Nguyen Win Properties LLC

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
IN RE:
NGUYEN WIN PROPERTIES LLC,
Debtor.
Case No. 25-11795-T
Chapter 11
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM AUTOMATIC STAY AND
ABANDONMENT OF PROPERTY
THIS MATTER comes before the Court pursuant to the Motion for Relief from Automatic
Stay and Abandonment of Property (“the Motion”), filed by Dominion Financial Services LLC
(“Movant”); 1 and the Objection to the Motion, filed by Nguyen Win Properties LLC (the
“Debtor”). 2 The Court held an evidentiary hearing on the Motion on April 27, 2026 (the
“Hearing”). After receiving evidence and hearing argument, the Court took the Motion under
advisement. The following “Findings of Fact” and “Conclusions of Law” are being made pursuant
to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7052, which is made applicable to this contested matter
pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9014.
Jurisdiction
The Court has jurisdiction over this bankruptcy case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b). 3
Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1409. Reference to the Court of the bankruptcy case is
proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a). Matters related to modification of the automatic stay are
core proceedings as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(G).
1 ECF No. 77.
2 ECF No. 83.
3 Unless otherwise noted, all statutory references are to sections of the United States
Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.
-T
Filed/Docketed
May 04, 2026
Case 25-11795-T Document 269 Filed in USBC ND/OK on 05/04/26 Page 1 of 9

2
Findings of Fact
Debtor purports to own and operate a portfolio of residential real estate properties that
generate income in the form of rental payments and contract-for-deed payments. 4 On December
20, 2023, Debtor executed a Commercial Promissory Note in favor of Movant (the “Note”). 5 The
Note was accompanied by a Construction Addendum (the “Addendum”). 6 The stated amount of
the loan was $186,000 (the “Loaned Amount”). The Note listed real property described as 9533
East 136th Street South, Bixby, Oklahoma (the “Property”) as collateral for the loan. Debtor
described the arrangement as a “Construction Loan.” Counsel for Movant described it as a “Dutch
Interest Loan.” Under the terms of the Note and Addendum, $130,000 (the “Disbursed Amount”)
was immediately disbursed to Debtor, while $56,000 (the “Withheld Amount”) was withheld by
Movant, to be used exclusively to fund construction and related expenses associated with the
Property. The Withheld Amount was to be disbursed pursuant to an itemized draw schedule and
budget approved by both Debtor and Movant. Consistent with the “Dutch Interest Loan” format,
interest was calculated on the entire Loaned Amount, not just the Disbursed Amount. 7
In conjunction with the Note and Addendum, Debtor executed a Mortgage, Assignment of
Rents, and Security Agreement (the “Security Agreement”). 8 The Security Agreement was duly
recorded and filed with the Tulsa County Clerk on December 27, 2023. For some amount of time
after executing the Note, Addendum, and Security Agreement, Debtor made regular payments to
Movant towards the Note. At some point, Debtor and Movant had a disagreement about the
4 ECF No. 266 at 1.
5 Movant’s Ex. 1-1.
6 Movant’s Ex. 1-9.
7 Movant’s Ex. 1-14, Addendum, at ¶ 6.6.
8 Movant’s Ex. 2.
Case 25-11795-T Document 269 Filed in USBC ND/OK on 05/04/26 Page 2 of 9

3
calculation of interest on the Note, causing Movant to declare a default which triggered its default
interest rate under the terms of the Note, in addition to various fees and expenses. Movant later
began foreclosure proceedings against Debtor and the Property in Tulsa County District Court.
Debtor reports making a payment on December 1, 2025, of $1,842.02 to Movant toward its loan
secured by the Property. 9
On August 28, 2024, a Contract for Deed for the sale of the Property, naming Debtor as
Seller and Juan Pablo Almendares as Buyer, was filed with the Tulsa County Clerk (the
“Almendares Contract”). 10 On July 8, 2025, a Quit Claim Deed was filed with the Tulsa County
Clerk in which Almendares transferred all of his interest in the Property back to Debtor. 11
Debtor filed a voluntary petition under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code on November
24, 2025 (the “Petition Date”). Debtor scheduled the claim of Movant, in the amount of $130,000,
as being disputed. 12 As of the Petition Date, Movant asserts that it was owed $183,824.28. 13 Debtor
describes its interest in the Property as “Fee Simple,” and values its interest in the Property at
$200,000. 14 Debtor’s schedules indicate the Property is subject to an executory contract, which
Debtor describes as a contract for deed, with “Casey Casillas.” 15 Debtor’s records show that as of
December 2025, “rent” on the Property of $2,778.41 was due but unpaid. 16 As of January 6, 2026,
Debtor’s Accounts Receivable record shows the account for the Property is 62 days overdue with
9 ECF No. 132-1, at 3.
10 Movant’s Ex. 3.
11 Movant’s Ex. 6.
12 ECF No. 55, at 42.
13 Claim No. 65-1; Movant’s Ex. 7.
14 ECF No. 55, at 6.
15 ECF No. 55, at 117.
16 ECF No. 132-1, at 22.
Case 25-11795-T Document 269 Filed in USBC ND/OK on 05/04/26 Page 3 of 9

