U.S. Code » Title 11 » Chapter CHAPTER 5— CREDITORS, THE DEBTOR, AND THE ESTATE › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER III— THE ESTATE

11 U.S.C. § 554

Abandonment of property of the estate

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 11 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) After notice and a hearing, the trustee may abandon any property of the estate that is burdensome to the estate or that is of inconsequential value and benefit to the estate.(b) On request of a party in interest and after notice and a hearing, the court may order the trustee to abandon any property of the estate that is burdensome to the estate or that is of inconsequential value and benefit to the estate.(c) Unless the court orders otherwise, any property scheduled under section 521(a)(1) of this title not otherwise administered at the time of the closing of a case is abandoned to the debtor and administered for purposes of section 350 of this title.(d) Unless the court orders otherwise, property of the estate that is not abandoned under this section and that is not administered in the case remains property of the estate.(Pub. L. 95–598, Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2603; Pub. L. 98–353, title III, § 468, July 10, 1984, 98 Stat. 380; Pub. L. 99–554, title II, § 283(p), Oct. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 3118; Pub. L. 111–327, § 2(a)(23), Dec. 22, 2010, 124 Stat. 3560.)Historical and Revision Noteslegislative statements

Section 554(b) is new and permits a party in interest to request the court to order the trustee to abandon property of the estate that is burdensome to the estate or that is of inconsequential value to the estate.

senate report no. 95–989

Under this section the court may authorize the trustee to abandon any property of the estate that is burdensome to the estate or that is of inconsequential value to the estate. Abandonment may be to any party with a possessory interest in the property abandoned. In order to aid administration of the case, subsection (b) deems the court to have authorized abandonment of any property that is scheduled under section 521(1) and that is not administered before the case is closed. That property is deemed abandoned to the debtor. Subsection (c) specifies that if property is neither abandoned nor administered it remains property of the estate.

Editorial NotesAmendments

2010—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 111–327 substituted “521(a)(1)” for “521(1)”.

1986—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 99–554 substituted “521(1)” for “521(a)(1)”.

1984—Subsecs. (a), (b). Pub. L. 98–353, § 468(a), inserted “and benefit” after “value”.

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 98–353, § 468(b), amended subsec. (c) generally. Prior to amendment, subsec. (c) read as follows: “Unless the court orders otherwise, any property that is scheduled under section 521(1) of this title and that is not administered before a case is closed under section 350 of this title is deemed abandoned.”

Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 98–353, § 468(c), struck out “section (a) or (b) of” after “not abandoned under”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1986 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 99–554 effective 30 days after Oct. 27, 1986, see section 302(a) of Pub. L. 99–554, set out as a note under section 581 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.

