Tag: violation of automatic stay

United States Supreme Court: Post-bankruptcy possession doesn’t violate automatic stay

It’s rare the the United States Supreme Court decides a legal issue that affects everyday consumer bankruptcies, but today was one of those days.

In City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a creditor who repossesses property prior to a bankruptcy filing is not required to release that property after the bankruptcy filing. Per today’s opinion, “mere retention of property does not violate the [automatic stay in] § 362(a)(3).”

This case has real-world implications for creditors, mainly car loan creditors. In the past, if a lender repossessed a vehicle and the borrower filed a bankruptcy case, the debtor would then demand immediate release of the car.

The argument has been that the secured creditor would be in violation of the automatic stay, unless it immediately released the vehicle to the debtor. In our Nashville bankruptcy local practice, the creditor attorney would generally ask for “adequate protection,” meaning proof of insurance on the car and proof that the debtor was proposing a reorganization plan that would pay for the car.

But, in short, if the car creditor tried to keep the car after a bankruptcy was filed, the creditor was swimming in risky waters. That continuing exercise of possession, most of our bankruptcy judges would say, was an action to collect a debt and a stay violation.

Justice Alito’s opinion walks a fine line, noting that 11 U.S.C. Section 362(a)(3) “prohibits affirmative acts that would disturb the status quo of estate property.” The opinion says that simply holding property is not affirmative act; it’s just maintaining the status quo.

While it’s true that that Section 362(a)(3) prohibits “exercising control over estate property,” Alito wrote that this text “suggests that merely retaining possession of estate property does not violate the automatic stay.” The words used in §362(a)(3) “halts any affirmative act that would alter the status quo as of the time of the filing of a bankruptcy petition.” An automatic stay is not “an affirmative turnover obligation.”

In the end, the Supreme Court wrote that “We hold only that mere retention of estate property after the filing of a bankruptcy petition does not violate §362(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code.”

You can read the full opinion here Download

This case creates as much trouble as it resolves, honestly. In practical application, where the creditor has repossessed the car, when does the creditor turn it over? In its discretion? After negotiation of plan repayment terms? Never (i.e. the creditor keeps the car and files a motion for stay relief to take an affirmative action–a sale)?

Highlights from the Creditors Practice Annual Forum 2018: Stay Relief Violations

Last month, I taught a session at the Tennessee Bar Association’s Creditors Practice Annual Forum 2018.  My section was called “Litigating Stay Violations.”

The CLE was on September 26, 2018, so, sorry, you missed it. But, to get more mileage out of the materials I prepared, I’m going to post some of the info here.

First off, the automatic stay at 11 U.S.C. § 362 operates as a stay of most collection activity against the debtor in bankruptcy.

When the stay is violated, 11 U.S.C. § 362(k) comes into play, which provides in part that “an individual injured by any willful violation of a stay provided by this section shall recover actual damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, and, in appropriate circumstances, may recover punitive damages.”

And, no, a violation doesn’t have to mean that the creditor had bad intent.

Actually, a willful violation of the automatic stay requires only that: (i) the creditor knew of the stay and (ii) acted intentionally in violation of the stay. TranSouth Financial Corp. v. Sharon (In re  Sharon), 234 B.R. 676, 687 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. 1999). “[P]roof of a specific intent to violate the stay” is not required, but instead only “an intentional violation by a party aware of the bankruptcy filing.” Id.

Basically, the debtor has to prove that the creditor had notice of the Bankruptcy and took intentional action that violated the stay. Long story short, it’s not a high bar to prove those factors.

Will an Adversary Proceeding Survive the Dismissal of the Bankruptcy Case? Maybe.

Eight years ago (8 years! You are reading a law blog that has lasted for 8 years!), I talked about the difference between a bankruptcy discharge and a dismissal.

The tl;dr version for creditors? Discharge is bad; dismissal is good.

But, what if you’re a creditor and the debtor has filed an adversary proceeding against you, but then the bankruptcy case is dismissed?

The tl;dr version? It depends.

Generally, the dismissal of the underlying bankruptcy case results in the dismissal of related adversary proceedings because federal jurisdiction is “premised upon the nexus between the underlying bankruptcy case and the related proceedings.” But, there are exceptions.

One such exception is for proceedings to enforce sanctions and contempt for violation of the automatic stay. A Bankruptcy Court will retain jurisdiction “for the purpose of vindicating the court’s own authority and to enforce its own orders.” See In re Bankston, 1:12-BK-14022-SDR, 2015 WL 6126440, at *2 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. Oct. 15, 2015)

Basically, the reasoning goes, an action for contempt of court resulting from a party’s blatant disregard of the Bankruptcy Code and the authority of the Bankruptcy Court is something that the Bankruptcy Court takes very seriously and will enforce, independent of whether the underlying case still exists.

The reasoning is different for other types of proceedings that are dependent on the underlying case, like actions to recover avoidance preferences.