Skip to main content

§ 362(k)

In re White

Ruling
Failure of creditor to return vehicles repossessed postpetition immediately upon receiving notice of bankruptcy violated stay.
Procedural posture

Chapter 13 debtor filed a motion for sanctions against a creditor for a violation of the automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(k).

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re White Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

opinion summary, case decided on July 09, 2007 , LexisNexis #0907-045

Bank of Am. v. Adomah (In re Adomah)

Ruling
Bank violated stay by holding exempt funds pending debtor obtaining release from judgment creditor, though it did not act in bad faith.
Procedural posture

A Bankruptcy Court granted damages to appellee debtor arising out of a violation of 11 U.S.C. § 362. Appellant bank appealed. The debtor cross-appealed the denial in the opinion of punitive damages.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Bank of Am. v. Adomah (In re Adomah) Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

opinion summary, case decided on May 08, 2007 , LexisNexis #0607-039

Campbell v. Countrywide Home Loans Inc. (In re Campbell)

Ruling
Loan servicer violated stay by requiring debtors to pay prepetition property taxes.
Procedural posture

Debtors commenced an action, seeking damages pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(k) for defendant loan servicer's alleged violation of the automatic stay. Pending was the loan servicer motion to reconsider the court's January 26, 2007, order granting in part debtors'summary judgment motion.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Campbell v. Countrywide Home Loans Inc. (In re Campbell) Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

opinion summary, case decided on March 15, 2007 , LexisNexis #0507-074

Campbell v. Countrywide Home Loans Inc. (In re Campbell)

Ruling
Mortgage creditor violated stay by increasing debtor's monthly escrow payments.
Procedural posture

Debtors moved for summary judgment on their claim that defendant creditor, the holder of a mortgage on their residence, was liable for damages under 11 U.S.C. § 362(k) on account of its conduct in willfully violating the automatic stay by increasing debtors'monthly mortgage escrow payment pursuant to the parties'prepetition agreement. Debtors also sought an order awarding attorneys'fees, costs and expenses.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Campbell v. Countrywide Home Loans Inc. (In re Campbell) Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

opinion summary, case decided on January 26, 2007 , LexisNexis #0307-038

In re Hildreth

Ruling
Creditor sanctioned for continuing to contact debtor in willful violation of stay.
Procedural posture

Chapter 13 debtors filed a motion seeking sanctions against a creditor for violating the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(k).

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Hildreth Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

opinion summary, case decided on December 14, 2006 , LexisNexis #0207-042

In re Barton

Ruling
County clerk sanctioned for violating stay by attempting to collect interest and costs on taxes paid through chapter 13 plan.
Procedural posture

Pending was debtors'motion seeking sanctions against the County Clerk of Will County, Illinois, for violating the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362. The motion sought: (1) a declaration that the Clerk's actions violated the stay; (2) an injunction prohibiting a tax sale and any further collection activities; and (3) compensatory damages and attorney fees under section 362(k). The County moved to dismiss the motion for failure to state a claim.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Barton Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

opinion summary, case decided on November 07, 2006 , LexisNexis #1206-073