In Re Atl. Bus. & Cmty. Corp., 901 F.2d 325 (3rd Cir. 1990). · Go Syfert
In Re Atl. Bus. & Cmty. Corp., 901 F.2d 325 (3rd Cir. 1990). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
395 citation events (220 in the last 25 years) across 86 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Farmers Bank & Trust Co. v. Wells (In re Wells) (areb, 2015-08-14) · Strongest negative: Bankvest Capital Corp. v. Boston (In Re Bankvest Capital Corp.) (mab, 2002-04-18)
Treatment trajectory · 1990 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1990 2008 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "but see" Bankvest Capital Corp. v. Boston (In Re Bankvest Capital Corp.)
Bankr. D. Mass. · 2002 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see In re Atlantic Business and Community Corp., 901 F.2d 325, 329 (3d Cir.1990); Budget Service Co. v. Better Homes of Va., Inc., 804 F.2d 289 , 292 (4th Cir.1986).
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Farmers Bank & Trust Co. v. Wells (In re Wells)
Bankr. E.D. Ark. · 2015 · signal: see, e.g. · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
a possessory interest in real property is within the ambit of the estate in bankruptcy under section -541, and thus the protection of the automatic stay of section 362
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Rushton v. Bank of Utah (In re C.W. Mining Co.)
10th Cir. BAP · 2012 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
although section 362(h) refers to an individual, the section has uniformly been held to be applicable to a corporate debtor.
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) St. Clair v. Beneficial Mortgage Co. (In Re St. Clair) (8×) also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
D.N.J. · 2000 · signal: accord · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
the language of section 362 makes clear that mere possession of property at the time of filing is sufficient to invoke the protections of the automatic stay.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Shane Michael Myers
Bankr. W.D. Ky. · 2021 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
a possessory interest in real property is within the ambit of the estate in bankruptcy under section 541, and this the protection of the automatic stay of section 362
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Oya v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A.
S.D. Cal. · 2019 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
e agree with 9 the district court that the actions taken by cuffee violated the automatic stay provisions of 10 section 362(a)(3) of the bankruptcy code.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Boltz-Rubinstein v. Bank of Am. (In re Boltz-Rubinstein)
Bankr. E.D. Pa. · 2019 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the statute provides for damages upon a finding that the defendant knew of the automatic stay and that the defendant's actions which violated the stay were intentional
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Odom v. Philadelphia Parking Authority (In re Odom)
Bankr. E.D. Pa. · 2017 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the statute provides for damages upon a finding that the defendant knew of the automatic stay and that the defendant's actions which violated the stay were intentional
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Majestic Star Casino, LLC v. Barden Development, Inc. (3×) also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
3rd Cir. · 2013 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
e hold that a debtor's possession of a tenancy at sufferance creates a property interest as defined under section 541, and is protected by section 362....
cited Cited as authority (rule) Black Diamond Energy of Delaware, Inc.
Bankr. W.D. Pa. · 2024 · confidence medium
Bus. & Cmty. Corp., 901 F.2d at 329; Roberts v. Vara (In re Roberts), No. 21-20618-JAD, 2024 WL 2050561 , at *11 n.11 (Bankr.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Scungio Borst and Associates LLC
Bankr. E.D. Pa. · 2023 · confidence medium
Cuffee, 901 F.2d at 329.
examined Cited as authority (rule) Belarminio Peralta v. (3×)
3rd Cir. · 2022 · confidence medium
Id. at 328.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) TOY QUEST LTD. v. ASI, INC. (2×) also: Cited "see"
