Case: 15-14203 Date Filed: 11/10/2016 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-14203
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 6:15-cv-00027-RBD,
Bkcy No. 6:14-bkc-03297-ABB
In Re: JAMES E. BAUMANN,
Debtor.
________________________________________________________
JAMES E. BAUMANN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
PNC BANK, N.A.,
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(November 10, 2016)
Case: 15-14203 Date Filed: 11/10/2016 Page: 2 of 3
Before WILSON, MARTIN, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
James Baumann filed a bankruptcy petition, which automatically stayed two
banks’ state foreclosure proceedings against him. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). The
bankruptcy court, while allowing the bankruptcy case to proceed, sua sponte
terminated the automatic stay of the banks’ state foreclosure proceedings.
See 11 U.S.C. §§ 105(a), 362(d)(1). Baumann appeals the district court’s
affirmance of the sua sponte termination. After an independent review of the
bankruptcy court’s termination, we affirm. See In re TOUSA, Inc., 680 F.3d 1298,
1310 (11th Cir. 2012) (“As the second court to review the judgment of the
bankruptcy court, we review the order of the bankruptcy court independently of the
district court.”).
During a hearing in which the bankruptcy court decided to terminate the
automatic stay, Baumann disputed the termination by arguing that the banks lacked
standing to move for termination, that the banks never filed the motion on paper,
and that an attorney who spoke at the hearing on behalf of one of the banks had
failed to file a notice of appearance. The bankruptcy court rejected his arguments,
and Baumann repeats his arguments on appeal. Each argument relies on a false
premise—that the bankruptcy court granted a motion by the banks to terminate the
automatic stay. However the bankruptcy court, at the suggestion of the standing
2
Case: 15-14203 Date Filed: 11/10/2016 Page: 3 of 3
trustee, sua sponte terminated the automatic stay. Because 11 U.S.C. § 105(a)
allows the bankruptcy court to terminate sua sponte and because no evidence exists
of the one bank’s attorney influencing the court’s decision, we reject Baumann’s
arguments.
Also, Baumann argues that the bankruptcy court failed, before terminating
the automatic stay, to afford him “notice and a hearing,” to which he is entitled
under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d). However, the bankruptcy court scheduled the hearing in
which it decided to terminate the automatic stay more than three weeks before the
hearing. Also, the court afforded Baumann an opportunity during the hearing to
speak and dispute the termination. Baumann received “notice and a hearing”
before the termination of automatic stay. See 11 U.S.C. § 102(1) (defining “notice
and a hearing” as “such notice [and opportunity for a hearing] as is appropriate in
the particular circumstances”).
AFFIRMED.
3