In re Bulgin

secured creditor were working on a loan modification agreement, but that the secured creditor, or its agent, has now indicated that an agreement signed by the Debtor was not received and that the foreclosure sale will proceed. The full relief requested in the Emergency Motion is that the

"Debtor requests that the Court reimpose the automatic stay so the foreclosure sale may be halted while the Court reviews the circumstances." Doc. No. 36 at 1.

Moreover, in the Hearing Request, the Debtor states that she has converted this chapter 7 case to one under chapter 13, that she intends to address the arrears to the secured creditor in a to-be-filed chapter 13 plan, and that she requests a review of the Emergency Motion . . . . on an expedited basis in order to prevent the imminent foreclosure sale." Doc. No. 37 at 1.² Previously, on December 9, 2025, the Court granted the secured creditor's motion for relief from the automatic stay by terminating the stay with respect to the real property at issue in this case. Doc. No. 24. The Court's prior order terminating the automatic stay in this case has not been appealed nor has the Debtor asked to set it aside pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), incorporated to this contested matter case by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9024.

APPLICABLE LAW

Conversion of a bankruptcy case to chapter 13 does not trigger a new automatic stay when relief from the automatic stay has already been granted. See Ramirez v. Whelan (In re Ramirez), 188 B.R. 413, 415(9th Cir. BAP 1995) (rejecting the argument that conversion to chapter 13 causes a new automatic stay to spring into effect and noting that if that was the rule it

2

would improperly "frustrate creditors who have successfully sought relief from the stay" prior to conversion) (citing In re Campos, 128 B.R. 790, 792 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 1991); see also In re Jennings, 2003 WL 25273845, at *2 (Bankr. D. Idaho Aug. 19, 2003) (citing this law and rejecting a similar argument in a conversion from chapter 7 to chapter 13 case and holding

"[s]tay relief was properly granted to Creditor, and conversion of the case from Chapter 7 to Chapter 13 did not impair Creditor's right to foreclose").

As applicable in this case, a request to reimpose the automatic stay after the Court has terminated the automatic stay may be made under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9024, incorporating Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), in seeking relief from the Court's prior order. See, e.g., Fantasia v. Diodato, 154 F.4th 1123, 1125 (9th Cir. 2025) (noting the bankruptcy court in that case granted relief from its prior relief from the automatic stay order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) and reimposed the automatic stay); see also In re Ramirez, 188 B.R. at 416 (Klein, J., concurring) ("Occasionally, it might suffice to revive the stay by way of a motion for reconsideration under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b) . . . .").

More appropriately viewed, however, a request to have an automatic stay reimposed is a request for an injunction, which requires the filing of an adversary proceeding, not simply a motion. In re Rameriez, 188 B.R. at 416 (Klein, J., concurring); see also FED. R. BANKR. P. 7001(g) (stating a "proceeding to obtain an injunction or other equitable relief" must be an adversary proceeding); accord In re Parker, 154 B.R. 240, 243 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1993) (noting a bankruptcy court's discretion to reinstate the automatic stay but noting that such relief requires an adversary proceeding to impose an injunction and noting the applicable requirements of Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7065).

3

APPLICATION OF LAW AND ORDER

Applying the above principles, the Emergency Motion and the Hearing Request are denied. Here, the secured creditor has already obtained an order from this Court in this chapter 7 case terminating the automatic stay with respect to the real property. See Doc. No. 24. Over three months have passed since the Court's order terminating the automatic stay. The order has not been timely appealed, nor has the Court received a request to set aside the order via Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9024, incorporating Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), with a proper showing of being entitled to such relief under that Rule.

Construing the Emergency Motion as one under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to set aside this Court's prior order terminating the automatic stay, the Court finds that it is insufficient. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1)-(5) do not seem to apply under these facts, and none of the grounds for relief listed therein have been clearly stated by the Debtor in the Motion. Instead, the Debtor seems to have encountered issues in dealing with the secured creditor in negotiating and finalizing a loan modification agreement. That is not a basis to set aside the Court's prior order terminating the automatic stay under the above provisions of the Rule.

In the same line of thinking, the catch-all provision of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6)—allowing relief from an order for "any other reason that justifies relief"—also is not appropriate here. Such relief under Rule 60(b)(6) is provided only in "extraordinary circumstances" and should be used "sparingly." United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co.,

984 F.2d 1047, 1049 (9th Cir. 1993). In this case, again, this appears to be a breakdown in negotiations and communications with the secured lender, which cannot be said to be an

"extraordinary" occurrence.

4

Truly, this is a request for an injunction. Such relief requires an adversary proceeding pursuant to the applicable law and rules discussed above with the attendant procedural protections for the other party, which in this case such party appears to be proceeding within its rights as previously ordered by this Court. The relief requested in the Emergency Motion is therefore not appropriate in its current procedural posture, and given the Court's review of the Emergency Motion, as requested in the Hearing Request, the Court determines that no hearing is necessary at this point. As such, the Emergency Motion and the Hearing Request are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.³

DATED: March 16, 2026 _________________________ Brent R. Wilson

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge

5