- 7 -
In re Olson, 930 F.2d 6 (8th Cir. 1991). However, respondent
asserts that the lifting of the automatic stay, without more, is
not an abandonment.
Some courts have indicated that a lifting of a stay, in and
of itself, does not necessarily remove property from a bankruptcy
estate. See In re B.S. Livingston & Co., 186 Bankr. 841, 858
(D.N.J. 1995); In re Nebel, 175 Bankr. 306, 311-312 (Bankr. D.
Neb. 1994); In re Cordry, 149 Bankr. 970, 973-974 (D. Kan. 1993);
In re Oakes, 129 Bankr. 477, 479 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1991); In re
Ridgemont Apartment Associates, 105 Bankr. 738, 741 (Bankr. N.D.
Ga. 1989). Other courts indicate that granting relief from the
automatic stay is itself an abandonment or otherwise removes
bankruptcy court jurisdiction over the subject property. See In
re Olympia Holding Corp., 161 Bankr. 524, 528 n.4 (M.D. Fla.
1993); In re Hood, 92 Bankr. 648, 655 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 1988),
affd. 92 Bankr. 656 (E.D. Va. 1988); In re Griggs, 82 Bankr. 532,
533 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 1988); In re Fisher, 80 Bankr. 58, 62
(Bankr. M.D. N.C. 1987).
Petitioner’s argument is bolstered by the holding in Wilson
v. Bill Barry Enters., Inc., 822 F.2d 859 (9th Cir. 1987). In
Wilson, the bankruptcy court granted a lessor relief from the
automatic stay to commence State court proceedings to recover
possession of property from a bankrupt lessee. The lessee later
petitioned the State court for relief from forfeiture of the
lease. After the petition was removed to the Federal District
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011