§ 142.6 — On Relief from Stay

Revised: June 10, 2004

[1]

There is no cross-reference in § 348 to the automatic stay in § 362, and there is no other statutory reason for conversion to alter the effect of a prior grant of relief from the stay. Accordingly, it has been held that when relief from the stay was litigated in the Chapter 13 case, conversion does not require a further hearing to determine whether the Chapter 7 trustee has any interest in property that was relieved of the stay.1

[2]

It also seems likely that the utility stay of § 3662 is not invoked a second time at conversion from Chapter 13 to Chapter 7. It has been held that after conversion from Chapter 13 to Chapter 7, a utility cannot demand a second measure of adequate assurance of payment to retain service to the debtor.3


 

1  A.E. Landvoight, Inc. v. Williams, 40 B.R. 366 (Bankr. D. Md. 1984). Accord In re Standfield, 152 B.R. 528, 540 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1993) (Voluntary conversion to Chapter 7 does not upset drop-dead order that granted relief from the stay in prior case. “[T]here is some authority to the contrary, but . . . [t]he better view holds that section 348 does not contain any cross-reference to section 362, and there is no statutory or good reason to alter the effect of a prior grant of relief from the stay at conversion. . . . [O]nce the automatic stay is modified or lifted in a case, that final judgment is not automatically vacated or annulled by the subsequent conversion of the case to another chapter.”).

 

2  See § 68.1  Utility Stay and Continuing Service and § 68.2  Utility Stay Uncertainty after BAPCPA.

 

3  Allen v. Philadelphia Elec. Co. (In re Allen), 69 B.R. 867 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1987).