Esmat A. and Sylvia G. Zaklama - Page 7
Legal Research Home >
US Tax Court > 1995 > Esmat A. and Sylvia G. Zaklama - Page 7
- 7 -
Petitioners contend, without citing any authority, that the
bankruptcy court's order providing for the conditional dismissal
of their case is not sufficient to terminate the automatic stay.
Relying on cases such as Allison v. Commissioner, supra, and
Smith v. Commissioner, supra, respondent maintains that, despite
the conditions set forth therein, the bankruptcy court's order of
dismissal terminated the automatic stay. We agree with
As previously discussed, the automatic stay imposed under 11
U.S.C. section 362(a)(8) (1988), generally remains in effect
until the earliest of the closing of the case, dismissal of the
case, or the grant or denial of a discharge. 11 U.S.C. sec.
362(c)(2) (1988); Smith v. Commissioner, supra at 14. Though not
expressly cited in the order of dismissal, it is evident that the
bankruptcy court dismissed petitioners' case pursuant to 11
U.S.C. section 1112(b) (1988), which provides that the bankruptcy
court may, for cause, convert a case under chapter 11 to a case
under chapter 7 or dismiss the case, whichever is in the best
interests of the creditors and the bankruptcy estate. The
dismissal of a chapter 11 bankruptcy case pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
section 1112(b) (1988), generally terminates the automatic stay.
See In re 266 Washington Associates, 141 Bankr. 275, 288 (Bankr.
E.D.N.Y. 1992); In re Lumber Exchange Ltd. Partnership, 125
Bankr. 1000 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1991), affd. 968 F.2d 647 (8th Cir.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011