Roth v. Plikaytis (In re Roth), 595 B.R. 572

James Roth filed Chapter 11 in May 2010; a Chapter 11 plan was confirmed in June 2012 and a Post‑Confirmation Estate Fiduciary (former examiner Christopher Barclay) was appointed.
Appellee Anice Plikaytis holds a pre‑petition, non‑dischargeable state‑court judgment against James.
The Estate Fiduciary obtained court authority to abandon James’s 100% equity interest in certain Zanzibar rental properties effective October 1, 2017.
On Sept. 30, 2017 Debra Roth (third‑party claimant and appellant) prepared deeds of trust (DOTs) securing loans she had made to James; James signed and notarized them that day but recorded them on Oct. 2, 2017 after abandonment.
Plikaytis recorded an abstract of judgment on Oct. 2, 2017. Debra later filed a Third Party Claim asserting priority in rents via the DOTs; the bankruptcy court ruled the DOTs were void as violations of the automatic stay.
The district court affirmed: it held Debra initiated the lien‑creation steps, the acts violated 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3) and (a)(4), and therefore the DOTs were void.

Issue	Debra's Argument	Plikaytis's Argument	Held
Whether the post‑petition lien was debtor‑initiated (§ 549) or creditor‑initiated (§ 362)	James obtained post‑petition credit and thus initiated the transfer; § 549 governs	Debra drafted and caused the DOTs to be executed for her benefit, so creditor‑initiated and governed by § 362	DOTs were creditor‑initiated; § 362 applies
Whether preparatory acts (drafting and execution prior to recording) violate § 362(a)(3) (possession/control)	Preparatory acts did not frustrate purposes of stay because abandonment made properties non‑source of distribution	Debra’s insider, pre‑abandonment acts sought to gain priority over another creditor and exercised control	Preparatory acts violated § 362(a)(3)
Whether drafting/execution (before recording) violates § 362(a)(4) (create/perfect/enforce lien)	Creation of lien occurred only on recording after abandonment, so no § 362(a)(4) violation	Drafting/execution were acts to create a lien and therefore barred by § 362(a)(4)	Drafting/execution were ‘‘acts’’ to create a lien and violated § 362(a)(4)
Whether the DOTs are void as a result of stay violations	DOTs valid because recording occurred after abandonment	DOTs void because creditor‑initiated steps while stay was in effect rendered the transfer void	DOTs void; bankruptcy court order affirmed

In re Schwartz, 954 F.2d 569 (9th Cir.) (distinguishes debtor‑initiated § 549 transfers from creditor‑initiated § 362 stay violations)
U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Vill. at Lakeridge, LLC, 138 S. Ct. 960 (U.S. 2018) (deference principles for mixed questions of law and fact)
In re Mwangi, 764 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir.) (whether automatic stay was violated is reviewed de novo)
In re Baroff, 105 F.3d 439 (9th Cir.) (standards for appellate review of bankruptcy orders)
Delpit v. Comm'r, 18 F.3d 768 (9th Cir.) (broad scope of § 362 automatic stay)
Eskanos & Adler, P.C. v. Leetien, 309 F.3d 1210 (9th Cir.) (automatic stay protects debtors and estate property)
St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Barry, 438 U.S. 531 (U.S. 1978) (statutory term “any” construed broadly)
In re Roach, 660 F.2d 1316 (9th Cir.) (preparatory steps that only preserve status quo may not violate the stay)