23 B 4039
Debtor sought damages for violation of the automatic stay on the grounds that, after the stay terminated under 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3)(A) and after U.S. Bank (“Bank”) obtained relief from the stay to pursue eviction, the Bank had exercised control over property of the estate.  HELD:  In arguing that the Bank had violated the stay after she was evicted and before she recovered items that remained in the house, Debtor relied on the reasoning in In re Jones, 339 B.R. 360 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. 2006).  Jones held that § 362(c)(3)(A) terminates the stay with respect to actions taken against the debtor and property of the debtor, but not with respect to property of the estate.  It was unnecessary for this court to take a position on whether Jones’s interpretation of § 362(c)(3)(A) is correct, because Debtor did not establish that she was injured by the Bank’s control over property of the estate.  Debtor exempted nearly all of her personal property before the Bank evicted her.  Therefore, that personal property had already returned to its status as property of the debtor, for which the stay had terminated.  Debtor did not tie together her request for damages – based on hotel and food charges – with the Bank’s exercise of control over any property that remained in the estate.