Skip to main content

§ 362(a)(7)

Collum, In re--Collum v. E. Ala. Med. Ctr.

Ruling
Creditor violated the stay where debtor provided evidence to creditor that he was inbankruptcy and creditor failed to take appropriate remedial steps. (Bankr. M.D. Ala.)
Issue(s)
Automatic Stay; Scope; Setoff of Debts Owing to Debtor.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Collum, In re--Collum v. E. Ala. Med. Ctr. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on July 18, 2019 , LexisNexis #0919-053

In re Buttrill

Ruling
Right of offset of taxes could not be exercised without relief from the automatic stay.
Issue(s)
Was the United States entitled to retroactive modification of the automatic stay pursuant so that it may retain funds received from the Department of the Treasury as an offset or was debtors' claim of exemption in the refund superior to the right of setoff?

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

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on March 31, 2016 , LexisNexis #0416-111

DAmico v. Dept of Treasury (In re DAmico)

Ruling
Treasury department's offset of debt owed to U.S. Postal Service from retirement benefits violated the automatic stay.
Issue(s)
Did the Department of Treasury, Bureau of Fiscal Service and the United States Postal Service ("USPS") willfully violated the automatic stay by withholding retirement benefits to offset debtor's overdraw of leave hours?

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

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on February 01, 2016 , LexisNexis #0216-113

Addison v. United States Dept of Agric. (In re Addison)

Ruling
Government's postpetition setoff of exempt tax overpayment against non-tax debt violated the automatic stay.
Issue(s)
Does the automatic stay apply to the federal treasury offset program where the federal government seeks to offset a non-tax debt owed by the debtor to a federal agency against a federal income tax refund owed to the debtor and, if so, can the debtor claim an exemption in that refund which trumps the government's right of offset?

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Addison v. United States Dept of Agric. (In re Addison) Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on July 13, 2015 , LexisNexis #0815-007

In re Ramp Chevrolet

Ruling
Franchisor's reduction of debtor franchisee's wind-down payments was not a setoff and did not violate stay.
Procedural posture

Chapter 11 debtor filed a motion to hold a franchisor in contempt for willfully violating the automatic stay, 11 U.S.C.S. § 362(a)(7), by asserting improper setoffs under 11 U.S.C.S. § 553 without court approval, and for filing a secured proof of claim in the debtor's case in violation of the automatic stay.

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

Commercial opinion summary, case decided on December 21, 2010 , LexisNexis #0211-108

In re Gunn

Ruling
Relief from stay denied as creditor could not offset postpetition obligation to debtor against debtor's prepetition debt.
Procedural posture

Movant creditor filed motion for relief from the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C.S. § 362(a)(7) so that it could exercise its state law right to offset commissions owed to respondent debtor against the creditor's pre-petition claim.

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

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on August 11, 2008 , LexisNexis #0908-114

Ampel v. Ampel (In re Ampel)

Ruling
Former spouse's deductions from monthly alimony payments to debtor were impermissible setoffs in violation of stay.
Procedural posture

Movant husband sought relief from the automatic stay to obtain a determination in state court of dischargeability under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5) of certain obligations of his ex- wife, respondent, debtor. That motion was denied, but in connection with the motion, the husband may have violated the automatic stay when he continued postpetition to deduct from the debtor's monthly alimony payments amounts to repay certain debts owed by the debtor.

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

opinion summary, case decided on September 28, 2006 , LexisNexis #0107-122