of respite in which he will have the opportunity to make plans for reorganization and remains in effect until the bankruptcy proceedings are concluded or until the property at issue is no longer in the bankruptcy estate. See id. at 805. When a party who has not sought relief from the bankruptcy stay attempts to commence or continue a lawsuit against the debtor, the action taken is void. See Howell v. Thompson, 839 S.W.2d 92, 92 (Tex.1992); Continental Casing Corp. v. Samedan Oil Corp., 751 S.W.2d 499, 501 (Tex.1988) (per curiam) (citing Kalb v. Feuerstein, 308 U.S. 433, 439, 60 S.Ct. 343, 84 L.Ed. 370 (1940)). Generally, the automatic stay does not extend to protect non-debtor parties. See Paine, 956 S.W.2d at 807; Beutel v. Dallas County Flood Control aco 1986, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (<HOLDING>); see also Independent Union of Flight
holding that debtor did not prove that defendant creditors violated automatic stay under 11 usc  362a with respect to their actions in a state court lawsuit because the creditors actions involved a counterclaim that debtor asserted and were in response to that counterclaim holding nonsuit does not violate bankruptcy stay because it is a termination of the case against the debtor holding nonsuit does not frustrate purpose of bankruptcy stay which is to protect the debtor against further actions and to ensure equal treatment of creditors recognizing inherent power of bankruptcy courts to equitably surcharge a debtors exemption to protect integrity of the bankruptcy process and to ensure that debtor does not exempt amount greater than allowed under bankruptcy code holding that the protections of the automatic stay apply only to actions against the debtor