skip to main content
Harris Beach Murtha Attorneys at Law
Capabilities
People
main menu
Harris Beach Murtha Attorneys at Law
  • Capabilities
  • People
  • Capabilities
  • People
About
About
Inclusion and Engagement
Social Impact
Lateral Opportunities
About
Inclusion and Engagement
Social Impact
Lateral Opportunities
Resources
Insights
News
Events
Insights
News
Events
Careers
Contact
Offices
Legal Alert
January 25, 2021

Supreme Court Holds Creditor Retention of Debtor’s Property Does Not Violate “Automatic Stay”

Authors and Contacts

Kevin W. Tompsett

William M. X. Wolfe

Facebook
(Twitter)
LinkedIn
Email
Copy Page Link

The Supreme Court of the United States recently issued a decision regarding the scope of the “automatic stay” codified at section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code. By way of background, the filing of a bankruptcy petition immediately and automatically triggers a stay of all actions and proceedings which seek to collect a debt against the debtor and the debtor’s property. One of the primary purposes of the automatic stay is to maintain the status quo while the debtor’s bankruptcy case proceeds. The automatic stay statute is written broadly, and has been interpreted by courts as such.

For years bankruptcy courts were split on the issue of whether a creditor, who repossessed a debtor’s property before a bankruptcy filing but had not yet sold it, had an affirmative obligation to return the property once the bankruptcy petition was filed. A majority of courts, including the Second Circuit (which encompasses the four federal judicial districts in New York), have held that the automatic stay requires immediate turnover of debtor’s property to the debtor. Other Circuits, however, have adopted a narrow approach and held that retention of a debtor’s property maintains the status quo, is not an affirmative act, and does not violate the automatic stay. In those circuits, debtors seeking return of their property must file a turnover motion with the court, and creditors may then seek to have turnover conditioned on debtor agreeing to “adequate protection” payments.

On January 14, 2021, in City of Chicago v. Fulton, No. 19-357, 2021 U.S. LEXIS 496, 2021 WL 125106, the Supreme Court adopted the narrower reading of section 362 and held that the automatic stay provision does not require any affirmative act on the part of creditors to turn over property to the debtor. Creditors are cautioned that they must still obtain stay relief before proceeding with any sale of the debtor’s property. Stay relief may be obtained by motion or stipulation. Creditors who receive turnover motions should consider seeking legal advice to evaluate options including seeking adequate protection payments.

Please contact your attorney at Harris Beach for further clarification. This alert does not purport to be a substitute for advice of counsel on specific matters.

Harris Beach has offices throughout New York State, including Albany, Buffalo, Ithaca, Long Island, New York City, Rochester, Saratoga Springs, Syracuse and White Plains, as well as New Haven, Connecticut and Newark, New Jersey.

Authors and Contacts

Kevin Tompsett

Kevin W. Tompsett

Member
William Wolfe

William M. X. Wolfe

Associate

Related Legal Practices

Financial Restructuring, Bankruptcy and Creditors’ Rights
Facebook
(Twitter)
LinkedIn
Email
Copy Page Link

Contact Us

Harris Beach Murtha Attorneys at Law
  • Contact
  • Offices
  • Privacy Policy
  • Legal Disclaimer
  • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Offices
  • Privacy Policy
  • Legal Disclaimer
  • Site Map
Payment Portal
X-twitter Facebook Linkedin Instagram

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. © 2025 Harris Beach Murtha Cullina PLLC

TRUSTe
Harris Beach Murtha Attorneys at Law
Back to Top

Insights

Supreme Court Holds Creditor Retention of Debtor’s Property Does Not Violate “Automatic Stay”

Capabilities
People
Harris Beach Murtha Attorneys at Law
Legal Alert
January 25, 2021

Supreme Court Holds Creditor Retention of Debtor’s Property Does Not Violate “Automatic Stay”

Insight

The Supreme Court of the United States recently issued a decision regarding the scope of the “automatic stay” codified at section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code. By way of background, the filing of a bankruptcy petition immediately and automatically triggers a stay of all actions and proceedings which seek to collect a debt against the debtor and the debtor’s property. One of the primary purposes of the automatic stay is to maintain the status quo while the debtor’s bankruptcy case proceeds. The automatic stay statute is written broadly, and has been interpreted by courts as such.

For years bankruptcy courts were split on the issue of whether a creditor, who repossessed a debtor’s property before a bankruptcy filing but had not yet sold it, had an affirmative obligation to return the property once the bankruptcy petition was filed. A majority of courts, including the Second Circuit (which encompasses the four federal judicial districts in New York), have held that the automatic stay requires immediate turnover of debtor’s property to the debtor. Other Circuits, however, have adopted a narrow approach and held that retention of a debtor’s property maintains the status quo, is not an affirmative act, and does not violate the automatic stay. In those circuits, debtors seeking return of their property must file a turnover motion with the court, and creditors may then seek to have turnover conditioned on debtor agreeing to “adequate protection” payments.

On January 14, 2021, in City of Chicago v. Fulton, No. 19-357, 2021 U.S. LEXIS 496, 2021 WL 125106, the Supreme Court adopted the narrower reading of section 362 and held that the automatic stay provision does not require any affirmative act on the part of creditors to turn over property to the debtor. Creditors are cautioned that they must still obtain stay relief before proceeding with any sale of the debtor’s property. Stay relief may be obtained by motion or stipulation. Creditors who receive turnover motions should consider seeking legal advice to evaluate options including seeking adequate protection payments.

Please contact your attorney at Harris Beach for further clarification. This alert does not purport to be a substitute for advice of counsel on specific matters.

Harris Beach has offices throughout New York State, including Albany, Buffalo, Ithaca, Long Island, New York City, Rochester, Saratoga Springs, Syracuse and White Plains, as well as New Haven, Connecticut and Newark, New Jersey.

Authors

Kevin W. Tompsett

Member
(585) 419-8738
ktompsett@harrisbeachmurtha.com

William M. X. Wolfe

Associate
(315) 214-2059
wwolfe@harrisbeachmurtha.com
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. © 2026 Harris Beach Murtha Cullina PLLC
Content current as of September 12, 2026 7:43 am