D.N.J. · 2019 · confidence medium
Id. 4 See also In re Kane, 628 F.3d 631, 637 (3d Cir. 2010) (“we have emphasized that Section 541(a) ‘was intended to sweep broadly to include all kinds of property, including tangible or intangible property, and causes of action.’”) (quoting Westmoreland Human Opportunities, Inc. v. Walsh, 246 F.3d 233, 241 (3d Cir. 2001)); In re Atlantic Business and Community Corp., 901 F.2d 325, 327 (3d Cir. 1990) (observing that “the legislative history [of § 541] relates that the intended scope of this section is broad,” and holding that “a possessory interest in real property is within th…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Internal Revenue Service v. Murphy
1st Cir. · 2018 · confidence medium
Bus. & Cmty. Corp., 901 F.2d at 329; see also Pinkstaff v. United States (In re Pinkstaff), 974 F.2d 113, 115 (9th Cir. 1992) ("As it is undisputed that the IRS acted with knowledge of the bankruptcy filing, it necessarily follows that the government willfully violated the automatic stay." (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Castle Service, LLC
Bankr. D. Utah · 2016 · confidence medium
Bus. & Cmty. Corp.), 901 F.2d 325, 328 (3d Cir. 1990) ("a possessory interest in real property [including a tenancy at sufferance] is within the ambit of the estate in bankruptcy under Section 541, and thus the protection of the automatic stay of Section 362.”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jahn v. Bacon (In re East Tech Co.)
Bankr. E.D. Tenn. · 2015 · confidence medium
The court joined the Second and Third Circuit Courts of Appeals “in holding that a tenancy at sufferance is a possessory interest in real property within the scope of the estate in bankruptcy under section 541.” Id. (relying on In re 48th Street Steakhouse, Inc., 835 F.2d 427 , 430 (2d Cir.1987) and In re Atlantic Business and Community Corp., 901 F.2d 325, 325 (3d Cir.1990)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) North Central Pennsylvania Regional Planning & Development Commission v. Eckert (In re Watson)
Bankr. M.D. Penn. · 2014 · confidence medium
In re Atlantic Business and Community Corp., 901 F.2d 325, 329 (3rd Cir.1990).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Buncher Co. v. Flabeg Solar US Corp. (In re Flabeg Solar US Corp.) (2×)
Bankr. W.D. Pa. · 2013 · confidence medium
Clearly, “[t]he scope of the automatic stay is undeniably broad.” See Cuffee v. Atlantic Business and Community Development Corp. (In re Atlantic Business and Community Corp.), 901 F.2d 325, 327 (3d Cir.1990).
cited Cited as authority (rule) In re Lehigh Valley Properties, Inc.
Bankr. E.D. Pa. · 2012 · confidence medium
Bus. and Cmty. Corp.), 901 F.2d 325, 328 (3d Cir.1990); see also In re Dunlop, 378 B.R. 85, 91 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.2007). .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Moore v. Complete Cash Holdings, LLC (In Re Moore) (2×)
Bankr. N.D. Ga. · 2011 · confidence medium
E.g., Convenient Food Mart No. 144, Inc. v. Convenient Industries of America, Inc. (In re Convenient Food Mart No. 144, Inc.), 968 F.2d 592 (6th Cir.1992); In re Atlantic Business and Community Corporation, 901 F.2d 325, 328 (3d Cir.1990); 48th Street Steakhouse, Inc. v. Rockefeller Group, Inc. (In re 48th Street Steakhouse, Inc.), 835 F.2d 427, 430 (2d Cir.1987) ("[A] mere possessory interest in real property, without any accompanying legal interest, is sufficient to trigger the protection of the automatic stay.”); In re Di Giorgio, 200 B.R. 664, 672 (C.D.Cal.1996), vacated as moot, 134 F.3…
cited Cited as authority (rule) McCool v. Beneficial (In Re McCool)
Bankr. N.D. Ohio · 2010 · confidence medium
Id; In re Atlantic Business and Community Corp., 901 F.2d 325, 327 (3rd Cir.1990).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kline v. Tiedemann (In Re Kline)
Bankr. D.N.M. · 2010 · confidence medium
See also Campbell v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 545 F.3d 348 , 354 (5th Cir.2008); Eskanos & Adler, P.C. v. Leetien, 309 F.3d 1210 (9th Cir. 2002); In re Crysen/Montenay Energy Co., 902 F.2d 1098, 1104-05 (2nd Cir.1990); In re Atlantic Business and Community Corp., 901 F.2d 325, 328 (3rd Cir.1990). 21 .
examined Cited as authority (rule) In Re Nixon (3×)
Bankr. E.D. Pa. · 2009 · confidence medium
Corp., 901 F.2d at 329; see also In re Johnson, 501 F.3d 1163, 1171-72 (10th Cir.2007).
