id	author	title	date	pages	extension	mime	words	sentence	flesch	summary	cache	txt
inlawrev-27114	Hauber, John M.	Update on Consumer Bankruptcy: City of Chicago v. Fulton	2023	17	.pdf	application/pdf	7481	418	65	This extension of automatic stay violations introduced to the argument that by maintaining possession of estate property, creditors were violating either the turnover provisions of section 542(a) (which may or may not be self- executing) or violating the bankruptcy automatic stay.30 Even though there would still be a split of opinions among the Circuits following the 1984 amendment, the majority of Circuits held that simply maintaining possession of secured collateral was a violation of the automatic stay.31 A. Knaus v. Concordia Lumber Co. The Court continued its reasoning pointing out that there are exceptions in section 542(a)’s turnover provision that would contradict section 362(a)(3) which does not contain the same exceptions.146 Additionally, when Congress added “exercise control” language to section 362(a)(3) in 1984, one would expect that Congress would have cross-referenced section 542(a) if Congress meant to create a stay violation for failure to turn over property as required by section 542(a).14 7 However, the ruling was extremely limited to a specific holding that “mere retention of estate property after the filing of a bankruptcy petition does not violate §362(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code.	cache/inlawrev-27114.pdf	txt/inlawrev-27114.txt