take the position that the orders granting relief from the automatic stay entered on December 31, 1991, and March 3, 1992, took the property out of the estate before the property was administered, and therefore, the trustee did not administer the livestock or the proceeds of sale of the livestock. In other words, it is the position of the trustee and the United States that the orders for relief from the automatic stay actually transferred property from the estate to the debtor in the same manner as a formal abandonment. The following cases, all of which involve motions for relief from the automatic stay and do not directly involve motions to abandon, were cited by the United States and the trustee as authority for their position: In re Griggs, 82 B.R. 532, 533 (Bankr.W.D.Mo. 1988) (<HOLDING>); Wilson v. Bill Barry Enters., 822 F.2d 859,
recognizing that exempt property ceases to be property of the estate holding that once the automatic stay is lifted the property ceases to be property of the estate and there is no longer any power of abandonment holding that if property is not part of the individuals estate at the time he files a bankruptcy petition no automatic stay provision applies to the property holding that because property was no longer property of the estate the court could not order turnover holding that the automatic stay terminates as to the debtor personally and as to his nonestate property but that the stay persists as to property of the bankruptcy estate