DECISION
The debtor in this chapter 7 case is proceeding pro se. She entered into a reaffirmation agreement with Wells Fargo Bank with regard to an obligation secured by a motor vehicle, but she failed to appear for the hearing at which the court was to approve that agreement, see, 11 U.S.C. § 524(d), and so it was not able to do so. See, Order dated March 30, 2011. Wells Fargo then filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay and for the abandonment of its collateral from the bankruptcy estate. All creditors and parties in interest have been given notice of the motion and the opportunity to object thereto, see, N.D. Ind. L.B.R. B-2002-2, and no objections have been filed within the time required — with the exception of an objection from the debtor. That objection is the subject of this decision.
The court may relieve a creditor of the automatic stay for cause, including the lack of adequate protection, or where there is no equity in property that is not necessary to an effective reorganization. 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1), (2). Equity in this sense focuses on whether the property in question has value in excess of the amounts due on account of the liens
*851
against it and any claimed exemption, so that its sale by the trustee would generate money for the payment of unsecured claims.
Matter of Vitreous Steel Products Co.,
Wells Fargo advances at least four reasons why it should be relieved of the automatic stay and its collateral abandoned: (1) the debtor is currently in default in her payments, (2) the court has not approved the reaffirmation agreement between it and the debtor, (3) since the petition the value of the vehicle securing its claim has declined and continues to decline, and (4) the value of that vehicle ($5,425.00) is less than the amounts due on account of its lien ($5,507.91), so that there is no equity the property and it is of inconsequential value to the estate. In her objection to the motion, the debtor challenges only one of these four grounds for relief: the claimed default. She argues that she is current in her payments under the terms of the parties’ reaffirmation agreement and, despite a late payment in February, that she has the ability to continue making those payments.
Accepting everything the debtor says as being true, and assuming that she is current in her payments to the bank, her objection fails to state a sufficient legal or factual basis for denying the motion, because it does not address the bank’s other three bases for relief or identify a sufficient defense to the motion.
See, White,
In addition to the inadequacies in the content of the debtor’s objection
1
is
*852
the fact that she lacks standing to oppose the bank’s motion. Limits on standing are vital in bankruptcy and simply being a party to a bankruptcy case is not enough to give one standing to participate in every aspect of the proceeding or with regard to every issue that might arise.
Matter of Deist Forest Products, Inc.,
In this case, the deadlines for the debtor to perform her intention regarding creditors’ collateral,
see,
11 U.S.C. § 521(a)(2)(B), (6), and for creditors to object to the debtor’s discharge,
see,
Fed. R. Bankr.P. Rule 4004(a), have all passed. Admittedly, the debtor has not yet received a discharge, but that is only because, despite two reminders from the court,
see,
Notice of Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Case, Deadlines, dated Oct. 26, 2010; Notice of Failure to File Certification, dated Jan. 19, 2011, she has not yet filed proof that she has completed the required course concerning personal financial management.
See,
11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(ll); Fed. R. Bankr.P. Rule 1007(b)(7), (c). Had she done so, so that the clerk could issue a discharge, she could not possibly oppose the motion to the extent it is based upon a lack of equity under § 362(d)(2).
See e.g., In re Baker,
When a creditor seeks relief from stay due to a lack of adequate protection or a lack of equity in property, the central issue involves a relationship (adequate protection, yes or no; equity, yes or no) between the creditor, its collateral, and the bankruptcy estate, which is administered by the trustee; it does not involve the circumstances existing between the debtor and the moving creditor.
2
The debtor’s objection, which argues that she is current in her payments and has the ability to maintain the required payments, does not implicate the proper relationship. It raises issues that involve only the relationship between the debtor and her creditor, not the relationship between the creditor, its collateral and the bankruptcy estate.
*853
While those issues would be relevant, and would give the debtor standing, if the deadline for performing the debtor’s intentions regarding a creditor’s collateral had not yet expired, once that deadline expires, so does the debtor’s standing to oppose relief from stay.
See,
11 U.S.C. §§ 362(h)(1), 521(a)(6) (automatically terminating the stay as to personal property where debtor fails to timely perform its stated intention regarding a creditor’s collateral). This suggests that she does not understand the nature of stay litigation or the consequences of terminating the stay — something that is not too surprising given her pro se status. It is not an adjudication as to whether the debtor is or is not in default, or whether the creditor is or is not entitled to repossess its collateral.
Bertha,
Debtor’s objection to Wells Fargo’s motion for relief from stay and abandonment is overruled 3 and the motion should be granted. An order doing so will be entered.
Notes
. The court is mindful that, as a pro se litigant, the debtor's filings should be construed with a degree of liberality.
Korsunskiy v. Gonzales,
. If a creditor lacks adequate protection, the duty to provide it will be the responsibility of the trustee, using the resources of the bankruptcy estate, not the Chapter 7 debtor. See, 11 U.S.C. § 361 (requiring cash payments or replacement liens); § 363(d)(2), (e) (restricting the trustee’s use of property as necessary to provide adequate protection). Similarly, where the issue is a lack of equity under § 362(d)(2), the only purpose for the inquiry is to determine whether the property has sufficient value so that it should be sold by the trustee to help pay creditors.
. To the extent the objection also asks the court to reconsider its decision not to approve the reaffirmation agreement between the debtor and the bank, she has failed to offer any reason why the court should do so, and so that request is denied.