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                     
          respondent.                                                                 
          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