Posted by NCBRC - December 4th, 2020
Declining to extend its 2002 holding in Walls, the Ninth Circuit found that a chapter 13 debtor who fully paid the creditor’s claim prior to completion of his plan was not precluded from pursuing an FDCPA claim based on the creditor’s post-discharge collection efforts. Manikan v. Peters & Freedman, L.L.P., No. 19-55393 (9th Cir. Nov. 25, 2020).
The debtor entered chapter 13 bankruptcy after receiving a notice of foreclosure from Peters & Freedman, a debt collector, based on HOA arrears. Through P&F, the HOA filed a claim in his bankruptcy, and the debtor provided for the arrears in his plan. He fully paid off the debt approximately two years prior to completion of his plan. After the debtor received his discharge, P&F hired Advanced Attorney Services (AAS) to re-serve a Notice of Default based on the debt that the debtor had paid off in his bankruptcy. AAS served the notice by breaking through a gate, entering the debtor’s backyard and banging on his windows, causing the debtor to call the police. Read More
Posted by NCBRC - December 2nd, 2020
On remand from the Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit found that, under the Supreme Court’s objective standard, the debtor’s active post-bankruptcy litigation in state court of the terms of his separation from his business partnership established sufficient cause for his business partner creditors to have a reasonable belief that he had “returned to the fray” and that their motion for attorney’s fees would not violate the discharge injunction. Lorenzen v. Taggart, No. 16-35402 (9th Cir. Nov. 24, 2020). Read More
Posted by NCBRC - July 24th, 2020
The discharge injunction does not prohibit a lienholder from seeking value for release of its lien so long as, under the specific facts of the case, its conduct is not an improper attempt to coerce repayment of the discharged debt. Bentley v. OneMain Financial Group, No. 19-8026 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. July 8, 2020). Read More
Posted by NCBRC - June 24th, 2020
In the absence of intervening legislative or Supreme Court directive, the Second Circuit followed its precedent finding that a debtor could not be compelled to arbitrate his contempt motion for violation of the discharge injunction. Belton v. GE Capital Retail Bank, No. 19-648 (2d Cir. June 16, 2020) (consolidated with Bruce v. Citicorp Inc., No. 19-655). Read More
Posted by NCBRC - November 15th, 2019
On direct interlocutory appeal, the Fifth Circuit found that courts may not use their contempt powers to enforce discharge orders issued by other courts outside their judicial districts. The court also held that the private student loans at issue were not subject to section 523(a)(8)(A)(ii)’s nondischargeability provision because that provision applies only to educational benefits where, as in the case of grants or scholarships, the obligation to repay is conditional. Crocker v. Navient Solutions LLC, No. 18-20254 (5th Cir. Oct. 22, 2019). Read More
Posted by NCBRC - October 21st, 2019
The Fifth Circuit found that the test it established in In re Nat’l Gypsum Co., 118 F.3d 1059, 1069 (5th Cir. 1997), was still good law notwithstanding the intervening case of Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018), and that, under National Gypsum, the bankruptcy properly exercised its discretion to deny the creditor’s motion to compel arbitration in an action alleging discharge injunction violation. Henry v. Educ. Fin. Serv., No 18-20809 (5th Cir. Oct. 17, 2019).
NCBRC, NACBA and Professor Jay Westbrook provided an amicus brief, authored by NACBA member Allan Gropper, in support of the debtor in this case.
