How can the consumer defend against a request to lift the stay?

• In the case of assets that are tied to collateral, the creditors’ argument usually is that as long as the case is pending, the value of those assets depreciates. To defend against it, the consumer should prove to the court that those properties are still in good condition. This argument is strong in cases wherein with properties are worth more than what the consumer owed (perhaps a house in a rising upstate place, a special edition vehicle, antiques and jewelries). The court would agree that the value of those would not diminish in time, or that their value would actually increase with time. Another way to deal with creditors that are going after a secured property (that the consumer wants to keep) is to convince them, in court, that a cash security deposit would offset the projected value depreciation that is if the creditors still insist that it is to their disadvantage that they cannot collect while the case is pending. If the consumer can get the court to see of his/her intention to repay, the court might just cut the consumer a break and reject the creditor’s request to lift the stay.

• In utility disconnection cases (electricity, water, etc.), if the basis for discontinued service is just unpaid debts or bankruptcy filing, the court would not lift the stay. If the services were cut off after the consumer has filed bankruptcy, the utility companies must restore services within 20 days, as per court order, but twenty days after the order to continue services, the court would grant the utility companies the right to discontinue services, unless the consumer can give them a security deposit. In the hearing, the consumer must get the court’s and utility companies’ agreement that his/her deposit is adequate.

• With evictions, if the argument of the landlords is that the consumer has placed the property in danger, as in the consumer has been caught using drugs; the court would not lift the stay. This is also true in the case of landlords that have obtained judgment for eviction before the consumer filed bankruptcy. The law states that a bankruptcy should not be grounds for discrimination.