180 F.Supp.2d 1002, 1019 (N.D.Iowa 2001)). Further, “Section 108(c)(1) does not independently toll or suspend statutes of limitations which have not expired as of a bankruptcy petition date.” In re Bigelow, at 670 (citing In re Danzig, 233 B.R. 85, 94 (B.A.P. 8th Cir.1999)). “ ‘The reference in § 108(c) to “suspension” of time limits clearly does not operate in itself to stop the running of a statute of limitations; rather, this language merely incorporates suspensions of deadlines that are expressly provided in other federal or state statutes.’ ” Bigelow, at 670 (quoting Danzig, at 94). [¶ 20] Some courts have held, however, that the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362 does not prevent the filing of a renewal affidavit. See, e.g., In re Smith, 209 Ariz. 343, 101 P.3d 637, 639 (2004) (<HOLDING>); O’Lane v. Spinney, 110 Nev. 496, 874 P.2d
recognizing district courts authority to dispose of contempt action for violation of automatic stay of bankruptcy holding that the delivery of the deed following a foreclosure sale was a ministerial act that was not prohibited by the automatic stay holding that the automatic stay did not bar the filing of a proof of claim where the debtor actively litigated a separate action during the pending bankruptcy proceeding because to permit the automatic stay provision to be used as a trump card played after an unfavorable result was reached  would be inconsistent with the underlying purpose of the automatic stay recognizing that any action taken in violation of the automatic bankruptcy stay is void and without effect holding ministerial action of filing renewal affidavit not prohibited by automatic bankruptcy stay