context: [P 20] Some courts have held, however, that the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. SS 362 does not prevent the filing of a renewal affidavit.
citation_a.signal: but see
citation_a.identifier: 282 B.R. 917, 917
citation_a.parenthetical: filing of renewal application under California law violated automatic stay
citation_a.sentence: But see In re Lobherr, 282 B.R. at 917 (filing of renewal application under California law violated automatic stay).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 101 P.3d 637, 639
citation_b.parenthetical: holding ministerial action of filing renewal affidavit not prohibited by automatic bankruptcy stay
citation_b.sentence: See, e.g., In re Smith, 209 Ariz. 343, 101 P.3d 637, 639 (2004) (holding ministerial action of filing renewal affidavit not prohibited by automatic bankruptcy stay); O’Lane v. Spinney, 110 Nev. 496, 874 P.2d 754, 755-56 (1994) (rejecting argument that automatic stay prevented filing a renewal affidavit); Barber v. Emporium P’ship, 800 P.2d 795, 797 (Utah 1990) (stating action to renew a judgment does not violate automatic stay provisions because a renewal is not an attempt to enforce, collect, or expand the original judgment); In re Morton, 866 F.2d 561, 564 (2d Cir.1989) (concluding automatic stay does not eliminate state-law requirement of extending a judgment lien).