In re Presidio Bridge Co.

W.D. Texas

In re Presidio Bridge Co.

124 B.R. 242, 1991 Bankr. LEXIS 242, 1991 WL 25788

CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Texas

DecidedJanuary 22, 1991

DocketBankruptcy No. 90-30634

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 124 B.R. 242 (In re Presidio Bridge Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Presidio Bridge Co., 124 B.R. 242, 1991 Bankr. LEXIS 242, 1991 WL 25788 (Tex. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER DISMISSING MOTION FOR LACK OF BANKRUPTCY COURT JURISDICTION

LEIF M. CLARK, Bankruptcy Judge.

CAME ON for consideration the Motion of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WHICH INCLUDES THE UNITED STATES COAST GUARD, TO REOPEN CASE.

The United States seeks to reopen a closed bankruptcy case in order to file a motion to lift the automatic stay of the Bankruptcy Code. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). The United States desires to remove the remaining half of a bridge, which bridge was apparently owned at one point by the debtor, which originally crossed the United States-Mexico border from Presidio, Texas to Ojinaga, Mexico. The United States is concerned about the potential violation of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a).

The automatic stay of Section 362(a) “continues until ... the time the case is closed,...” 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(2)(A). “It is axiomatic that the bankruptcy court is divested of jurisdiction over property of the estate and disputes relating to that property once the bankruptcy case is closed.” In re Greer, 89 B.R. 757, 759 (Bankr.S.D.Ill.1988); see also Matter of Solar Equipment Corp., 19 B.R. 1010, 1011 (D.C.Ark.1982). Because the case is closed, this court no longer has jurisdiction over the property in issue and the automatic stay provisions are no longer in effect. The motion is both unnecessary and beyond the court’s jurisdiction.

The Motion is dismissed with prejudice.

So ORDERED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER DISMISSING MOTION FOR LACK OF BANKRUPTCY COURT JURISDICTION

LEIF M. CLARK, Bankruptcy Judge.

CAME ON for consideration the Motion of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WHICH INCLUDES THE UNITED STATES COAST GUARD, TO REOPEN CASE.

The United States seeks to reopen a closed bankruptcy case in order to file a motion to lift the automatic stay of the Bankruptcy Code. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). The United States desires to remove the remaining half of a bridge, which bridge was apparently owned at one point by the debtor, which originally crossed the United States-Mexico border from Presidio, Texas to Ojinaga, Mexico. The United States is concerned about the potential violation of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a).

The automatic stay of Section 362(a) “continues until ... the time the case is closed,...” 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(2)(A). “It is axiomatic that the bankruptcy court is divested of jurisdiction over property of the estate and disputes relating to that property once the bankruptcy case is closed.” In re Greer, 89 B.R. 757, 759 (Bankr.S.D.Ill.1988); see also Matter of Solar Equipment Corp., 19 B.R. 1010, 1011 (D.C.Ark.1982). Because the case is closed, this court no longer has jurisdiction over the property in issue and the automatic stay provisions are no longer in effect. The motion is both unnecessary and beyond the court’s jurisdiction.

The Motion is dismissed with prejudice.

So ORDERED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 B.R. 242, 1991 Bankr. LEXIS 242, 1991 WL 25788, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-presidio-bridge-co-txwb-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack