Roi Crichlow, 666 B.R. 441

Hart Road Corp. initiated a state court partition action regarding 735 Putnam Avenue in Brooklyn, which culminated in a court-ordered sale scheduled for May 2, 2024.
Debtor Roi C. Crichlow filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition on April 29, 2024—three days before the scheduled auction, triggering the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362.
On the day of the auction, Hart Road, unaware of the new bankruptcy filing due to administrative notice delays and lack of direct notice from Crichlow, proceeded with the sale.
Hart Road later sought nunc pro tunc (retroactive) relief from the automatic stay, asking the bankruptcy court to validate the sale post hoc or, alternatively, to dismiss Crichlow's bankruptcy.
The court examined whether retroactive stay relief was justified, focusing on the parties’ knowledge, good faith, and equities.
The automatic stay remained in effect, and the motion for retroactive relief was denied.

Issue	Plaintiff’s Argument (Hart Road)	Defendant’s Argument (Crichlow)	Held
Whether Hart Road had actual or constructive knowledge	Had no actual/constructive knowledge at time of auction	Provided required notice via creditor matrix	No actual/constructive knowledge—slightly for relief
Whether Debtor acted in bad faith	Filed case to delay sale and misled about court appearance	Filed complete schedules, provided required notice	No bad faith—against retroactive relief
Whether retroactive stay relief is warranted under Stockwell factors	Relief justified since motion would have been granted prospectively	Not opposed, but maintained compliance with Code	Relief not warranted—Stockwell factors not met
Whether sale should be validated nunc pro tunc	Sale should stand retroactively due to lack of notice	Sale void under automatic stay; stay not lifted	Denied—stay remains effective

In re Colonial Realty Co., 980 F.2d 125 (2d Cir. 1992) (actions in violation of the automatic stay are void)
In re 48th St. Steakhouse, Inc., 835 F.2d 427 (2d Cir. 1987) (violations of automatic stay are void and without effect)
E. Refractories Co. v. Forty Eight Insulations Inc., 157 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 1998) (distinguishing between termination and annulment of stay—annulment can have retroactive effect)
In re Sonnax Indus., 907 F.2d 1280 (2d Cir. 1990) (outlines factors for granting stay relief)
Midlantic Nat’l Bank v. N.J. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 474 U.S. 494 (1986) (automatic stay is a fundamental debtor protection)
United States v. Nicolet, Inc., 857 F.2d 202 (3d Cir. 1988) (purpose of the automatic stay is to halt race to the courthouse)