National Consumer Bankruptcy Rights Center

Protecting The Rights Of Consumer Debtors In Bankruptcy

Automatic Stay

by on

Scotus Offered Another Opportunity to Address Passive Conduct and the Automatic Stay

After recently declining cert in a case involving the issue of whether a creditor’s passive conduct can ever violate the automatic stay (Davis v. Tyson Prepared Foods, No. 18-941 (10th Cir. cert. denied, May 20, 2019) (blogged here)), the Supreme Court has been presented with another opportunity to take on the issue. In In re Fulton, Nos. 18-2527, 18-2793, 18-2835, 18-3023, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 18393 (7th Cir. June 19, 2019), (blogged here), the City of Chicago impounded the debtors’ vehicles prior to their filing for chapter 13 bankruptcy. Upon filing for bankruptcy, the debtors sought to have the vehicles returned. The City refused, and the bankruptcy court found its refusal constituted a violation of the automatic stay. The City appealed.

Citing its decision in Thompson v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 566 F.3d 699 (7th Cir. 2009), the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that passively retaining, and refusing to return, estate property is an exercise of control within the meaning of section 362(a)(3). The court found that section 542(a) also mandates that an entity in possession of estate property turn it over to the trustee. The court rejected the City’s call to overturn Thompson, recognizing that one of the fundamental purposes of bankruptcy is to allow a debtor to improve her financial situation, and that a vehicle is frequently necessary to achieve that goal.

The City’s petition for certiorari, points out that five courts of appeals (the second, seventh, eighth, ninth and eleventh), have likewise found that passive conduct can be the basis for an automatic stay violation, while two courts of appeals (the tenth and the District of Columbia) have adopted the position that a creditor’s conduct must be affirmative.

City of Chicago v. Fulton Cert Petition

by on

Cert. Denied in Stay Case Involving Passive Conduct

The Supreme Court declined cert. in Davis v. Tyson Prepared Foods, No. 18-941 (May 20, 2019), a case out of the Tenth Circuit presenting the issue of whether section 362(a) applies when a creditor passively holds or obtains an interest in property of the debtor or the estate. The case involved a lien that arose automatically out of post-petition Worker’s Compensation payments made to the debtor. The trustee sought to avoid the lien as violating the automatic stay. The Tenth Circuit found that based on WD Equip., LLC v. Cowen (In re: Cowen), 849 F.3d 943 (10th Cir. 2017), section 362(a)(4), which prohibits “any act to create, perfect, or enforce any lien,” requires affirmative conduct on the part of the creditor. Here, because the lien was created by operation of law, there was no such affirmative conduct and the Tenth Circuit found no stay violation.

Davis SCt Cert Petition

Davis 10th Cir Oct 2019

by on

Withholding Graduation Date from Transcript Violates Stay

Excluding the graduation date from the debtor’s transcript was tantamount to withholding the transcript altogether and constituted a violation of the automatic stay for which the debtor was entitled to damages, even though those damages consisted only of the costs associated with vindicating her rights. California Coast Univ. v. Aleckna, No. 16-158 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 28, 2019).

At the time the Chapter 13 debtor completed her coursework at California Coast University, she owed $6,300 in overdue tuition. When she and her husband filed for bankruptcy she listed the tuition debt as unsecured and disputed. She later sought an official copy of her transcript. CCU provided a transcript that omitted the graduation date, explaining that, because of the outstanding debt, she had not officially graduated. CCU filed an action in the bankruptcy case seeking a finding that the tuition debt was non-dischargeable. Ms. Aleckna counterclaimed that CCU’s refusal to provide her complete transcript violated the automatic stay. The bankruptcy court found in favor of Ms. Aleckna and awarded damages for lost $230.16 wages, and unspecified attorney’s fees and costs.

[Read more…] about Withholding Graduation Date from Transcript Violates Stay

by on

7th Circuit Rules Creditor Should be Held in Contempt for Jailing Discharged Debtor but No Contempt for Creditor’s Counsel

On August 13, 2019, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed in part and affirmed in part the lower courts. On appeal, NACBA board member Tara Twomey submitted an amicus brief on behalf of the National Consumer Bankruptcy Rights Center (NCBRC) supporting the Debtor. 

