Plaintiff, which held a lien on one of fourteen homes owned and rented out by chapter 11 debtors, sought relief from stay to foreclose its lien. The complaint alleged that debtors had no equity in the home, and had no prospect of rehabilitation. The court found that debtors did not have any equity in the property, and had not presented evidence concerning their rehabilitation prospects. However, the court agreed with debtors that the standard under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2)(B) was not based on rehabilitation prospects, but on the necessity of the property to an effective reorganization. In considering the statutory language, the court ruled that an "effective reorganization" could be either an effective rehabilitation or an effective liquidation, and that the standard was therefore a necessity, rather than a rehabilitation, test. As most courts analyzed § 362(d)(2)(B) as a rehabilitation test, the court adopted its own necessity criteria for situations in which debtors have no equity in the property, which was that property is necessary to an effective reorganization whenever it is necessary, either to operation of the business or in a plan, to further the interests of the estate through either rehabilitation or liquidation. Because the home at issue was producing net income, the court found that it satisfied the § 362(d)(2)(B) necessity test, and relief from stay was denied.