property; and such property is not necessary to an effective reorganization.” Id. The Government asserts that Bishop has no equity in the Property since her tax debt far exceeds the value of the Property and that since the Property is no longer a “going concern,” it is not necessary to an effective reorganization. Underlying the Government’s position is its presumption that Bishop is acting in bad faith. Section 157(b)(2)(G) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that a motion to lift stay is a “core proceeding” arising under Title 11. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(G). As such, it is appropriate for the bankruptcy judge to hear and determine the United States’ motion to lift stay as to the Property under the criteria of § 362(d)(2). See, In re Fresh Approach, 51 B.R. 412, 414 (Bankr.N.D.Tex.1985) (<HOLDING>); Houston Avocado Co. v. Monterey House, Inc.
holding rule 11 sanction proceeding was exempt from automatic stay holding that a third party who receives trust property on inquiry notice that a trustee has misappropriated trust funds is also liable for breach of trust holding motion for relief from stay is a core proceeding and adjudicating entitlement to trust funds holding that a plaintiffs complaint need only establish a plausible entitlement to relief holding that companys president was trustee of trust funds because he had control and direction over the funds