Creditors Beware: Collection of Debt Based on Unreasonable Belief/Understanding That the Debt Was Not Discharged in Bankruptcy Might Lead to a Finding of Civil Contempt
In Taggart v. Lorenzen, the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' Order, which affirmed the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's Order vacating civil contempt sanctions against Bradley Taggart's ("Bradley") creditors for violation of a Bankruptcy Court discharge Order. On certiorari to the Court, the central issue was to determine "what the appropriate criteria should be for a Court to hold a creditor in civil contempt for attempting to collect a debt that a discharge order has immunized from collection." And, SCOTUS adopted an objective standard, which creditors should be mindful of going forward.
The State Court proceedings against Bradley Taggart stemmed from Bradley's alleged breach of a contract concerning a joint business venture between him and his co-owners. During the pendency of the State Action, Bradley filed for Bankruptcy Protection under Chapter 7, and the Bankruptcy Court issued an Order discharging Bradley of all pre-petition debts unless exempted under 11 U.S.C. § 525. After discharge, Bradley's creditors petitioned the State Court for a post-discharge attorneys' fees judgment against Bradley arguing that his post-discharge actions constituted a "return to the fray" pursuant to the 9th Circuit's findings in In re Ybarra, which the State Court granted. However, Bradley motioned the Bankruptcy Court to find his creditors in civil contempt based on their attempts to collect post-discharge attorneys' fees on pre-bankruptcy petition litigation. The Bankruptcy Court denied the motion, but the District Court later reversed and found the creditors should be subject to civil contempt for violating the discharge Order. Based on the District Court's decision, the Bankruptcy Court sanctioned the creditors for $105,000 in attorneys' fees and costs; $5,000 in damages for emotional distress; and $2,000 in punitive damages. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel later vacated the sanctions and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, but on different grounds. The 9th Circuit found that a creditor's good faith belief that the discharge order "does not apply to the creditor's claims precludes a finding of contempt, even if the creditor's belief is unreasonable." And given the 9th Circuit's decision, Bradley appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In determining the applicable standard, the U.S. Supreme Court evaluated three types of standards: (i) a "strict liability" standard; (ii) a "good faith belief standard"; and (iii) an "objective" standard. The first standard, supported by Bradley, would sanction creditors if they were aware of the discharge order and intended their actions that led to a violation of a discharge Order regardless of the creditors' belief. The Court rejected this standard as it would likely increase the amount of federal court litigation brought by creditors. The Court opined that creditors would seek advanced rulings to ensure there was no doubt whether a debt has been discharged, which would be inconsistent with Congress' intent to only require advance rulings in a small amount of cases. See 11 USC § 523(c)(1). The Court also considered, but rejected, the 9th Circuit's "good faith belief" standard as it would lead to creditors who "stand on shaky legal ground" to collect discharged debts and force debtors into more litigation.
Finally, the Court evaluated a third standard, an objective one, which the creditors and the Solicitor General supported. In adopting this standard, the Court, inter alia, emphasized the language of 11 USC § 524(a)(2), which provides that a discharge order acts as an "injunction." Additionally, § 105 authorizes the Bankruptcy Court to "issue any order, process, or judgment that is necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this title. See 11 USC § 105(a). With those statutory provisions in mind, the Court applied what the Court considered "traditional principles of equity practice" historically used in findings of civil contempt for a violating an injunction, which generally apply an objective standard of review. After careful consideration, SCOTUS adopted the following standard:
"A Court may hold a creditor in civil contempt for violation a discharge order if there is no fair ground of doubt as to whether the order barred the creditor's conduct."
Creditors should be mindful of the standard adopted by SCOTUS in Taggart as it could lead to increased litigation against creditors concerning alleged violations of a discharge order. Although the Court rejected a "strict liability" standard, a "no fair ground of doubt" standard still increases the likelihood of liability for unintended violations of a discharge order. And therefore, creditors should beware.
