In re Vanness

OPINION REGARDING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM AUTOMATIC STAY

The problem is how to deal with motions for relief from automatic stay that also seek relief available only by adversary proceeding. The practice of adding to stay relief motions procedurally incorrect requests for injunctions or extraordinary equitable relief has become a nuisance. This opinion points out that — in addition to denying the motion or merely rejecting the inappropriate relief — another arrow in the court’s quiver is to accept procedurally incorrect requests at face value by deeming the motion to be a complaint commencing an adversary proceeding and requiring payment of the adversary proceeding filing fee.

Here, the movant seeks extraordinary “in rem” relief not authorized by 11 U.S.C. § 362 (d), including a ban on filing future bankruptcy cases by other persons, a ban on automatic stays in future cases, and an order providing for the sheriff to conduct an eviction notwithstanding a future bankruptcy case.

As injunctive and extraordinary equitable relief requires an adversary proceeding, the present motion for relief from stay is deemed to be a complaint commencing an adversary proceeding. The movant must pay…