Stephanie Henry filed for chapter 13 bankruptcy ten years after entering into a student loan contract with Wells Fargo’s predecessor. After she successfully completed her five-year plan, Wells Fargo sent her a letter containing language to the effect that it was attempting to collect the remaining debt on the loan. Ms. Henry filed an adversary proceeding alleging violation of the discharge injunction. Wells Fargo moved to compel arbitration in accordance with a clause in the lending agreement under which Ms. Henry agreed to have any complaint “arising under or relating to” the debt settled by arbitration. The bankruptcy court denied Wells Fargo’s motion to compel arbitration on the basis that the cause of action did not arise under or relate to the student loan contract. The court certified the case for interlocutory appeal directly to the Fifth Circuit. Read More
Posted by NCBRC - October 14th, 2019
Finding that “[w]ords in a consumer agreement cannot deprive the bankruptcy court of the inherent power to enforce compliance with an injunction,” the district court found an arbitration clause in a consumer contract did not constrain the court’s contempt powers. Verizon Wireless Personal Communications, LP v. Bateman, No. 14-5369, Adv. Proc. No. 18-1394 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 24, 2019).
Christopher Bateman filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy listing Verizon as an unsecured creditor. Verizon did not acknowledge or take part in the bankruptcy in any way. Five months after Mr. Bateman obtained his discharge, Verizon sent him a letter attempting to collect the discharged debt. Mr. Bateman moved the court to hold Verizon in contempt for violation of the discharge injunction. In response, Verizon moved to compel arbitration, invoking its Customer Agreement with Mr. Bateman which provided that any dispute which “in any way relates to or arises out of” the agreement is subject to arbitration. The bankruptcy court found that its power to enforce its order was not subject to the terms of Mr. Bateman’s Customer Agreement with Verizon. Read More
Posted by NCBRC - June 5th, 2019
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that “a court may hold a creditor in civil contempt for violating a discharge order if there is no fair ground of doubt as to whether the order barred the creditor’s conduct.” Taggart v. Lorenzen, No. 18-489, 587 U. S. ___ (June 3, 2019).
Chapter 7 debtor, Bradley Taggart, was involved in pre-petition litigation in state court at the time he filed for bankruptcy. After he obtained his discharge, Sherwood, an opposing party in the state court litigation, obtained a judgment against him. Sherwood then sought attorney’s fees, and the state court awarded those fees notwithstanding Ninth Circuit precedent making clear that the post-petition attorney’s fees were discharged along with Taggart’s other debts. The bankruptcy court found that Sherwood was aware of the discharge and intended the act that violated it and, under that standard, it held Sherwood in contempt of the discharge order. The bankruptcy appellate panel reversed the sanction award and the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that Sherwood could not be held in contempt in light of its good faith belief that its conduct did not violate the discharge injunction regardless of whether that belief was reasonable. Read More
Posted by NCBRC - April 30th, 2019
Creditor and her counsel were found liable for violation of the discharge injunction to the tune of over $200,000, after the creditor and her counsel blindsided the debtor during closing arguments in their state court litigation by grossly expanding the scope of the creditor’s claimed damages to encompass discharged debts. In re Renfrow, No. 17-1027 (Bankr. N.D. Okla. April 23, 2019). Read More
Posted by NCBRC - April 27th, 2019
Addressing the reach of a bankruptcy court’s contempt powers in the context of a violation of the discharge injunction, the Supreme Court heard arguments on April 24, in the case of Taggart v. Lorenzen, No. 18-489.
Daniel Geyser appeared for the debtor, Bradley Taggart. Nicole Saharsky represented the creditor, Shelley Lorenzen, executor. Sopan Joshi, from the office of the Solicitor General, argued as amicus not in support of either party. NACBA submitted an amicus brief in support of reversal.
The controversy hinged on a state court finding that Mr. Taggart’s creditor could seek contractual attorney fees in the litigation before it, even though those fees would have been subject to the discharge order injunction had Mr. Taggart not “returned to the fray.” The bankruptcy court found that the “returned to the fray” doctrine did not apply and that the litigation violated the discharge injunction. It awarded sanctions, at least in part representing the debtor’s attorney’s fees. The Ninth Circuit ultimately reversed the sanctions stating broadly that a creditor acting in good faith cannot be held liable for discharge injunction violation even if that belief is unreasonable. Lorenzen v. Taggart (In re Taggart), 888 F.3d 438 (9th Cir. 2018). Read More
