IN RE METTEN

ALAN JAROSLOVSKY, Bankruptcy Judge

Debtor Carl Metten filed a Chapter 11 petition commencing this case on July 13, 1995. On June 19, 1996, this court entered a nondischargeable judgment in the amount of $427,422.39 against Metten and in favor of creditor Bates Land Development Corp. At some time after the petition was filed — the record does not include the date — Metten acquired an interest in the real property at 2610 Barcelona Drive in Shell Beach, California. For reasons not entirely clear, Metten has moved the court pursuant to § 522(f)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code to avoid the judgment lien, now held by Steven Bates.

The court is unsure why Metten believes he can use § 522(f)(1)(A) to avoid a judgment lien on property he acquired after the bankruptcy case was commenced. Section 522(b)(1) of the Code provides that a debtor may exempt certain property of the estate. Section 522(f)(1)(A) allows a debtor to avoid a lien on property to the extent it impairs an exemption to which the debtor would have been entitled under § 522(b). Since the Shell Beach residence was never property of the estate, the judgment lien does not impair any exemption right in this case and is therefore not subject to avoidance.

It may be that Metten is confused about a common practice when avoiding a lien. Since § 524(a)(1) of the Code voids judgments on discharged debts, the court will often decree, in the process of avoiding a judgment lien, that it does not attach to after-acquired property. However, § 524(a)(1) does not apply to postpetition judgments or nondischargeable judgments.

Since Metten has not shown that the Shell Beach property was ever property of the estate, the court cannot grant his motion to avoid the lien. It will accordingly be denied. Counsel for Bates shall submit an appropriate form of order.