Shortly before filing a chapter 11 petition on debtor's behalf, debtor's attorney entered into a real property purchase contract with debtor. Under that agreement, attorney paid some cash to debtor, offset some legal fees owed to him by debtor, and agreed to assume debtor's mortgage, which was about to be foreclosed. The contract between debtor and attorney was noted on debtor's schedule of assets. A trustee was appointed for debtor, based on a motion by the mortgage holder on the property, and trustee received an offer to purchase the property from an unrelated party. Debtor's attorney received trustee's motion to approve the sale, and notified trustee of his interest in the property. Trustee filed an adversary action to quiet title to the property, but went forward with the hearing on his motion to approve sale. Attorney did not attend the sale hearing, and the motion to sell was approved. Attorney's motion to vacate the sale approval was denied, and attorney appealed. The district court ruled that attorney's failure to appear at the sale hearing was not due to "excusable neglect." However, the court indicated that the quiet title action had not been tried and that trustee could only sell the estate's interest in the property. Therefore, in order for trustee to convey clear title to the property by sale, trustee needed to pursue the quiet title action, or bring some other proceeding that could establish the respective rights in the subject property. Therefore, the district court stayed the closing of the property sale until attorney's interest in the property, if any, was determined.

The parties to this appeal, debtor and buyer, had a dispute over buyer's payment of a deposit to debtor, after the purchase was not consummated. Buyer obtained a district court judgment against debtor, in the amount of $30,000 plus interest, which debtor appealed to the Tenth Circuit. In taking the appeal, debtor posted a $40,000 supersedeas bond. Debtor assigned its interest in the supersedeas bond to its attorney and, approximately seven months later, filed a chapter 11 bankruptcy petition. Despite the pending bankruptcy, the Circuit reversed the judgment in favor of buyer and released the supersedeas bond to debtor. Buyer's motions seeking various alternative relief were all denied by the bankruptcy court. On appeal, the district court denied the bankruptcy trustee's motion to dismiss, concluding that it had jurisdiction to hear both final and interlocutory bankruptcy orders, and that there was ample cause to review the bankruptcy court's decision. The district court agreed with the bankruptcy court's ruling that buyer improperly sought to establish a constructive trust on the supersedeas bond by motion instead of by adversary complaint. However, the district court disagreed that the case was "inappropriate" for such a trust, concluding that such a determination would depend on fact-findings that had not been made. The district court also concluded that the bankruptcy court had erred by failing to state reasons for denial of buyer's motion for stay relief. The case was remanded to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings.

Debtor was the sub-lessee of a 15-year lease to mine coal on real property located in West Virginia. In May 1984, debtor failed to make its annual rent payment for the first time and, shortly thereafter, filed a bankruptcy petition. Landlords in West Virginia have a statutory lien on any personal property brought onto their property by the lessee. Subsequent to debtor's sub-lease, debtor granted bank a security interest in its assets, the majority of which were located on the leased property. The bankruptcy court granted trustee's request to sell debtor's coal mining equipment free of liens, with valid liens to attach to the proceeds, and the equipment was sold. Later, trustee avoided the statutory landlord's lien on debtor's property, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 545, and the lien was preserved for the benefit of the estate by 11 U.S.C. § 551. Trustee then filed an adversary action against bank to determine the validity, priority, and extent of the competing liens. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the bankruptcy court ruled that the landlord's lien had priority over bank's security interest, and that the annual rent payment would be apportioned from the date it was due to the date when the trustee rejected the lease and surrendered the real property. On appeal, the district court considered whether the amount of the landlord's lien was the entire annual missed payment, or whether it was subject to apportionment. The court held that it had the equitable power under the Bankruptcy Code to apportion the rent, even though the state statute may apply the rule of non-apportionment. The district court further held that, although the bankruptcy court had properly applied apportionment to the rent, it had not properly defined the apportionment period, which should have been from the rent's due date to the date the petition was filed. Postpetition, lessor is entitled to the reasonable value of debtor's use of the premises as an administrative claim. Finally, the district court ruled that the bankruptcy court erred in not adding interest to the landlord's lien amount, which was clearly provided by state law.

Undersecured creditor appealed the bankruptcy court's denial of its motion to either dismiss or grant relief from stay. The district court concluded that the bankruptcy court had not abused its discretion by denying the motion to dismiss debtor's chapter 11 petition based on creditor's failure to establish that debtor filed its petition in bad faith. The district court also considered whether the bankruptcy stay should be lifted, based on lack of adequate protection, concluding that a claim secured by real property having lesser value than the claim is adequately protected by preservation of the status quo, which is accomplished by protection of the property from diminution in value, rejecting an "equity cushion" approach. The district court agreed with the bankruptcy court that transfer of the secured property by an individual to a newly created corporate debtor that immediately filed its bankruptcy petition did not make the transfer fraudulent and thus remove the property from debtor's estate, particularly since the individual could have accomplished the same thing by filing her own chapter 11 petition. Finally, the district court held that, even if the stay had terminated pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 4001(b)'s 30-day limit between the hearing on the motion for relief and issuance of an order on that motion, the bankruptcy court's order denying stay relief, entered outside of that time period, invoked the court's equitable power under 11 U.S.C. § 105 to reinstate the stay. Additionally, the court's § 105 equitable powers need not be specifically referenced for them to be deemed invoked. The bankruptcy court's decision was affirmed.