⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

A homeowner asks the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel to review an order allowing a foreclosure purchaser to proceed despite her bankruptcy. Beulah Banks filed for bankruptcy on the same day as the disputed foreclosure sale of her home. Neighbor to Neighbor Homes relied on that purchase to seek possession through an eviction case, also called unlawful detainer. The timing matters because bankruptcy normally triggers an automatic stay, a legal pause on collection and eviction proceedings. The bankruptcy court accepted evidence that the auction came before the filing, but later eviction steps occurred while the stay was in effect. The company said it did not yet know about the bankruptcy. The court granted annulment of the stay. Under Section three sixty-two, d, annulment can work backward to validate actions that otherwise violated the stay; it is different from merely ending protection going forward. It requires weighing the circumstances, not simply treating an uninformed buyer as automatically exempt. Banks will represent herself and challenge the evidence that the sale preceded her filing. Sam Chandra will defend the relief for Neighbor to Neighbor Homes. The panel will also consider mootness: whether reversing this particular order could still provide any effective relief. This is an appeal about the stay order, not a trial of every allegation concerning the original loan or ownership of the home.

In re Banks (No. 25-1009) — U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 15, 2026.