Debtor's principal asset was an apartment complex, which was valued at approximately $2 million less than the debt secured by it. Creditor moved for relief from stay, and debtor opposed the motion on the ground that the property, which it intended to "condominiumize," was necessary to an effective reorganization. The court granted creditor's motion for relief from stay, concluding that debtor's planned development of the property was "wholly speculative." The district court vacated and remanded the bankruptcy court's decision in 153a.pdf, concluding that § 362(d)(2) does not require a showing of feasibility in addition to necessity. In 153b.pdf, the Tenth Circuit dismissed creditor's appeal from the district court judgment, finding that the appeal had "become entirely moot."