the case might have been different. Id. Accordingly, the Kunica court was reluctant to allow the debtor to conceal the claims and their potential value from the bankruptcy court, obtain the functional equivalent of a discharge of its debts based on an accounting of fewer than all of its assets, and retain standing to assert the concealed claims after the effective discharge. See id. at 58-54 ("[Dlismissal of a bankruptey case ... as opposed to a discharge, should not provide a debtor with a safe harbor against lack of standing to pursue causes of action that were not properly disclosed."). {13 Relying on Kunmica, a division of the Texas Court of Appeals came to the same conclusion, observing that "[fjull disclosure is the most critical element of the bank 6, 231-32 (Tex.App.2012) (<HOLDING>). [ 17 We recognize that in In re Marriage of
holding that all property regardless of disclosure revests in the debtor upon dismissal and declining to follow kunmica because the debtor did not obtain the functional equivalent of a discharge  holding that the debtor lacked standing to bring a claim against the internal revenue service for the improper assessment of a tax deficiency because the cause of action was the property of the estate and had not been abandoned to the debtor holding that the debtor in possession could utilize the strongarm powers of the trustee to avoid an unperfected security interest even though the debtor knew of the interest prior to bankruptcy because the two are distinct entities and the debtor in possessions responsibility is to preserve the estates assets for the benefit of the creditors holding debtor could include property because the bank accepted payments directly from the debtor and had previously allowed the debtor to cure default holding that all property regardless of disclosure revests in the debtor upon dismissal and declining to follow kunmica and kilpatrick because the debtor did not benefit from and the creditors were not impaired by the bankruptey proceedings or the dismissal