Palm

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent.

In my view, the opinion upon which this case hinged, Watson v. City National Bank (In Re Watson), 78 B.R. 232 (9th Cir.BAP1987) (“Watson I”), was wrongly decided by the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel.

Watson I held that creditors who obtain judgments of nondischargeability may pursue “their claims without first seeking relief from the automatic stay imposed by Section 362.” Id. at 232 . That conclusion, in my view, cannot be squared with the statutory materials.

Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code provides in sweeping terms that “[ejxcept as provided in subsection (b) of this section,” a petition in bankruptcy operates as a stay “applicable to all entities.” 11 U.S.C. § 362 (a). A wide variety of actions to enforce debts of the bankruptcy petitioner are subject to the automatic stay, including, as here pertinent: “[A]ny act to create, perfect or enforce against property of the debtor any lien to the extent that such lien secures a claim that arose before the commencement of the case under this title” and “any act to collect, assess or recover a claim against the debtor that arose before the commencement of the case under this title'.” 11 U.S.C.…

We affirm the judgment of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, for reasons stated in its opinion, Palm v. Klapperman (In re Cady), 266 B.R. 172 (B.A.P.2001). We reprint that opinion as an appendix hereto.

AFFIRMED.

Opinion by Judge CANBY; Dissent by Judge BERZON.