completely frivolous demands when debtor is clearly incapable of providing adequate protection. The contrary rule would require creditors to undertake the expense of bringing a legal action to prove the absence of adequate protection, even when the debtor has no intention of seeking recovery of the property, where the debtor is ineligible refile a case, or r example when a petition has been mailed from a city removed from the location of a Clerks Office and there is a delay between the time the case is mailed and when it is actually filed. Other times the representation is entirely false and a creditor who takes action after being given an erroneous or a false notice that a case was pending is free to act, but acts at his or her peril. See In re Reed, 11 B.R. 258 (Bankr.D.Utah 1981) (<HOLDING>) 2 . "Act” is defined as "a thing done or being
holding that creditors rights are subject to any qualifying or contrary provisions of the bankruptcy code holding that once creditors receive knowledge of bankruptcy filing either directly or indirectly they assume risk of their actions 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 that creditor did not have actual knowledge of the bankruptcy filing where the debtor informed creditor of the possibility that a bankruptcy case would be filed holding that a creditors security was preserved notwithstanding the bankruptcy of the debtor