Connection lost
Server error
UNITED SAVINGS ASSN. v. TIMBERS OF INWOOD FOREST Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: The Supreme Court held that an undersecured creditor in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy is not entitled to receive interest payments for the delay caused by the automatic stay. The creditor’s protected “interest in property” is the value of the collateral, not the right to immediate foreclosure.
Legal Significance: This case definitively established that “adequate protection” under the Bankruptcy Code protects an undersecured creditor from a decline in collateral value during the automatic stay, but does not compensate for lost opportunity costs (i.e., interest payments for the delay in foreclosure).
UNITED SAVINGS ASSN. v. TIMBERS OF INWOOD FOREST Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Respondent, Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd., filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Petitioner, United Savings Association, was an undersecured creditor, holding a security interest in an apartment project owned by the debtor. The debt owed to the petitioner was approximately $4.3 million, while the collateral’s value was estimated to be between $2.65 million and $4.25 million. The petitioner moved for relief from the automatic stay imposed by 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), arguing that it was not receiving “adequate protection” for its interest in the property as required by § 362(d)(1). The petitioner contended that its “interest in property” included the right to take immediate possession of the collateral, foreclose, and reinvest the proceeds. Therefore, it argued, adequate protection required the debtor to make periodic payments equivalent to the interest it could have earned on the foreclosure proceeds. The Bankruptcy Court and District Court sided with the petitioner, but the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc, reversed.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the term “interest in property” in 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) entitle an undersecured creditor to compensation for the delay caused by the automatic stay in foreclosing on its collateral?
No. The Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit, holding that an undersecured creditor Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cil
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does the term “interest in property” in 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) entitle an undersecured creditor to compensation for the delay caused by the automatic stay in foreclosing on its collateral?
Conclusion
This landmark decision resolved a circuit split and clarified a fundamental principle Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex e
Legal Rule
The "interest in property" protected by 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) is the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore e
Legal Analysis
Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Scalia employed a holistic approach to Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco lab
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Holding: An undersecured creditor is not entitled to interest payments for