4
“Rent Outstanding” as $2,778.41. 17
At the Hearing, Bao Quoc Mai Nguyen, also known as Paul Nguyen (“Mr. Nguyen”)
testified on behalf of Debtor. Mr. Nguyen is both the sole owner of Debtor and acting
representative of Debtor as a Debtor In Possession. 18 Mr. Nguyen testified that the Property was
not currently subject to a contract for deed. In Debtor’s Objection to the Motion, it stated that the
Property is “the homestead of Casey Nasario Cassillas and Adolfo Cassillas who are purchasing
the Property on a contract for deed.” 19 Despite Mr. Nguyen’s testimony, in a colloquy with the
Court, Debtor’s counsel confirmed that the Property is currently occupied and subject to a contract
for deed, but the buyers under the contract are not making payments to Debtor.
To the extent that “Conclusions of Law” contain items that should more appropriately be
considered “Findings of Fact,” they are incorporated herein by this reference.
Conclusions of Law
Movant seeks relief from the automatic stay to proceed in a foreclosure action against the
Property in the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Movant states that it “will suffer
irreparable injury, loss and damage unless the automatic stay is terminated,” but does not otherwise
indicate the grounds for the relief it seeks, including which section of § 362 is applicable to the
Motion. Section 362(d) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that:
On request of a party in interest and after notice and a hearing, the court shall grant
relief from the stay provided under subsection (a) of this section, such as by
terminating, annulling, modifying, or conditioning such stay—
(1) for cause, including the lack of adequate protection of an interest in
property of such party in interest;
17 ECF No. 133-1, at 19.
18 ECF No. 80 at 3.
19 ECF No. 83, at 1.
Case 25-11795-T Document 269 Filed in USBC ND/OK on 05/04/26 Page 4 of 9

5
(2) with respect to a stay of an act against property under subsection (a) of this
section, if--
(A) the debtor does not have an equity in such property; and
(B) such property is not necessary to an effective reorganization[.] 20
Section 362(g) allocates the burden of proof of each of the above elements as follows:
In any hearing under subsection (d) or (e) of this section concerning relief from the
stay of any act under subsection (a) of this section--
(1) the party requesting such relief has the burden of proof on the issue of the
debtor's equity in property; and
(2) the party opposing such relief has the burden of proof on all other issues. 21
Upon filing a relief from stay motion, the initial burden going forward to show the grounds
that compel the lifting of the stay rests with the creditor. 22 Once grounds have been established,
the moving party has the burden of proof that debtor lacks equity in the property. The burden for
all other issues rests with the debtor. 23
1. 	Movant is not entitled to relief from the automatic stay under § 362(d)(1)
To obtain relief under § 362(d)(1), Movant must demonstrate “cause” for granting relief.
While Debtor has the ultimate burden of proof on the issue of cause, Movant has the initial burden
of going forward before the burden will shift to Debtor. 24 In other words, Movant must establish
a prima facie case that cause exists under § 362(d)(1) before Debtor is required to present any
20 § 362(d)(1) and (2). 	Section 362 includes two additional grounds for relief that are
inapplicable to this proceeding.
21 § 362(g).
22 In re DB Cap. Holdings, LLC, 454 B.R. 804, 816 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2011) (citing In re
Anthem Cmtys./RBG, LLC, 267 B.R. 867, 870-71 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2001).
23 Id.; § 362(g).
24 In re Anthem Cmtys., 267 B.R. at 871 (citing In re Elmira Litho, Inc., 174 B.R. 892, 900
(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1994)).
Case 25-11795-T Document 269 Filed in USBC ND/OK on 05/04/26 Page 5 of 9

6
defensive evidence. 25 Other than alleging “irreparable injury, loss and damage unless the
automatic stay is terminated so as to permit Movant to conclude its foreclosure action pending in
the District Court of Tulsa County,” Movant has not indicated, either in the Motion or in oral
argument at the Hearing, what “cause” it seeks to establish as the basis for its relief from the
automatic stay. For the following reasons, the Court finds Movant has not established any grounds
for relief under § 362(d)(1) that would necessitate Debtor presenting any defense.
Among the grounds for cause under § 361(d)(1) is a lack of adequate protection of an
interest of a creditor in property. 26 The purpose of providing adequate protection for a creditor is
to insure that the creditor receives the value for which it bargained prebankruptcy. 27 Adequate
protection is assurance for a creditor that its collateral is not depreciating or diminishing in value
as a result of the automatic stay. 28 The determination of adequate protection is a factual question
that is made on a case-by-case basis. 29 The Court must look to a creditor’s interest in property to
define its entitlement to adequate protection. 30 	In order to establish a prima facie case under
§ 362(d)(1) that it is entitled to adequate protection, a secured creditor must show that 1) its
security is declining—or threatened to decline—in value, and 2) the decline or threat is the result
of the automatic stay. 31 Such “threats” can include depreciation, the failure to maintain insurance,
25 In re Elmira Litho, Inc., 174 B.R. at 902 (“Thus, every party seeking relief from the
automatic stay under § 362(d)(1) must carry the initial burden of showing that it is entitled to relief
before the debtor is obligated to go forward with its proof.”).
26 § 361(d)(1).
27 In re O’Connor, 808 F.2d 1393, 1396 (10th Cir. 1987).
28 United Sav. Ass’n of Tex. v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Assocs., Ltd., 484 U.S. 365, 370
(1988). 29 In re O’Connor, 808 F.2d at 1397.
30 In re Elmira Litho, Inc., 174 B.R. at 902.
31 Id.
Case 25-11795-T Document 269 Filed in USBC ND/OK on 05/04/26 Page 6 of 9