cited Cited as authority (rule) In Re Panek
Bankr. D. Mass. · 2009 · confidence medium
Corp. (In re Atlantic Business and Community Corp.), 901 F.2d 325, 329 (3d Cir.1990).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Brooks
Bankr. E.D. Pa. · 2009 · confidence medium
The Third Circuit has defined willful as "an intentional or deliberate act done with knowledge that the act is in violation of the stay” and stated that damages are appropriate “upon a finding that the defendant knew of the automatic stay and that the defendant’s actions which violated the stay were intentional.” In re Atlantic Business and Community Corp., 901 F.2d 325, 329 (3d.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Spinner v. Cash in a Hurry, LLC (In Re Spinner)
Bankr. N.D. Ga. · 2008 · confidence medium
Corp. (In re Atlantic Business and Community Corp.), 901 F.2d 325, 329 (3d Cir.1990).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Pico Vidal v. Ruiz Alvarado (2×)
D.P.R. · 2007 · confidence medium
Neither Mrs. Vidal nor Appellant moved the Bankruptcy Court to lift the stay before seeking to evict the Debtors. “[C]ourts have recognized that a tenant’s possessory interest in property is included in the bankruptcy estate when the bankruptcy petition is filed and thus the landlord must seek relief from the automatic stay prior to terminating the lease or instituting eviction proceedings.” McAdam v. Lorden, 2005 WL 2340739 *4 (D.N.H.2005) (citing In re Atlantic Bus. and Cmty. Corp., 901 F.2d 325, 328 (3d Cir.1990); In re 48th St.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Johnson v. Smith (In Re Johnson)
10th Cir. · 2007 · confidence medium
Bus. & Cmty. Corp. ), 901 F.2d 325, 329 (3d Cir.1990); Knaus v. Concordia Lumber Co. (In re Knaus), 889 F.2d 773, 775 (8th Cir.1989); Goichman v. Bloom (In re Bloom), 875 F.2d 224, 227 (9th Cir.1989).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Williams
Bankr. E.D. Pa. · 2007 · confidence medium
Cuffee v. Atlantic Business and Community Corp. (In re Atlantic Business and Community Corp.), 901 F.2d 325, 328 (3d Cir.1990) (a debtor’s bare possessory interest in real property is property of the estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541 and is thus protected from being taken under 362(a)(3)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Singer
Bankr. E.D. Pa. · 2007 · confidence medium
Willfulness in the context of a stay violation has been interpreted by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to mean “an intentional or deliberate act done with knowledge that the act is in violation of the stay.” Cuffee v. Atlantic Business and Community Development Corp. (In re Atlantic Business and Community Development Corp.), 901 F.2d 325, 329 (3d Cir.1990).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Green Tree Servicing, LLC v. Taylor (Taylor) (2×)
S.D.W. Va · 2007 · confidence medium
Group, Inc. v. Kaneb, 196 F.3d 265, 268-269 (1st Cir.1999); In re Lansdale Family Restaurants, Inc., 977 F.2d 826, 829 (3d Cir.1992); In re Atlantic Business and Community Corp., 901 F.2d at 329; In re Bloom, 875 F.2d at 227 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Jester
Bankr. E.D. Pa. · 2006 · confidence medium
Willfulness in the context of a stay violation has been interpreted by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to mean “an intentional or deliberate act done with knowledge that the act is in violation of the stay.” Cuffee v. Atlantic Business and Community Development Corp. (In re Atlantic Business and Community Development Corp.), 901 F.2d 325, 329 (3d Cir.1990).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Steward
Bankr. D.N.J. · 2006 · confidence medium
Rather, the statute provides for damages upon a finding that the defendant knew of the automatic stay and that the defendant’s actions which violated the stay were intentional.” In re Atlantic Bus. and Cmty. Corp., 901 F.2d 325, 329 (3d Cir.1990).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Allen v. Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, N.A.
D.D.C. · 2005 · confidence medium
Corp., 901 F.2d 325, 329 (3d Cir.1990)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Theresa McAdam v. Raymond Lorden, Individually and as trustee of the REL Revocable Trust
D.N.H. · 2005 · confidence medium
