into that. The Debtor had made no reference to the automatic stay as an ongoing restraint on the enforcement of rights by Wil-shire or any successor-in-interest; nor did she request an extension of the bankruptcy stay in so many words. All of her references were to an opportunity for redemption from foreclosure, a creature of state law, and she explicitly asked for a substantial prolongation of that. 6 . Wilshire could bring a motion to this court for imposition of sanctions on the Debtor under the broader authority of the bankruptcy court to address abuse of the bankruptcy process. See In re Clark, 223 F.3d 859, 864 (8th Cir.2000) (bankruptcy court has such power under 11 U.S.C. § 105(a)). See also Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44-46, 111 S.Ct. 2123, 115 L.Ed.2d 27 (1991) (<HOLDING>). This Court will have jurisdiction to
holding error to award statutory sanctions where no evidence of bad faith and attorney did not assert frivolous claim or unfounded position for purposes of delay or harassment recognizing that federal courts have inherent authority to control and redress bad faith and unreasonable vexatious or wanton conduct in litigation that leads to delay prolonging or disruption of court proceedings via imposition of sanctions including award of attorney fees holding that the rules of civil procedure did not displace a district courts power to shift fees for bad faith wanton and vexatious conduct in the prosecution of the case recognizing courts inherent power to impose sanctions including attorneys fees for conduct that abuses the judicial process holding that a finding of plaintiffs bad faith is not a prerequisite to the trial courts exercise of discretion to award fees