Effective Date of 1984 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 98–353 effective with respect to cases filed 90 days after July 10, 1984, see section 552(a) of Pub. L. 98–353, set out as a note under section 101 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,472 cases (190 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: Midlantic Nat'l Bank v. New Jersey Dep't of Env't Prot., 474 U.S. 494 (1986).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Midlantic Nat'l Bank v. New Jersey Dep't of Env't Prot., 474 U.S. 494 (1986). · cites it 8× “These petitions for certiorari, arising out of the same bankruptcy proceeding, present the question whether § 554(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U. S. C. § 554 (a), [1] authorizes a trustee in bankruptcy to abandon property in contravention of state laws or regulations that are…”
Mrozek v. Intra Fin. Corp., 2005 WI 73 (Wis. 2005). · cites it 10× “11 U.S.C. § 554 provides the statutory basis for abandonment of property by a bankruptcy trustee.”
Menk v. Lapaglia (In Re Menk), 241 B.R. 896 (9th Cir. BAP 1999). · cites it 10× “11 U.S.C. § 554 (c). Property of the estate that was not so scheduled and that is not administered retains its status as "property of the estate" after closing.”
United States v. Ron Pair Enter., Inc., 489 U.S. 235 (1989). · cites it 4× “In Midlantic we held that § 554(a) of the Code, 11 U. S. C. § 554 (a), which provides that "the trustee may abandon any property of the estate that is burdensome to the estate," does not give a trustee the authority to violate state health and safety laws by abandoning property…”
In re DeGroot, 484 B.R. 311 (6th Cir. BAP 2012). · cites it 14× “At issue in this appeal is a November 23, 2011 decision in which the bankruptcy court determined that an unscheduled asset which the chapter 7 trustee had partially administered should be deemed abandoned to the debtor’s ex-wife pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 554 (c) and (d). In so…”
Donarumo v. Furlong (In Re Furlong), 660 F.3d 81 (1st Cir. 2011). · cites it 7× “Accordingly, any scheduled assets that had not been administered, including all properly-scheduled claims, were abandoned by operation of law under 11 U.S.C. § 554 (c) as of the closing of the corporate bankruptcy estate.”
Sandra Slater v. United States Steel Corp., 820 F.3d 1193 (11th Cir. 2016). · cites it 9× “”91 The Bankruptcy Court did, however, address the question of whether the doctrine of judicial estoppel, as applied in Burnes, should foreclose Barger’s motion.”
Ass'n Resources, Inc. v. Wall, 2 A.3d 873 (Conn. 2010). · cites it 6× “1999), the defendant contends further that, because the plaintiff had failed to disclose the claims to the Bankruptcy Court, the trustee was precluded from *163 abandoning them to the plaintiff pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 554 , 23 and they remained part of the bankruptcy estate even…”
Kane v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins., 535 F.3d 380 (5th Cir. 2008). · cites it 4× “2004); see 11 U.S.C. § 554 ; 5 Collier on Bankruptcy §§ 541.”
Nicke v. Schwartzapfel Partners, P.C., 2017 NY Slip Op 2437 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017). · cites it 2× “Initially, the Supreme Court, in its order dated February 8, 2008, directing the dismissal of the plaintiffs' first personal injury action, inartfully did so on the basis of lack of "capacity" rather than on the related basis of lack of "standing.”
Willie Love v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 677 F.3d 258 (5th Cir. 2012). · cites it 4× “See 11 U.S.C. §§ 554 (c), 1329. In fact, Love’s failure to disclose his claims when he was required to do so has caused considerable delay, increasing the likelihood that his lawsuit against Tyson would continue past the date his discharge is scheduled to occur.”
Hamerly v. Fifth Third Mortg. Co. (In Re J & M Salupo Dev. Co.), 388 B.R. 795 (6th Cir. BAP 2008). · cites it 6× “§ 365 (i) must be interpreted consistently with 11 U.S.C. § 554 . See Castro v. U.S., 310 F.”
Show all 1,472 citing cases →
— 11 U.S.C. § 554(a) — 2 cases
In Re Gee, 124 B.R. 586 (Bankr. N.D. Okla 1991).
Slovak Repub. v. Loveridge (10th Cir. 2019).
— 11 U.S.C. § 554(b) — 4 cases
In Re Paolella, 79 B.R. 607 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1987).
Crouch v. Pioneer Fed. Sav. Bank (In Re Crouch), 80 B.R. 364 (Bankr. W.D. Va. 1987).
Norwood v. Crabtree (In Re Crabtree), 39 B.R. 713 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1984).
In re Presswood, 559 B.R. 204 (Bankr. S.D. Ill. 2016).
— 11 U.S.C. § 554(b)(1) — 1 case
Kirkland v. Rund (In Re EPD Inv. Co.), 821 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2016).
— 11 U.S.C. § 554(c) — 6 cases
Moyer v. ABN Amro Mortg. Grp., Inc. (In Re Feringa), 376 B.R. 614 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 2007).
Munters Corp. v. Locher, 936 S.W.2d 494 (Tex. App. 1997).
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. D & L Nicolaysen (In Re D & L Nicolaysen), 228 B.R. 252 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 1998).
In re Pinks, 531 B.R. 114 (Bankr. D.S.C. 2015).
Fatima Shaw-McDonald v. Eye Consultants of N. Virginia, P.C. (Va. Ct. App. 2024).
— 11 U.S.C. § 554(d) — 2 cases
Sims v. D.R. Horton (D. Maryland 2025).
Birr v. Hampton, 2021 OK CIV APP 9 (Okla. Civ. App. 2021).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.