City of Chicago v. Fulton
City of Chicago v. Fulton, 592 U.S. 154 (2021)
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Decided
- 2021-01-14
- Docket
- 19-357
What happened
Chicago impounded cars for unpaid fines. After the owners filed Chapter 13, the city kept the cars, and the owners said that violated the automatic stay.
What the court decided
The Supreme Court held that merely keeping property seized before the bankruptcy does not violate the stay provision in § 362(a)(3); the debtor must use the turnover process instead.
In the court's words
“mere retention of estate property after the filing of a bankruptcy petition does not violate §362(a)(3)”
Why it may matter to you
The stay stops new actions — like a foreclosure sale — but getting back something already taken requires a separate request to the bankruptcy court. File before the sale.
Why it might not apply
The Court decided only § 362(a)(3); other stay provisions and the turnover remedy remain.
Most useful when
- A creditor had your property before you filed bankruptcy and will not give it back
How to cite it
The full citation for the first time you mention it, a short form for later, and a sample sentence you can adapt.
City of Chicago v. Fulton, 592 U.S. 154 (2021)Short formFulton, 592 U.S. 154Draft — check it with free legal aid before you file or say it in court.
In City of Chicago v. Fulton, 592 U.S. 154 (2021), the court held that merely retaining estate property seized before the bankruptcy filing does not violate the automatic stay under § 362(a)(3). Here, [say in one sentence what happened in your case]
Ask Techy about this case
Techy explains the case in plain words, why it may matter to you, its limits, and how to prepare. It only uses this case record.
Related cases
- Partial winBinding
Taggart v. Lorenzen
587 U.S. 554 · Decided 2019
After Mr. Taggart's debts were discharged, creditors pursued him for attorney's fees. The lower courts said creditors acting in good faith could not be held in contempt.
Read the case - Homeowner wonBinding in federal court
Young v. Repine (In re Repine)
536 F.3d 512 · Decided 2008
After Mr. Repine filed bankruptcy, a lawyer kept pursuing collection against him in state court. The bankruptcy court found a willful stay violation and awarded damages and fees.
Read the case - Homeowner wonBinding
Till v. SCS Credit Corp.
541 U.S. 465 · Decided 2004
The Tills proposed a Chapter 13 plan paying their truck lender at 9.5% — the prime rate plus a risk adjustment. The lender wanted its 21% contract rate.
Read the case