From the Editor – Discharge Injunction

By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired)

Bank’s two letters attempting debt collection violated discharge injunction. Chapter 7 debtors reopened their case and court found that a bank, with knowledge of the prior discharge, had mailed two letters to debtors that were attempts to collect the discharged debt. The second letter was sent after debtors’ attorney had written the bank that it should cease collection efforts. The debtors’ actual damages were their $3,050 attorney fees, and $500 punitive sanction was awarded, reduced from the $100,000 sanction requested by debtors. In re Szenes . . .

It looks like you are not signed in or registered! This content is only available to members.

Or Sign In Below:

No Author Biography has been linked to this Article.

Related Articles

DeCarlo01
June 25, 2023
Courts continue to wrestle with the issue of trustee fees in pre-confirmation dismissals. The Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois has now weighed in in In re Johnson, 2023 WL 3406597 (Bankr. N.D. Il. 2023).  The facts are pretty typical.  Debtor filed for Chapter 13. After 8 months and 8 confirmation hearings, the Court granted Trustee’s request for...
Members
June 13, 2021
By Kara L. West, CPA, Chapter 12/13 Standing Trustee for the Eastern District of Tennessee (Chattanooga); Successor Trustee to C. Kenneth Still C. Kenneth Still was a legend. “Always with Barbara at this side, he epitomized qualities I think we all seek—honesty, diligence, kindness, and patience. He was a great mentor and a quick wit, and I miss him already....
Hale-Andrew-Antico
January 29, 2023
Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel finds no “eligibility” exception to right to dismiss a Chapter 13 bankruptcy Powell vs TICO Construction (In re Powell) 644 B.R. 181 (9th Circuit BAP, 2022) ISSUE Did the bankruptcy court err in granting Debtor’s motion to dismiss the Chapter 13? RULING No. FACTS This case tests the new “absolute right to dismiss” rule about...
Members
June 20, 2021
By Cathy Moran, Esq., (Redwood City, CA) To actually effect abandonment of unadministered assets in a bankruptcy case, the asset in question must appear on Schedule A/B. That’s the hard teaching of Stevens v. Whitmore from the 9th Circuit BAP. A passing reference to an asset in the SOFA isn’t sufficient. Neither was the fact the trustee explicitly knew about...
Members
May 5, 2019
By Judge Michael A. Fagone & Career Law Clerk Ciera S. Dye Although our Nation’s bankruptcy laws are uniform, chapter 13 practice in our Nation’s bankruptcy courts varies to a significant extent in the different judicial districts. One example of this variation is the treatment of postpetition borrowing by a consumer debtor in chapter 13.i Neither the Bankruptcy Code nor...
Members
February 9, 2020
By The Honorable John P. Gustafson Can a creditor refuse to do business with a debtor, or is such refusal a violation of the automatic stay? The case of Brown v. Penn State Employees Credit Union, 851 F.2d 81 (3rd Cir. 1988) held that a credit union’s refusal to continue to do business with a debtor who caused a loss...
Members
October 3, 2021
By Henry E. Hildebrand, III, Chapter 13 Standing Trustee (Nashville, TN) Administrative fees and claims existing when Chapter 13 plan was confirmed would reduce the amounts received by unsecured creditors in a Chapter 7 under the “best interests of creditors test;” unsecured creditors, expected to receive payments over three years, must be paid the “present value” of that stream of...
Members
July 12, 2020
By Wayne Silver, Wayne Silver Law (Redwood City, CA) There you are, client on the witness stand, judge listening intently, story being told on direct exactly the way you prepared her, things going just swimmingly. And then opposing counsel stands and utters those two lovely words…”Objection, hearsay.” Huh? That’s ridiculous, you confidently think to yourself, just as you hear the...
Members
gendron-1
September 17, 2023
“Perhaps the most obvious problem with this instructional language is that it refers to outdated services.”
Members
Copy of Hildebrand-2016
Chapter 13 plan cannot be modified to treat a priority claim as general unsecured after the time for reconsideration of the order has passed. (Easterbrook) Matter of Terrell, 39 F.4th 888 (7th Cir. July 12, 2022) Case Summary The Terrells’ Chapter 13 plan proposed a classification to pay the State of Wisconsin in full as a priority claim because, they...
Members