Tucson Bankruptcy Blog
Collecting on Contempt – Contempt Order for Violation of Stay is Sanctions order, not mere Money Judgement
In the 2013 case of In re Wallace, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a contempt order for violation of automatic stay entered by the Bankruptcy Court constituted a sanctions order to be paid within a set period of time. Further, the court determined that even if the sanction order was considered a money judgement, which would be only enforceable through a writ of execution, “the contempt power to enforce a sanction for misconduct was appropriate because it is not an ordinary money judgment.”
In that case, the Bankruptcy Court entered a conditional stay relief order that directed any recovery against the debtor be limited to the extent of proceeds from debtor’s commercial general liability insurance policy and/or surety bond. The creditors ignored the order and filed a complaint against the debtor individually for special and punitive damages (nowhere naming the insurance policy or other required conditions from the relief order).
The Bankruptcy Court granted the debtor’s sanction motion, which creditors subsequently failed to pay. The creditors contended that the language of the original sanctions order was ambiguous since its text suggested it was a Judgement, while also setting a 60 day period in which to pay. The Bankruptcy Court responded that while the language was ambiguous, the whole point of the order was to sanction the creditors for violating the discharge injunction. Thus, the Bankruptcy Court found it was a contempt order, not merely a judgment enforceable by execution.
BAP affirmed, since (1) the definition of “judgment” within the Rule is “any appealable order” and, thus, in no way transforms the sanction order into a money judgement; (2) Appellants never objected and never sought clarification from the bankruptcy court regarding the supposed discrepancy.
KEYWORDS: discharge order, violation of discharge order, contempt of discharge injunction, civil contempt, sanctions order, money judgement, collecting on contempt
Attorney Matthew Foley has been featured on every Tucson news media
Read Related Posts:
Creditor Behavior found Objectively Coercive: Refusal to Release Title or Pickup Vehicle
In Pratt v. GMAC, 462 F. 3d 14 (1st Cir., 2006), debtors intended to surrender their vehicle by ceding possession rather than reaffirming the debt. The creditor wrote off the balance because the value of the vehicle was less than the costs of...
Six Year Statute of Limitations for Collecting on Credit Card Debt
Arizona statute of limitations on credit card debt is six years. Merely missing a payment does not start the clock on the statute of limitations. Unless there are contrary terms in the credit card account agreement, the lender must accelerate the debt or demand full payment for the clock on the statute of limitations to start running.
“No-Discharge” Language in Loan is Not Enforceable
In the case of In re Chionis, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a creditor’s stated subjective belief that “no-discharge” language in a loan excepts the loan debt from a bankruptcy discharge does not...
Matt Foley, Esq. & MBA
Matthew Foley is a Tucson attorney who is uniquely qualified in bankruptcy and debt settlement matters because of his extensive financial background in lending and credit. Matt holds dual JD & MBA degrees from Arizona State University’s Sandra Day O’Conner College of Law and nationally recognized W.P. Carey College of Business. 
0 Comments