Open photo in lightbox

On November 5, 2025, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut New Haven Division issued a decision in In re Booker, 25-30902 (AMN), finding acts to obtain possession of real property are not stayed by a debtor’s bankruptcy filing when state law classifies those acts as in rem or quasi in rem.

The debtor was a former owner of the property that was foreclosed upon by the lender. Title to the property vested in the former lender following the final judgment of foreclosure and a summary process action was initiated against the former owners and other occupants to obtain possession of the property. The lender obtained a judgment of possession and an execution for possession was issued. However, prior to the scheduled lockout date, the debtor filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. The state marshal subsequently canceled the lockout due to the bankruptcy filing.

The lender filed a motion in the bankruptcy court seeking an order confirming the debtor’s bankruptcy filing did not create an automatic stay preventing the lender from proceeding with the execution of possession.

The bankruptcy court found the automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §362(a) did not arise upon the filing of the bankruptcy case because the debtor had no interest in the property. The court further held the stay provided in §362(a) did not bar the continued prosecution of the eviction order against the debtor, or any other action by the lender to evict any present or hypothetical future debtor residing in the property.

The bankruptcy court began its analysis by determining the debtor had no legal or equitable interest in the property, as the debtor’s right to possession had been terminated by the summary process judgment. As a result, 11 U.S.C. §362(a)(3), which stays any act to obtain possession of property of the bankruptcy estate, was not applicable and did not create a stay. The court reasoned the property could not be property of the bankruptcy estate when title had already vested in a third party.

The court further opined the stays provided for in 11 U.S.C. §§362(a) (1) and (a)(2), which are applicable to actions against the debtor or property of the estate, were not applicable as to the enforcement of an eviction judgment or ejectment action following a foreclosure as these actions are in rem or quasi in rem proceedings under Connecticut state law.

Connecticut’s summary process proceedings are in rem in nature. "The ultimate issue in a summary process action is the right to possession … and the relief available in summary process actions is possession of the premises." Centrix Management Co., LLC v. Valencia, 145 Conn. App. 682, 691, 76 A.3d 694 (2013). (Emphasis in original). A summary process plaintiff can only seek possession of the premises, and a judgment of possession does not impose any personal liability.

The bankruptcy court held that because the debtor did not have a legal or equitable interest in the property and the lender sought only possession of the property, not payment of a debt, no stay was created under 11 U.S.C. §362(a) that prevented the lender from taking actions to enforce the judgment or execution of possession. In reaching this conclusion, the bankruptcy court relied on the 9th Circuit decision In re Perl, 811 F.3d 1120, 1130 (9th Cir. 2016). In Perl, the 9th Circuit held that a third party who purchased property at a mortgage foreclosure sale in California and who thereafter obtained an unlawful detainer judgment of immediate possession against the debtor before the bankruptcy filing, did not violate the automatic stay by evicting the debtor after the bankruptcy filing. The court reasoned that even though the debtor was physically possessing the property, the debtor "had been divested of all legal and equitable possessory rights that would otherwise be protected by the automatic stay." Id at 1130. The court also found that the sheriff’s lockout did not violate the automatic stay because no legal or equitable interests in the property remained to become part of the bankruptcy estate. Id.

The facts in Booker are substantially similar to those in Perl, and the Connecticut bankruptcy court entered an order that the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) did not prevent the lender from proceeding with the eviction action.

Copyright © USFN 2026

Winter 2026 USFN Report - Jan. 2026