7
or the failure to keep the property in a good state of repair. 32 While the “interest in property”
protected by § 362(d)(1) may include the right of a secured creditor to have the security applied in
payment of its debt upon completion of a reorganization, that protection does not include a secured
party’s right to immediate foreclosure. 33
Movant has failed to establish a prima facie case that it lacks adequate protection of its
interest in the Property. 	The Note, Addendum, and Security Agreement provide evidence that
Movant holds a secured interest in the Property. The Security Agreement appears to have been
properly recorded in the state land records. Based on this evidence, the Court will assume, without
deciding, that Movant has a valid first lien on the Property. 34 Beyond the fact of its interest in the
Property, Movant did not offer any evidence regarding the value of the Property, or whether an
equity cushion exists. It did not offer evidence that the Property was declining, or under threat of
declining, in value, that its value was depreciating, that taxes or property insurance were going
unpaid, or that the Property was not being maintained in good repair. In short, Movant has made
no showing that its interests are being harmed as a result of the automatic stay. In the absence of
some proof that would support cause under § 362(d)(1), the Court cannot find that Debtor has any
burden to present a defense.
2. 	Movant is not entitled to relief from the automatic stay under § 362(d)(2)
Under § 362(d)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code, relief shall be granted with respect to property
of the estate if (A) the debtor has no equity in the property at issue; and (B) the property is not
32 Id. at 902 n.9.
33 Timbers, 484 U.S. at 370-71.
34 No party has presented evidence to the contrary, nor has this issue been properly raised
for adjudication.
Case 25-11795-T Document 269 Filed in USBC ND/OK on 05/04/26 Page 7 of 9

8
necessary to an effective reorganization. 35 	In other words, § 362(d)(2) is written in the
conjunctive; both (A) and (B) must be satisfied before a court may grant relief from the automatic
stay under this subsection. First, the creditor has the burden to establish that the debtor lacks equity
in the property. 36 If creditor carries its burden, only then will the burden shift to the debtor to
establish that the property is necessary for an effective reorganization.
Based on Debtor’s representation that the Property has been sold to a third-party pursuant
to a contract for deed prior to the Petition Date, the Court has previously expressed its concerns
whether Debtor retains any equity in the Property. 37 Despite being prompted at the Hearing,
Movant chose not to address that issue. Movant made no argument that Debtor lacks equity in the
Property, nor did it offer any evidence of the value of the Property or the value of Debtor’s interest
in the Property. Because Movant has the burden of proof on the issue of Debtor’s equity in the
Property under § 362(g), its request for relief under § 362(d)(2) must fail. Without a showing that
Debtor lacks equity in the Property, the Court does not reach the issue of whether it is necessary
for an effective reorganization.
Conclusion
The Court finds the Motion for Relief from Automatic Stay and Abandonment of Property,
filed by Dominion Financial Services LLC, must be denied.
35 § 362(d)(2).
36 § 362(g); In re Anthem Cmtys., 267 B.R. at 870.
37 See Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 16, § 11A; § 541(d); McGinnity v. Kirk, 2015 OK 73, 362 P.3d
186; Hartless v. Cline, 2023 OK CIV APP 30, ¶ 16, 538 P.3d 187, 191 (“When a contract for deed
is properly executed, equitable title to the real property passes to the buyer, while the seller retains
bare legal title and an interest equivalent to a mortgage which guarantees payment of remaining
sums under the contract.”); Kraettli Q. Epperson, A Contract for Deed Transfers Equitable Title to
Buyer (16 O.S. §11A), 96 Okla. Bar J. No. 8, Oct. 2025, available at https://www.okbar.org/
barjournal/oct-2025/a-contract-for-deed-transfers-equitable-title-to-the-buyer/.
Case 25-11795-T Document 269 Filed in USBC ND/OK on 05/04/26 Page 8 of 9

9
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Relief from Automatic Stay and
Abandonment of Property, filed by Dominion Financial Services LLC, with respect to real
property located at 9533 East 136th Street South, Bixby, OK, is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the automatic stay in this case with respect to real
property, located at 9533 East 136th Street South, Bixby, OK, shall remain in place.
Dated this 4th day of May, 2026.
Case 25-11795-T Document 269 Filed in USBC ND/OK on 05/04/26 Page 9 of 9