In re Atlantic Bus, and Cmty. Corp., 901 F.2d 325, 328 (3d Cir. 1990); In re 48th St.
cited Cited as authority (rule) In Re Peregrine Systems, Inc.
Bankr. D. Del. · 2004 · confidence medium
In re University Medical Center, 973 F.2d 1065 , 1088 (3d Cir.1992), citing In re Atlantic Business and Community Corp., 901 F.2d 325, 329 (3d Cir.1990).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Schafer
Bankr.D. Colo. · 2004 · confidence medium
See also, Goichman v. Bloom (In re Bloom), 875 F.2d 224, 227 (9th Cir.1989); In re Crysen/Montenay Energy Co., 902 F.2d 1098 (2d Cir.1990); In re Atlantic Bus. and Cmty. Corp., 901 F.2d 325, 329 (3rd Cir.1990); Budget Serv.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Smith v. Homes Today, Inc. (In Re Smith)
Bankr. M.D. Ala. · 2003 · confidence medium
Corp. (In re Atlantic Business and Community Corp.), 901 F.2d 325, 329 (3d Cir.1990).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Montgomery Ward, LLC v. Wiseknit Factory, Ltd. (In Re Montgomery Ward, LLC)
Bankr. D. Del. · 2003 · confidence medium
Corp.), 901 F.2d 325, 329 (3d Cir.1990). 8 As discussed above, Wiseknit’s pursuit of its contract claim violated the automatic stay.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Peterson (2×)
Bankr. W.D.N.C. · 2003 · confidence medium
See, Budget Service Co. v. Better Homes of Virginia, Inc., 804 F.2d 289, 292-93 (4th Cir.1986); In re Atlantic Business and Community Corp., 901 F.2d 325, 328 (3rd Cir.1990); In re Hamrick, 175 B.R. at 893 ; In re Shealy, 90 B.R. 176, 179 (Bankr.W.D.N.C.1988).
examined Cited as authority (rule) In Re Gagliardi (3×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Bankr.D. Colo. · 2003 · confidence medium
In re Atlantic Bus. & Cmty. Corp., 901 F.2d at 328. 24 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Diamond Industrial Corp. v. Alakrah (In Re Diamond Industrial Corp.)
D.V.I. · 2003 · confidence medium
Cuffee v. Atlantic Business and Community Development Corp. (In re Atlantic Business and Community Development Corp.), 901 F.2d 325, 329 (3d Cir.1990).
cited Cited as authority (rule) In Re Ocasio
1st Cir. BAP · 2002 · confidence medium
Corp. (In re Atlantic Business and Community Corp.), 901 F.2d 325, 329 (3d Cir.1990).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Varela v. Ocasio (In re Ocasio)
1st Cir. BAP · 2002 · confidence medium
Corp. (In re Atlantic Business and Community Corp.), 901 F.2d 325, 329 (3d Cir. 1990).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Pardo v. Pacificare of Texas, Inc. (In Re APF Co.)
Bankr. D. Del. · 2001 · confidence medium
Corp. (In re Atlantic Business and Community Corp.), 901 F.2d 325, 329 (3d Cir.1990) (“Although Section 362(h) refers to an individual, the section has uniformly been held to be applicable to a corporate debtor”) citing Budget Service Co. v. Better Homes of Va., 804 F.2d 289 , 292 (4th Cir.1986).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cherry v. Arendall (In Re Cherry)
Bankr. E.D. Va. · 2000 · confidence medium
Business & Community Corp., 901 F.2d at 329; Crysen Montenay Energy Co. v. Esselen Assoc., Inc. (In re Crysen Montenay Energy Co.), 902 F.2d 1098, 1105 (2nd Cir.1990); Goichman v. Bloom (In re Bloom), 875 F.2d 224, 227 (9th Cir. 1989). 17 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Fleet Mortgage Group, Inc. v. Kaneb
1st Cir. · 1999 · confidence medium
Corp. (In re Atlantic Business and Community Corp.), 901 F.2d 325, 329 (3d Cir.1990).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Diviney v. Nationsbank of Texas (In Re Diviney)
10th Cir. BAP · 1998 · confidence medium
Corp. (In re Atlantic Bus. and Community Corp.), 901 F.2d 325, 329 (3rd Cir.1990).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Krystal Cadillac Oldsmobile GMC Truck, Inc. v. General Motors Corp. (In Re Krystal Cadillac Oldsmobile GMC Truck, Inc.)
3rd Cir. · 1998 · confidence medium
In re Atlantic Bus. and Community Corp., 901 F.2d 325, 327 (3d Cir.1990); Association of St.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In Re Atlantic Business and Community Corporation, a Corporation of the State of New Jersey, Debtor. James Cuffee
v.
Atlantic Business and Community Development Corporation, a Corporation of the State of New Jersey. Appeal of James E. Cuffee
89-5812.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Apr 18, 1990.
901 F.2d 325

