With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". No. 96--21363, Adv.Pro.No. 96-2078, slip op. at 7 (Bankr.S.D.Ga., June 24, 1997) (Davis, J.). A second common pattern arises where a creditor has repossessed property post-petition, and prior to the time that the Court’s notice of the pendency of the case has been received, but after the debtor or someone on the debtor’s behalf has informed the creditor that a case was filed. In these cases it is clear that the creditor, having been given notice in this manner, is under an obligation to make inquiry of the Clerk’s Office whether a case is in fact pending. If a creditor falls to make inquiry after being put on notice and repossesses, that act is taken at the creditor’s risk and subjects the creditor to damages. See In re Marine Pollution Service, Inc., 99 B.R. 210 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1989) (<HOLDING>). Finally, some repossessions, such as in the

A: holding that creditor who proceeded with foreclosure after receiving actual notice from debtor was liable for violating the automatic stay
B: 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
C: holding that although the automatic stay only applies to proceedings against the debtor  counterclaims seeking affirmative relief against a debtor implicate the automatic stay
D: holding that creditor who repossessed vehicle postpetition and returned automobile within twenty hours of receiving notice only committed technical violation of automatic stay
A.