Bobka

This case presents an issue of first impression in the Southern District of California and the Ninth Circuit, that is, does a lease assumption agreement under 11 U.S.C. § 365 (p) remain enforceable following discharge even if the lease assumption was not reaffirmed under 11 U.S.C. § 524 (c) ? District and bankruptcy courts outside the Ninth Circuit that have confronted the question all agree that the interplay between these statutes is confusing but disagree on the answer to the question. The Court concludes that reaffirmation under Section 524(c) is not required where a debtor has properly assumed a lease under Section 365(p)(2).

This is a bankruptcy appeal brought by Debtor-Appellant Melissa Carin Mather Bobka ("Mather") 1 against Appellee Toyota Motor Credit Corporation. In this appeal, the Court reviews the Memorandum Decision of Chief Judge Laura S. Taylor of the United States Bankruptcy Court for *473 the Southern District of California which found: (1) that Toyota's collection actions did not violate the automatic stay since any such actions took place after Mather's bankruptcy had been discharged; (2) that reaffirmation under Section 524(c) is not required when a lease is…