Magnolia could obtain the right to receive the rents and, thereby, cut off Debt- or’s rights only by taking possession of the Mechanicsburg Hotel or by serving notice on the “tenants.” Magnolia did not take possession of the Mechanicsburg Hotel, nor did they serve notice on Debtor’s tenants. As discussed above, hotel guests are not tenants and, further, as acknowledged by Magnolia, service on hotel guests would be impractical. Therefore, the hotel room revenues remained property of the estate when Debtor filed its petition. D. Is the protection Debtor has offered to provide to Magnolia’s collateral adequate? Although Magnolia did not succeed in cutting off Debtor’s interest in the hotel room revenues generated by the Meehanicsburg Hote 53, 2013 WL 1898058 (Bankr.S.D.Ga. Apr. 25, 2013) (<HOLDING>). Debtor also fails to recognize that even if
holding state courts authority under iowa code section 59821 not the lien created there under prevented debtor from claiming the iowa homestead exemption and therefore the debtor could not avoid the lien because the lien did not impair an exemption to which the debtor would have been entitled but for the lien holding that the lien bond releases the property from the lien but the lien is then secured by the bond holding that a state tax lien was not judicial lien arising from judgment such that it could be avoided in bankruptcy by a chapter 13 debtor holding that replacement lien in rents is illusory because  552b provides lien on postpetition rents holding that it was disingenuous to offer replacement lien on postpetition rents because lender already had lien on rents