in fact or law, is also unavailing. The uncontraverted testimony of Landon establishes that he requested return of the vehicle to both Watkins and Cash at the first meeting of creditors. Transcript at 35. He subsequently repeated this request to Watkins on several occasions. Id. Hence, the testimony of Landon does not support Cash Cars’ assertion that only a single demand for return of the Automobile —on May 5, 1988 — was made. In any event, a creditor that has repossessed collateral without knowledge of a bankruptcy petition has an affirmative duty to restore the status quo, which in this case would entail return of the Automobile, without the debtor having to seek relief from the bankruptcy court. See, Miller, 10 B.R. at 780, aff'd. 22 B.R. at 481 (D.Md.1982); En-dres, 12 B.R. at 406 (<HOLDING>); Wariner, 16 B.R. at 218 (“creditor has an
holding emotional distress damages for a willful violation of the automatic stay were recoverable against the social security administration holding knowledge of the bankruptcy petition and action taken thereafter was sufficient to find a willful violation of the stay holding that refusal to return the property upon learning of the proceeding is a willful violation of the stay provisions and may be contemptible holding secured creditors refusal to turn over property of debtors estate to debtor upon demand constituted an exercise of control over such property in violation of automatic stay holding refusal to turn over property seized prepetition constituted violation of stay once notice of the stay had been given