The facts underlying the case started in 2001. Jacqueline M. Sterling (“Debtor”) was sued in state court for approximately $520.00 in membership fees owed to Southlake Nautilus Health & Racquet Club (“Creditor”). The Creditor was represented by the law firm Austgen, Kuiper & Associates (“Creditor’s Counsel”). After obtaining a judgment in 2002, the Creditor’s Counsel filed a “proceeding supplemental” in state court to collect on the judgment. The Debtor did not appear at the collection hearings and ultimately the state court issued a “body attachment” (bench warrant) against Debtor to show cause for violating the court’s orders.

In 2010, the Debtor filed for bankruptcy protection and listed the Creditor but not the Creditor’s Counsel. The Debtor obtained a discharge. The Creditor was notified of the discharge but did not forward the discharge to the Creditor’s Counsel. Creditor’s Counsel did not know the discharge order.

In 2011, the Debtor had a flat tire and was assisted by the local police. The police discovered the bench warrant and the Debtor was arrested and held in jail for two days.

Subsequently, the Debtor sued the Creditor and Creditor’s Counsel in Bankruptcy Court for violation of the discharge injunction found in Section 524 of the Bankruptcy Code.

The Bankruptcy Court ruled in favor of the Creditor and Creditor’s Counsel. The Bankruptcy Court found the Debtor had failed to prove that the Creditor’s Counsel knew of the discharge when it continued collection proceedings. Further, the Creditor didn’t violate the discharge injunction because it was unaware of the status of the case against the Debtor, and that it didn’t direct Creditor’s Counsel to take any particular actions. The ruling was affirmed by the District Court.

To read more click here.

by on

City Did Not Violate Stay by Failing to Rescind Warrant

The city had no obligation under the automatic stay to take affirmative action to rescind a warrant for the debtor’s arrest or to issue a letter of compliance to the state, where the City had taken no post-petition action to enforce the warrant, and the debtor was not in compliance with the court order to pay a traffic fine. Edwards v. City of
Ferguson, No. 18-6032 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. July 3, 2019).

[Read more…] about City Did Not Violate Stay by Failing to Rescind Warrant

by on

7th Circuit Rules Chicago Can Not Ignore the Automatic Stay and Hold Vehicles Until Tickets are Paid

On June 19, 2019 the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decisions of the lower bankruptcy courts.

In four Chapter 13 bankruptcies, the City of Chicago impounded vehicles owned by the Debtors for failure to pay multiple traffic fines. After the Debtors filed chapter 13, the City refused to return the vehicles claiming they needed to maintain possession to continue their perfection on them and wouldn’t return the vehicles until the fines were paid.

The bankruptcy courts held that the City violated the automatic stay by exercising control over the vehicles, that no exceptions applied, and ordered the return of the vehicles and sanctions. The City appealed and the 7th Circuit consolidated the appeals in this case.

The Debtors were represented in part by NACBA members John Wonais of the Semrad Law Firm, and Eugene Wedoff. NACBA member Tara Twomey supported the Debtors by filing an amici curiae brief for NACBA and the National Consumer Bankruptcy Rights Center. NACBA member David Yen filed an amicus curiae brief for the Legal Assistance Foundation.

To read more click here.

by on

Bankruptcy Court Addresses Eligibility, Non-formal Notice of Bankruptcy and a Creditor’s Affirmative Duty to Correct Technical Violations of the Automatic Stay

A bankruptcy court recently ruled on several issues of importance to all potential debtors. First, the court examined the effect of a prior dismissal order (for failure to timely file certain schedules, statements or other documents) on a subsequent bankruptcy petition. Specifically, the court examined the small slice of cases where the automatic stay does not apply in a second case when the Debtor is not an “eligible Debtor” under 11 U.S.C. § 109(g). The court also examined the split in authority on who bears the burden of proof of proving eligibility.

Further the court examined whether a creditor, who unknowingly completed a foreclosure sale during the second case, violated the automatic stay by not promptly undoing the sale upon notification of the bankruptcy. Further the court extensively discussed the different non-traditional methods that creditors can receive binding notice of a bankruptcy and their responsibility thereafter. The court also examined whether a technical violation can turn into a willful violation and whether a creditor has an affirmative duty to correct a technical violation.

To read more click here.