901 F.2d 325

58 USLW 2675, 22 Collier Bankr.Cas.2d 1176,
20 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 637, Bankr. L. Rep. P 73,341

In re ATLANTIC BUSINESS AND COMMUNITY CORPORATION, a
Corporation of the State of New Jersey, Debtor.
James CUFFEE
v.
ATLANTIC BUSINESS AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a
Corporation of the State of New Jersey.
Appeal of James E. CUFFEE.

No. 89-5812.

United States Court of Appeals,
Third Circuit.

Submitted Under Third Circuit Rule 12(6)
Feb. 26, 1990.
Decided April 18, 1990.

Eugene T. McTague, Jr., David W. MacGregor, Proskauer, Rose, Goetz & Mendelsohn, Clifton, N.J., for appellant.

Nona L. Ostrove, Subranni & Ostrove, Atlantic City, N.J., for appellee.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, Chief Judge, and HUTCHINSON and COWEN, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

COWEN, Circuit Judge.

[*~325]1

Appellant, James E. Cuffee ("Cuffee"), appeals from an order of the district court which affirmed a determination of the bankruptcy court that he violated the automatic stay provision of 11 U.S.C. Sec. 362(a)(3) (1988), held him in contempt, and assessed punitive and compensatory damages under Section 362(h). The district court held that appellee's tenancy at sufferance created a property interest protected by Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code. The district court also held that Cuffee's actions in regard to damages under Section 362(h) were properly assessed for willful violation of the automatic stay. We agree with these conclusions and will affirm the decision of the district court. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 (1982).

I.

2

On May 15, 1986, the debtor-appellee, Atlantic Business Community Development Corporation ("ABCD") filed a petition in bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. Following ABCD's filing of its petition in bankruptcy, it continued to operate a radio station in Atlantic City, New Jersey, known as WUSS-AM. Cuffee was the owner of the building, studio equipment, office furnishings and record albums used by ABCD in its business. ABCD originally entered into possession of the premises and equipment with Cuffee's permission. ABCD's trustee in bankruptcy appointed a custodian for the property, Kevin Hall ("Hall").

3

In April of 1988, Cuffee had a letter delivered to Hall which stated in pertinent part: "This is to advise you that effective immediately radio station WUSS can no longer use the premises located at 1500 Absecon Boulevard, Atlantic City, New Jersey 08401 or the transmitter for its operations." App. at 43a. Thereafter, Cuffee tried to repossess the radio station and to evict ABCD from the premises. For example, he installed locks on the doors of the studio during the early hours of the morning while station personnel were on the premises.

4

As a result of these actions, the trustee filed an order requiring Cuffee to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for violating the automatic stay provision. On April 27, 1988, the bankruptcy court entered an order restraining Cuffee from further interference with the operation of the radio station and ordering him to allow the trustee free access to the studio. Even in the face of this order, Cuffee continued his efforts to take possession of the radio station and transmitter. Station personnel discovered larger locks on the door to the studio. Cuffee also threatened to secure the studio with station personnel in it if the premises were not vacated.

5

In his own testimony Cuffee admitted to these actions, but claimed they were justified because of his concern over the safety and security of the studio, and an alleged lack of insurance coverage by the bankruptcy estate. Because of the disturbance caused by Cuffee, the trustee ordered station personnel to cease broadcast operations in order to prevent any risk of injury. The trustee claimed that as a result of being forced off the air, the debtor lost approximately $8,600.00 in commercial revenues.

[*~326]6

Because Cuffee placed additional locks on the studio, the bankruptcy court found that Cuffee had violated the automatic stay provisions of Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code. The court further found that Cuffee had acted willfully, and assessed compensatory damages of $1,500.00 for lost advertising revenue, and punitive damages of $5,000.00 based on a finding that Cuffee "acted with willfulness and wantonness in effectuating a lockout of the station." App. at 53a-57a. The court also awarded attorney's fees and costs.

