Mark A Wright

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
In re
MARK A. WRIGHT,
Debtor.
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 05-00626
(Chapter 7)
Not for Publication in
West’s Bankruptcy Reporter
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION
TO STRIKE AMENDED MATRIX AND TO LIFT AUTOMATIC STAY
Aditya Bhat, the debtor’s landlord, has filed a document
bearing the title “Plaintiff’s Objection to Amended Matrix . . .
and Request to Lift § 362 [Automatic Stay] if Applicable.” 	In
effect, the document is a motion to strike the debtor’s amended
mailing matrix and to lift the automatic stay if it is
applicable.
On his original list of creditors (filed as a mailing
matrix), the debtor Wright did not list Bhat as a creditor
(although he did schedule Bhat as a landlord on Schedule G).
After the case was closed, Wright filed an amended mailing matrix
adding Bhat as a creditor. 	Bhat contends that Bhat was not a
creditor of Wright in this case, as the debt is for delinquent
rent owed from August 2007 forward. 	Although Bhat probably was a
The document below is hereby signed.
Signed: November 18, 2008.
_____________________________
S. Martin Teel, Jr.
United States Bankruptcy Judge
Case 05-00626 Doc 29 Filed 11/19/08 Entered 11/19/08 08:49:28 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 5

2
creditor because Bhat had a contingent right to future payments
under the scheduled lease, I need not deny the motion on that
basis.
I
Because the case was closed, Wright would have been required
to file a motion to reopen the case if he wanted the amended
mailing matrix to be given effect. 	He did not file a motion to
reopen the case. 	Although the clerk docketed the amended mailing
matrix, it is ineffective, and serves no purpose, unless the case
were to be reopened.
Moreover, even if the case were reopened, the amended
mailing matrix would serve no purpose unless some new matter (for
example, a trustee’s motion to sell unscheduled assets of the
debtor) were filed as to which the court would be required to
give notice to all entities listed as creditors. 	For example, as
to omitted creditors listed on an amended matrix after discharge,
the reopening of the case to permit the filing of the amended
matrix would not add anything to whether the discharge is
effective as to such creditors: because this was a case in which
no bar date was set for filing proofs of claim, the discharge
applies to even creditors who were never listed. 	See In re
Hunter, 116 B.R. 3 (Bankr. D.D.C. 1990).
Because the amended mailing matrix has no effect at this
juncture, there is no reason to strike it. 	Accordingly, even if
Case 05-00626 Doc 29 Filed 11/19/08 Entered 11/19/08 08:49:28 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 5

3
the court were to treat the amended matrix as having been
properly filed (which it does not), and even if the case had been
reopened such that the motion to strike the amended mailing
matrix were properly before the court (which it is not), the
request to strike the matrix would be denied as moot.
II
As to the request to lift the automatic stay if it is
applicable, in addition to filing a motion to reopen the case, a
fee is required for filing a motion for relief from the automatic
stay. 	Moreover, as explained below, Bhat has not pointed to any
act barred by the automatic stay, and accordingly, even if the
case had properly been reopened and the fee for pursuing the lift
stay motion paid, the court would deny the motion.
A.
Under 11 U.S.C. § 362(c) (with exceptions of no relevance
here:
(1) the stay of an act against property of the
estate under subsection (a) of this section continues
until such property is no longer property of the
estate; [and]
(2) the stay of any other act under subsection (a)
of this section continues until the earliest of–-
(A) the time the case is closed;
(B) the time the case is dismissed; or
(C) if the case is a case under chapter
7 of this title concerning an individual . .
. , the time a discharge is granted or
denied.
Applying that provision to the facts alleged here, Bhat has not
shown that the automatic stay is applicable to any act that Bhat
Case 05-00626 Doc 29 Filed 11/19/08 Entered 11/19/08 08:49:28 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 5

4
seeks to take.
B.
Scheduled property ceases to be property of the estate upon
the closing of the case. 	11 U.S.C. § 554(c). 	Bhat does not
point to any unscheduled property of the debtor that, because of
its unscheduled nature, resulted in its remaining property of the
estate under 11 U.S.C. § 554(d). 	Indeed, on Schedule G
(Executory Contracts and Unexpired Leases), Wright scheduled a
“rental lease” for which Bhat was listed as the landlord, and,
accordingly, upon the closing of the case on November 14, 2006,
that lease ceased (pursuant to § 554(c)) to be property of the
estate, and the automatic stay protecting that asset as property
of the estate terminated (pursuant to § 362(c)(1)) as of that
date.
C.
The balance of the automatic stay (regarding acts other than
against property of the estate) terminated upon the debtor
receiving a discharge on March 31, 2006. 	Although the automatic
stay was replaced by a discharge injunction under 11 U.S.C. §
524(a), if Bhat seeks a declaration as to whether any act he
seeks to take is barred by the discharge injunction, he must file
a motion to reopen the debtor’s bankruptcy case and file, in
accordance with Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7001, an adversary proceeding
seeking a declaration as to the applicability of the discharge
Case 05-00626 Doc 29 Filed 11/19/08 Entered 11/19/08 08:49:28 Desc Main
Document Page 4 of 5

1 	The court notes that the question of whether the
discharge injunction bars a landlord from collecting, as a
personal obligation against the debtor, any rent that became due
postpetition under a residential lease that was deemed rejected
by the chapter 7 trustee, but where the debtor continued to
occupy the leased premises, is an unsettled question of law.
Compare In re Dame, 2008 WL 906847, at *2 (Bankr. D.D.C. April 1,
2008), with In re Werbinski, 271 B.R. 514, 517 (Bankr. E.D. Mich.
2001).
5	O:\TEEL\Laura\OPINIONS\Wright\Wright (Mark) Mem Decsn & Order Denying Bhat's Mtn to Strike Amended Mailing Matrix, Etc v4.wpd
injunction. 1
III
In accordance with the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that document bearing the title “Plaintiff’s
Objection to Amended Matrix . . . and Request to Lift § 362
[Automatic Stay] if Applicable” filed by Aditya Bhat, the
debtor’s landlord (and treated as a motion to strike the debtor’s
amended mailing matrix and to lift the automatic stay if it is
applicable) is DENIED without prejudice to Bhat’s filing a motion
to reopen this bankruptcy case and filing an adversary proceeding
seeking a declaration as to the applicability of the discharge
injunction to any act he seeks to take to collect a debt against
the debtor.
[Signed and dated above.]
Copies to: Debtor; Debtor’s attorney; Chapter 7 Trustee; Office
of United States Trustee; Aditya Bhat, 6301 Hidden Clearing,
Columbia, MD 21045.
Case 05-00626 Doc 29 Filed 11/19/08 Entered 11/19/08 08:49:28 Desc Main
Document Page 5 of 5