the development in the case law, the fourth district was persuaded to recede from its opinion in Marine Charter and hold that the automatic stay provision of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) applies on appeal, regardless of whether the debtor is an appellant or appellee, where the original proceedings were against the debtor.
We note that six federal circuit courts have held that there is an automatic-stay, where the original proceedings were “against the debtor,” regardless of whether the debtor is the appellant or the appellee on appeal. See Farley v. Henson, 2 F. 3d 273, 275 (8th Cir.1993); Ingersoll-Rand Fin. Corp. v. Miller Mining Co., 817 F. 2d 1424, 1426 (9th Cir.1987); Commerzanstalt v. Telewide Sys., Inc., 790 F. 2d 206, 207 (2d Cir.1986); Marcus, Stowell & Beye Gov’t Sec., Inc. v. Jefferson Inv. Corp., 797 F. 2d 227, 230 n. 4 (5th Cir.1986); Cathey v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 711 F. 2d 60, 62 (6th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1021, 106 S.Ct. 3335, 92 L.Ed.2d 740 (1986); Association of St. Croix Condominium Owners v. St. Croix Hotel Corp., 682 F. 2d 446, 449 (3d Cir.1982).
In contrast, the 10th circuit has ruled that a trustee/debtor in possession may file an action or continue an action without court relief of the stay. Autoskill, Inc. v. Nat’l Educ. Support Sys., Inc., 994 F. 2d 1476, 1486 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 916, 114 S.Ct. 307, 126 L.Ed.2d 254 (1993).
We align this court with the decisions in Florida Eastern Development and Crowe Group on the issue of the effect of the filing of a suggestion of bankruptcy. Accordingly, because appellants have filed a suggestion of bankruptcy and the original proceedings were against them, the proceedings in this cause are stayed until such time as the stay imposed by 11 U.S.C. § 362 is lifted or dissolved. The debtors shall notify this court within ten days after the stay is lifted or dissolved. In any event, the debtors shall submit a report to this court at the end of 180 days which sets forth the status of the proceedings in bankruptcy.
WOLF and LAWRENCE, JJ., and SHIVERS, DOUGLASS B„ Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cruise Holdings, Ltd. v. Morten Mathiesen, 804 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…peal. Accordingly, as a matter of comity, we enter a stay in deference to the order of the United States Bankruptcy Court. Stay granted. * There is a division of authority on this point. See Taylor v. Barnett Bank of North Central Florida, N.A.,, 737 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. 1st DCA) and cases cited therein.…
-
Carver v. Moody, 780 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…in the probate proceeding and that his demand to continue serving as the personal representative is inconsistent with his protection under the bankruptcy stay. In light of this court’s ruling in Taylor v. Barnett Bank of North Central Florida, N.A., 737 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), Moody requests a determination of whether the automatic stay of the bankruptcy code applies in this appellate proceeding from the probate action. In Taylor, this court stated that the automatic stay under section 362(a)(1) appli…
-
Nat'l Med. Imaging, LLC v. Lyon Fin. Servs., Inc. (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)…ulti-jurisdictional bankruptcy practitioners (and their clients), because tough sanctions accompany violations of the automatic stay.4 Federal bankruptcy judges are certainly not bound by this 3 See Taylor v. Barnett Bank of N. Cent. Fla., N.A., 737 So. 2d 1105, 1106 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Fla. E. Dev. Co., Inc. of Hollywood v. Len-Hal Realty, Inc., 636 So. 2d 756, 758 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Crowe Group, Inc. v. Garner, 691 So. 2d 1089, 1089 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). 4 Section 362 provides for the award of damages,…
Authorities Cited (14 total)
- Assoc. of ST. Croix Condo. Owners v. ST. Croix Hotel Corp., 682 F.2d 446 (3d Cir. 1982)
- Cathey v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 711 F.2d 60 (6th Cir. 1983)
- Butts v. City of N.Y., 478 U.S. 1021 (U.S. 1986)
- Block v. Meese, 478 U.S. 1021 (U.S. 1986)
- Marcus v. Jefferson Inv. Corp., 797 F.2d 227 (5th Cir. 1986)
- Ingersoll-Rand Fin. Corp. v. Miller Mining Co., Inc., 817 F.2d 1424 (9th Cir. 1987)
- Shop IN THE Grove, Ltd. v. Union Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n OF Miami, 425 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Autoskill Inc. v. Nat'l Educ. Support Sys., Inc., 994 F.2d 1476 (10th Cir. 1993)
- Ostano Commerzanstalt and Dr. Herbert Jovy v. Telewide Sys., Inc., 790 F.2d 206 (2d Cir. 1986)
- Marine Charter & Storage, Ltd., Inc. v. ALL Underwriters AT Lloyds OF London Subscribing TO Cover Notes 2H04/1291, 568 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)