provision nor in its underlying policy to suggest that Congress intended it to block actions that maintain the status quo between a debtor and its legal adversary. To the contrary, our review of the legislative history reveals precisely the opposite intent — for, as already mentioned, Congress included section 362(a) in the Bankruptcy Code to ensure the preservation of the status quo between a debtor and its creditors. See In re Chugach Forest Prods., 23 F.3d at 243 (“[The automatic stay] is designed to effect an immediate freeze of the status quo by precluding and nullifying post-petition actions, judicial or nonjudicial, in nonbankrupt-cy fora against the debtor or affecting the property of the estate.”) (internal quotations omitted); In re Morton, 866 F.2d 561, 564 (2d Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). The cases cited by Checkers are not to the
holding that operation of state law requiring lien holder to renew lien in state court was not stayed by section 362 because extension  simply allows the holder of a valid lien to maintain the status quo  a policy not adverse to bankruptcy law but rather in complete harmony with it 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 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 lien holder who is not served and joined as a party to a tax suit cannot have his lien extinguished by the tax sale