7

On appeal, the district court affirmed the judgment of the bankruptcy court. Cuffee now appeals to this Court. The district court's conclusions of law are subject to plenary review by this Court. We review findings of fact under the clearly erroneous standard. Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a).

II.

A.

8

Cuffee argues on this appeal that since ABCD was a mere tenant at sufferance, Cuffee's termination of that tenancy should not constitute a violation of the automatic stay under Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code. The threshold issue in this case is whether the interest of the debtor in the radio station and transmitter, even under a tenancy at sufferance, constitutes a protected property interest under Section 362.

9

Subsection 362(a)(3) provides that the filing of a Chapter 11 petition operates as a stay of "[a]ny act to obtain possession of property of the estate or of property from the estate...." 11 U.S.C. Sec. 362(a)(3) (1988). The scope of the automatic stay is undeniably broad.

10

The automatic stay is one of the fundamental debtor protections provided by the bankruptcy laws. It gives the debtor a breathing spell from his creditors. It stops all collection efforts, all harassment, and all foreclosure actions.... The automatic stay also provides creditor protection. Without it, certain creditors would be able to pursue their own remedies against the debtor's property. Those who acted first would obtain payment of the claims in preference to and to the detriment of other creditors. Bankruptcy is designed to provide an orderly liquidation procedure under which all creditors are treated equally.

[*~327]11

H.R.Rep. No. 595, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 340 (1977), reprinted in 1978 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 6296. The term "property of the estate" is defined in 11 U.S.C. Sec. 541 (1988), which provides in pertinent part that the estate is comprised of "... all legal and equitable interests of the debtor in property as of the commencement of the case." Id. Sec. 541(a)(1). The legislative history relates that the intended scope of this section is broad. See United States v. Whiting Pools, Inc., 462 U.S. 198, 205, 103 S.Ct. 2309, 2313, 76 L.Ed.2d 515 (1988). "It includes all kinds of property, ... tangible or intangible...." H.R. Rep. 595, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 367 (1977), reprinted in 1978 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 5787, 6323.

12

Cuffee argues that ABCD's access to and opportunity to use the subject equipment, property, and premises is not a protectable property interest as defined by Section 541 and protected by Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code. Although the issue before us has not previously been addressed by this circuit, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in In Re 48th St. Steakhouse, Inc., 835 F.2d 427, 430 (2d Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1035, 108 S.Ct. 1596, 99 L.Ed.2d 910 (1988), has held that "mere possessory interest in real property, without any accompanying legal interest, is sufficient to trigger protection of the automatic stay." See also Matter of Gsvc Restaurant Corp., 3 B.R. 491, 494 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 10 B.R. 300 (S.D.N.Y.1980).

13

In 48th St. Steakhouse, the debtor purchased a restaurant business named Charley O's. Charley O's leased the premises from the creditor. Thereafter, the creditor entered into a new lease with the debtor. The debtor then assigned its lease of the premises to I.S.H. Liquidating Corp., an affiliate of Charley O's. The debtor remained in continuous possession of the premises and paid rent directly to the creditor, until it filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition. The creditor sent a notice of default to I.S.H. which stated that if the rent was not paid within five days, the creditor would terminate the lease. The Court held that: "The 48th Street lease constituted property of the bankrupt estate under 11 U.S.C. Sec. 541, and therefore, the creditor's attempt to terminate the lease as to I.S.H. violated the debtor's right to an automatic stay of 'any act to obtain possession of property of the estate.' 11 U.S.C. Sec. 362(a)(3)." 48th St. Steakhouse, 835 F.2d at 2129.

[*~328]14

We join with the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in holding that a possessory interest in real property is within the ambit of the estate in bankruptcy under Section 541, and thus the protection of the automatic stay of Section 362. See In re 48th St. Steakhouse, 61 B.R. 182, 187 (S.D.N.Y.1986), aff'd, 835 F.2d 427 (2d Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1035, 108 S.Ct. 1596, 99 L.Ed.2d 910 (1988). Accord In Re Turbowind, Inc., 42 B.R. 579, 585 (Bankr.S.D.Cal.1984); Matter of Marcott, 30 B.R. 633, 636 (Bankr.W.D.Wis.1983).

