in the Chapter 7 case would have only created duplicitous litigation and further depleted estate resources. Additionally, Cowin filed his Chapter 7 case in February 2013, but did not file a suggestion of bankruptcy until after the bankruptcy court issued the Countrywide Nondischargeability Opinion. This also demonstrates that Cowin was not harmed by the ongoing litigation of the Countrywide Adversary Proceeding and only sought to enforce the automatic stay to avoid the adverse judgment. See Easley v. Pettibone Mich. Corp., 990 F.2d 905, 911 (6th Cir. 1993) (recognizing an equitable exception to the automatic stay where “the debtor is attempting to use the stay unfairly as a shield to avoid an unfavorable result”); Job v. Calder (In re Calder), 907 F.2d 953, 956-57 (10th Cir. 1990) (<HOLDING>). Cowin has failed to demonstrate that he was
holding judgment in violation of automatic stay void holding that the denial of a motion to find a violation of the automatic stay was a final order holding that although the automatic stay only applies to proceedings against the debtor  counterclaims seeking affirmative relief against a debtor implicate the automatic stay holding that the protections of the automatic stay apply only to actions against the debtor holding that the automatic stay did not bar the filing of a proof of claim where the debtor actively litigated a separate action during the pending bankruptcy proceeding because to permit the automatic stay provision to be used as a trump card played after an unfavorable result was reached  would be inconsistent with the underlying purpose of the automatic stay