Topics
- 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
- 1st Circuit Court of Appeals
- 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals
- 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals
- 4th Circuit Court of Appeals
- 5th Circuit Court of Appeals
- 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
- ACA
- ACA International
- Amicus Brief
- Appellate Decisions
- Appointment Power
- Appraised Value
- Arbitration
- Arbitration Rule
- ATDS
- Attorneys' Fees
- Autodialer
- Automated Telephone Dialer Service
- Bankruptcy
- Bankruptcy Code
- behavioral economics
- Biometric Information Privacy Act
- BIPA
- Blockchain
- California
- California Consumer Privacy Act
- California Court of Appeal
- Car Dealership
- CCPA
- CFPB
- Chapter 7 Bankruptcy
- Circuit Split
- City of Miami
- Civil Contempt
- Class Action
- Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
- Class Certification
- Cole Memorandum
- Colorado
- Communications
- Compliance Audit
- Compliance Corner
- Congressional Review Act
- Consumer Data Privacy
- Consumer Disclosures
- Consumer Financial Protection Act
- Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
- Consumer Protections
- Corporate Compliance
- Corporate Governance
- Craigslist
- Credit Report
- Creditor
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals
- Damages
- Data Privacy Laws
- Debt Buyers
- Debt Collection
- Debt Collector
- Debt Purchase
- Debtor
- Deceased Debtors
- Default Notice
- Department of Education
- Department of Financial Services
- DFS
- Dodd-Frank
- Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
- Due Process Clause
- Education
- Education Debt
- Eighth Amendment
- Electronic Communications
- Employee Benefits
- Employer Participation Student Loan Assistance Act
- Equal Opportunity Act
- European General Data Privacy Regulation
- Excessive Fines Clause
- FACTA
- Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act
- Fair Credit Billing Act
- Fair Credit Reporting Act
- Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
- Fair Employment and Housing Act
- Fair Market Value
- Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017
- FCBA
- FCC
- FCRA
- FDCPA
- Federal
- Federal Arbitration Act
- Federal Communications Commission
- Federal Housing Authority
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 68
- Federal Trade Commission
- FHA
- Financial CHOICE Act
- Financial Regulatory
- Florida
- Florida Supreme Court
- For-Profit Student Loans
- Forbearance Agreement
- Foreclosure
- Foreclosure Sale
- Fourteenth Amendment
- FTC
- GDPR
- Hearsay
- HMDA
- Hobbs Act
- HUD
- Illinois
- Illinois Student Loan Bill of Rights
- Illinois Supreme Court
- IRS
- Judicial Estoppel
- Kathleen Kraninger
- Lack of Standing
- Legal Standing
- Legislation
- Lender Credit Bid
- Litigation
- Loan Defaults
- Loan Modification
- Loan Servicing
- Maine
- Mandatory Arbitration
- Marijuana
- Massachusetts
- Massachusetts Appeals Court
- Massachusetts Land Court
- Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
- Materiality Requirement
- Medical Marijuana
- Minnesota
- Monetary Damages
- Mortgage
- Mortgage Acceleration
- Mortgage Debt
- Mortgage Foreclosure
- Mortgage Loans
- Motion to Dismiss
- Municipal Code
- Municipal Code Violations
- Nevada
- New Jersey
- New York
- Notice of Proposed Rule Making
- NPRM
- Obama Administration
- OFAC
- Office of Foreign Assets Control
- Personal Jurisdiction
- Post-Discharge-Communications
- Pre-Foreclosure Mediation
- Privacy
- Private Right of Action
- Property Value
- Proposed Legislation
- Real Estate Settlement Act
- Regulatory
- Regulatory Relief
- RESPA
- Reverse Mortgage
- Revocation Claims
- Revocation of Election to Accelerate
- Rhode Island
- Rhode Island Supreme Court
- Richard Cordray
- RICO
- Right to Cure Notice
- Robocalls
- S.A.F.E. Mortgage Licensing Act
- Safe-Harbor Provision
- Sanitary Codes
- SCOTUS
- Securities & Exchange Commission
- Seventh Circuit
- Statute of Limitations
- Statutory Interpretation
- Student Loans
- Students
- Supreme Court of the United States
- TCPA
- Telephone Consumer Protection Act
- Texting
- Third Circuit
- TILA
- Trump
- Trump Administration
- Truth in Lending Act
- U.S. Constitution
- UCC
- UDAAP
- Unauthorized Use
- Undue Hardship
- Uniform Commercial Code
- United States Treasury
- Unsolicited Advertisement
- Voluntary Discontinuance
- Voluntary Dismissal
- Washington D.C.
- Wisconsin
- Wisconsin Consumer Act