15

Applying the above principles to the facts of this case, we hold that a debtor's possession of a tenancy at sufferance creates a property interest as defined under Section 541, and is protected by Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code.[1] The language of Section 362 makes clear that mere possession of property at the time of filing is sufficient to invoke the protections of the automatic stay. The record reveals that at the time of filing the Chapter 11 petition the debtor was effectively in possession of the radio station and transmitter with Cuffee's permission, and therefore had an interest in property protected by section 362(a)(3). Cuffee took measures to evict ABCD from the premises by locking its employees out. Because ABCD's possession of property, even under a tenancy at sufferance, is an interest protected by Section 362(a)(3), we agree with the district court that the actions taken by Cuffee violated the automatic stay provisions of Section 362(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code.

B.

16

The debtor seeks sanctions under Section 362(h) for Cuffee's violation of the automatic stay. Cuffee argues that, even if this Court were to hold that he violated the automatic stay, his actions were not done in bad faith and should not be the basis for an assessment of compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorney's fees and costs. Section 362(h) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that "[a]n individual injured by any willful violation of a stay provided by this section shall recover actual damages, including costs and attorneys' fees, and, in appropriate circumstances, may recover punitive damages." 11 U.S.C. Sec. 362(h) (1988) (emphasis added). Section 362(h) requires a finding of a willful violation of the stay. Cuffee contends that his actions were not willful within the meaning of Section 362(h).[2] Cuffee's position is untenable given the actions which he engaged in to evict his tenant.

[*329]17

Although Section 362(h) refers to an individual, the section has uniformly been held to be applicable to a corporate debtor. See Budget Service Co. v. Better Homes of Va., 804 F.2d 289, 292 (4th Cir.1986). This court has not previously defined "willful" as it is used in subsection (h). A useful definition, with which we agree, was enunciated by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in In Re Bloom, 875 F.2d 224, 227 (9th Cir.1989). In In Re Bloom, the Court held that:

[*~328]18

A 'willful violation' does not require a specific intent to violate the automatic stay. Rather, the statute provides for damages upon a finding that the defendant knew of the automatic stay and that the defendant's actions which violated the stay were intentional. Whether the party believes in good faith that it had a right to the property is not relevant to whether the act was 'willful' or whether compensation must be awarded.

19

In Re Bloom, 875 F.2d at 227 [quoting INSLAW, Inc. v. United States, 83 B.R. 89, 165 (Bankr.D.D.C.1988).] See also Budget Service Co. v. Better Homes of Va., 804 F.2d 289, 290 (4th Cir.1986) ("Sanctions were properly assessed against lessor for willful violation of automatic stay, based on ample evidence to support conclusion that lessor knew of pending petition and intentionally attempted to repossess vehicles in spite of it."). The bankruptcy courts have construed "willful" as used in the code to mean an intentional or deliberate act done with knowledge that the act is in violation of the stay. See In Re Tel-A-Communications Consultants, Inc., 50 B.R. 250, 254 (Bankr.D.Conn.1985); In Re Forty-Eight Insulations, Inc., 54 B.R. 905, 909 (Bankr.N.D.Ill.1985). Punitive damages may also be awarded where the conduct was in bad faith.

20

Cuffee's actions clearly satisfy our definition of willful. Notwithstanding Cuffee's claim that he acted in good faith, there is ample evidence to support the conclusion that he acted intentionally and with knowledge of the automatic stay as a result of the pending bankruptcy proceedings. Cuffee took affirmative action to prevent ABCD from gaining access to the studio property, causing a cessation in operations and a loss of advertising revenue. Even after the bankruptcy court entered an order restraining Cuffee from further interference with the operations of the radio station, he continued efforts to take possession of the radio station and transmitter. The finding of fact that Cuffee willfully violated the automatic stay so as to warrant the imposition of punitive damages, attorney's fees and costs was not clearly erroneous.

III.

21

The order of the district court will be affirmed in all respects. Costs taxed against appellant.

1

For the purpose of this appeal, we accept the contention of the parties that ABCD was a tenant at sufferance

2

As a preliminary matter it should be noted that Cuffee does not contest the district court's finding that the bankruptcy estate was harmed as a result of his action. Thus, the first requirement for the award of damages under Section 362(h) has been met