October Term 2020 · Docket 19-357

Does the automatic stay force a creditor to return seized property without a court order?

Creditors argue they may keep seized property until a court orders its return. Debtors argue the stay demands immediate return.

Official caption
Chicago v. Fulton
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Craig Goldblatt argued the stay does not require immediate return.

    He stated creditors in lawful possession need not return property.

    He argued they need not pay damages for holding it.

    Ms. Sinzdak argued Section 362(a)(3) precludes acts to gain control. She said creditors may not repossess vehicles themselves. She said they may not direct tow companies to take vehicles. Mr. Wedoff asked if a creditor may stop a debtor from recovering property. He noted the debtor lacks a court order directing return. He argued the differences between statutes are insignificant.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The dispute centers on the Bankruptcy Code's automatic stay. Creditors claim lawful possession allows them to hold property. Debtors claim the stay prohibits any act to gain control over estate property.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 13, 2020.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Creditors want to keep seized property until a court orders its return.

Debtors want the immediate return of property seized before filing.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Creditors argue lawful possession is not an act to gain control.

Debtors argue directing a tow company is an act to gain control.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Chief Justice Roberts asked if exercising control is not an action.

Justice Thomas asked if Whiting Pools affects this case.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the scope of the automatic stay. It determines whether creditors must return seized property immediately. It affects the balance of power between debtors and creditors.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON