Eden Place v. Perl, No. 14-60039 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseEden Place appealed the BAP's decision affirming the bankruptcy court’s determination that Eden Place violated the automatic stay provisions of the Bankruptcy Code by evicting debtor from a residential property. After considering the court's applicable precedent, SS Farms, LLC v. Sharp, and the clear language of the statute, the court held that the bankruptcy court’s order that Eden Place violated the automatic stay was final and appealable. On the merits, the court concluded that the unlawful detainer judgment and writ of possession entered pursuant to California Code Civil Procedure 415.46 bestowed legal title and all rights of possession upon Eden Place. Accordingly, the court concluded that the bankruptcy court erred when it ruled that Eden Place violated the automatic stay provisions of the Bankruptcy Code and reversed the bankruptcy court order. In this case, debtor had no legal or equitable interest remaining in the property after issuance of the unlawful detainer judgment and writ of possession in state court.
Court Description: Bankruptcy. On appeal from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, the panel reversed the bankruptcy court’s determination that Eden Place, LLC, violated the automatic stay by evicting a chapter 13 debtor from a residential property. The panel held that it had jurisdiction over the appeal. Because the case did not involve a remand, the panel applied the two-part finality test articulated in SS Farms, LLC v. Sharp (In re SK Foods, L.P.), 676 F.3d 798 (9th Cir. 2012). The panel concluded that the bankruptcy court’s decision (1) resolved and seriously affected substantive rights and (2) finally determined the discrete issue to which it was addressed. On the merits, the panel concluded that the debtor had no legal or equitable interest remaining in the property at the time of his eviction. An unlawful detainer judgment and writ of possession entered pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 415.46 bestowed legal title and all rights of possession upon Eden Place. Accordingly, Eden Place did not violate the automatic stay provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). IN RE PERL 3 Dissenting, Judge Watford wrote that he would dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the bankruptcy court’s order, finding a stay violation but postponing until later a ruling on damages, could not be deemed final.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.