§ 554(d) as overriding § 849.". 15 Also examining the legislative history of section 349, the Second Cireuit determined that Congress intended that dismissal would "undo the bankruptcy case." Crawford, 758F.3d at 485. Accordingly, upon dismissal," there is no longer a bankruptey estate, and there can no longer be any property. of the estate. See id. at 484 ("As there no longer remains any 'property of the estate' after a case has been dismissed, § 554 has no applicability after a dismissal."); see also 11 U.8.C0. § 554 (dealing entirely with property of the estate). 116 Other courts have come to the same conclusion as the Second Cireuit, and have also explicitly rejected the reasoning of Ku-nica and Kilpatrick. See Ass'n Res., Inc. v. Wall, 298 Conn, 145, 2 A.3d 873, 888-90 (Conn.2010) (<HOLDING>); B.N. Realty Assocs. v. Lichtenstein, 21
holding that section 554 does not override section 349 because unlike in kunica the bankruptcy court had dismissed debtors petitions prior to their administration holding that bankruptcy jurisdiction is not within section 5 of the fourteenth amendment holding that because the debtors obligations were not discharged section 524 did not apply holding that general statement of intent does not override plain language of statute holding that because court had determined immunity had not been waived under section 101021 court did not need to analyze arguments relevant to section 101055