Cite as: Keith M. Lundin, Lundin On Chapter 13, § 66.4, at ¶ ____, LundinOnChapter13.com (last visited __________).
Neither the Code nor Rules apportion the burden of proof upon a request for relief from the codebtor stay. There is no provision of § 1301 analogous to § 362(g).1
It can be argued that the codebtor stay is an extraordinary statutory injunction that arises automatically and should be sustained over the opposition of the enjoined party only upon a showing of justification by the protected party. The reported decisions generally approach § 1301 the opposite way—as an obstacle to collection action that must be overcome by the creditor’s proof of a ground for relief.2 Creditor’s counsel should be prepared to go forward with evidence under § 1301(c). There is no indication in any of the cases that the standard of proof is other than a preponderance of the evidence.
1 See § 83.1 [ Application of § 362(d)(2) in Chapter 13 Cases ] § 64.5 Application of § 362(d)(2) in Chapter 13 Cases.
2 See In re Daniels, No. 02-82083 13, 2003 WL 1701043, at *2 (Bankr. M.D.N.C. Mar. 13, 2003) (unpublished) (“The creditor bears the burden of proof of showing the existence of irreparable harm” relief from the codebtor stay under § 1301(c)(3).); International Harvester Employee Credit Union v. Daniel, 13 B.R. 555 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1981); First Nat’l Exch. Bank v. Myers (In re Burton), 4 B.R. 608 (Bankr. W.D. Va. 1980); In re Lewis, Adv. No. 380-0597 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. Nov. 6, 1980).