Fourth Circuit: Brittner v. Beach Anesthesia

Summary:

Brittner filed an adversary proceeding against Beach Anesthesia alleging violations of the automatic stay, but the bankruptcy court (affirmed by the district court) held that she had either failed to establish actual damages or to mitigate damages.

The Court of Appeals held that that Brittner needed to satisfy a five-part test to establish a violation of the automatic stay: 

(1) that a bankruptcy petition was filed,
(2) that the debtors are individuals under the automatic stay provision,
(3) that the creditors received notice of the petition,
(4) that the creditor’s actions were in willful violation of the stay, and
(5) that the debtors suffered damages.
In re Warren, 532 B.R. 655, 660 (Bankr. D.S.C. 2015) (cleaned up).

Further, the court found that Brittner failed to establish actual damages, which were based on emotional distress and attorney’s fees. To establish emotional distress her “own conclusory allegations that [s]he felt embarrassed, degraded, or devastated, and suffered a loss of self-esteem, will not suffice.” Doe v. Chao, 306 F.3d 170, 180 (4th Cir. 2002) (cleaned up). Instead, Brittner needed to produce evidence that emotional distress resulted in her seeking medical or psychological treatment. Further, attorney’s fees resulting from actions that “were manufactured by counsel and ‘could have easily been mitigated'” were not allowed.

Commentary:

This sets a very high standard for damages for emotional distress  in stay violation actions, which is particularly problematic as, unlike other consumer protection laws such as the FDCPA or UDTPA, the Bankruptcy Code does not provide for statutory damages.  

Consequences of this include:

  • Creditor having not repercussions for violating the stay;
  • Debtor’s attorneys routinely having clients who express any distress in response to stay violations  seek immediate medical or psychological care;
  • Not bringing stay violations in the bankruptcy courts, but instead FDCPA or UDTPA actions (and having statutory damages) in the state or federal district courts for the same violations.


This case can, however, support the argument that since debtors and their attorneys are expected to mitigate damages by minimizing or avoiding attorneys fees, that reasonable attorney’s fees for creditors (and Trustees) should be subject to the exact same expectation, where such fees “could have been resolved without court intervention.”

boltz2
Member of the Law Offices of John T. Orcutt, P.C.

Edward C. Boltz is a managing partner of the Law Offices of John T. Orcutt, P.C., where he has managed the firm’s office in Durham, North Carolina since 1998, representing clients in not only Chapter 13 and Chapter 7 bankruptcies, but also in related consumer rights litigation, including fighting abusive mortgage practices. Mr. Boltz received his B.A. from Washington University in St. Louis in 1993 and his J.D. from George Washington University in 1996. He is a member of the North Carolina State Bar, where he has been certified as a specialist in consumer bankruptcy law. He is admitted to practice before the Districts Courts in both the Eastern and Middle Districts of North Carolina. Mr. Boltz is the current President of the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys (NACBA). Previously, he has served as the Secretary of NACBA, and has jointly responsible for directing the NACBA State Chair program, Mr. Boltz has also served on the Bankruptcy Council for the North Carolina Bar Association and previously served as the Bankruptcy Chair for the North Carolina Association of Trial Lawyers.

Related Articles

NN Photo
May 1, 2022
The Bankruptcy Code imposes many duties on attorneys. One such duty requires attorneys to disclose compensation for services in contemplation of, or in connection with a bankruptcy case.1 Debtor attorneys know to disclose their fees at the start of the case. Attorneys that forget to timely file a compensation disclosure typically receive a gentle reminder to do so. However, in...
Members
Copy of Hildebrand-2016
February 19, 2023
When case converts from Chapter 13 to Chapter 7, the Chapter 7 trustee is not limited to the valuation of the debtor’s home as stated on the original schedules and may capture the increase in equity resulting from the property’s appreciation. (Dales) In re Adams, 2022 WL 2079725 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. June 9, 2022) Case Summary Matthew and Katherine Adams...
Members
March 8, 2020
Rebecca A. (Becky) Herr was appointed Chapter 13 Standing Trustee for the District of Maryland on October 1, 2019 and maintains her offices in Annapolis. Ms. Herr’s appointment came on the heels of the retirement of Chapter 13 Standing Trustee Nancy Spencer-Grigsby. But Herr is no stranger to NACTT, The Academy, and the Chapter 13 Trustee community. So, let’s start...
Members
March 3, 2019
Travis Sasser practices bankruptcy law in Cary, North Carolina. He is a board certified specialist in Consumer Bankruptcy by the American Board of Certification and the North Carolina Board of Legal Specialization. He serves on the Bankruptcy Committee for the North Carolina Board of Legal Specialization. He is a member of ABI and NACBA. He graduated from the University of...
Copy of Hildebrand-2016
August 20, 2023
Equity that accrues as a result of market conditions in debtor’s assets between the time of confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan and conversion to Chapter 7 constitutes property of the estate which may be administered by the Chapter 7 trustee.
Members
April 18, 2021
Bankruptcy Courts Grapple with the “COVID-19 Discharge” APPENDIX B Side-by-Side Comparison of 11 U.S.C. § 1328(b)-(i) and 11 U.S.C. § 1141(d)(5)(B)-(C) 11 U.S.C. § 1328(b)-(i) Discharge 11 U.S.C. § 1141(d)(5)(B)-(C) Effect of Confirmation (b) Subject to subsection (d), at any time after the confirmation of the plan and after notice and a hearing, the court may grant a discharge ....
Members
January 31, 2021
By Herbert L. Beskin, Chapter 13 Trustee for the Western District of Virginia (Charlottesville) In a recent case out of the Sixth Circuit, the Appeals Court heard an appeal by the Chapter 13 Trustee concerning direct payments by the debtor on a car loan and the applicable interest rate. The case is In re Chambers, 6th Circuit, # 20-1376, Appeal...
Members
lopezcastro
June 4, 2023
Honorable Corali Lopez-Castro Appointed Miami’s Newest Bankruptcy Judge
November 22, 2020
By Phil Lamos, Chief Legal Counsel, Office of the Chapter 13 Trustee Lauren A. Helbling (Cleveland, OH) Bankruptcy Rule 2002(a)(5) directs that 21 days’ notice must be given of the “time fixed to accept or reject a proposed modification of a [Chapter 13] plan.” But to whom must notice be given? Specifically, which creditors need to be given notice? This...
Members
November 15, 2020
By Lawrence R. Ahern, III, Brown & Ahern (Nashville, TN) Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure Amendments Effective December 1, 2020 The Judicial Conference proposed, and Congress has not changed, the amendments to the following Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure: Rules 2002, 2004, 8012, 8013, 8015 and 8021. Absent Congressional action, which is not expected, they will be effective at the...
Members

Looking to Become a Member?

ConsiderChapter13.org offers a forum to advance continuing education of consumer bankruptcy via access to insightful articles, informative webinars, and the latest industry news. Join now to benefit from expert resources and stay informed.

Webinars

These informative sessions are led by industry experts and cover a range of consumer bankruptcy topics.

Member Articles

Written by industry experts, these articles provide in-depth analysis and practical guidance on consumer bankruptcy topics.

Industry News

The Academy is the go-to source for the latest news and analysis in the Chapter 13 bankruptcy industry.

To get started, please let us know which of these best fits your current position: