Panzer
Panzer v. Wells Fargo Bank (In re Panzer)
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
The debtor in this case, George Panzer, appeals from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s decision that affirmed the bankruptcy’s court order granting Appellees’ motion to annul the automatic stay. We affirm.
Appellees did not have to assert a counterclaim in Panzer’s pending adversary proceeding to secure relief from the stay. The Bankruptcy Rules expressly provide that a party seeking such relief will do so by motion, not an adversary proceeding: “[a] motion for relief from an automatic stay provided by the Code ... shall be made in accordance with Rule 9014.” Bankr.R. 4001. Rule 9014, in turn, provides that “[i]n a contested matter not otherwise governed by these rules, relief shall be requested by motion, and reasonable notice and opportunity for hearing shall be afforded the party against whom relief is sought.” 1 Those Rules reflect the policy that favors “expedited relief’ when a creditor challenges the validity of a bankruptcy stay. Wade v. State Bar of Arizona, 115 B.R. 222, 230 (9th Cir. BAP 1990).
Moreover, even if we assume that a request for relief from the automatic stay could be construed as a “counterclaim,” Rule 7013 by its own terms does not apply…