In re Sanchez v. Clifford (In re Clifford)

Debt was not nondischargeable where debtor did not intend to harm creditor and his actionswere not calculated to scare or intimidate her. (Bankr. D. Md.)HOLDINGS [1]-Debtor breached a "no contact" agreement that obligated him to refrain from harassingcreditor by procuring others to photograph her at restaurants, but his filing of a report with MarylandChild Protective Services and funding the children's father's custody battle was not harassment, as itappeared to be motivated by genuine concern for the children's wellbeing; [2]-Creditor was entitled tonominal damages for breach of contract as well as, under the agreement, attorney's fees incurred toenforce a provision thereof; [3]-Court found in favor of debtor on creditor's IIED claim, as the evidencedid not show that he caused, or intended to cause, her severe distress; [4]-Claim for non-dischargeabilityunder 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) was denied, as the evidence did not show that debtor intended to harmcreditor, and his actions were not calculated to scare or intimidate her.In re Sanchez v. Clifford (In re Clifford), 2019 Bankr. LEXIS 1261 (Bankr. D. Md. April 22, 2019) (Simpson, B.J.).