Calderon v. Bank of Am. Corp. (In re Calderon)

Bank not entitled to jury trial on alleged stay violation.
Whether a bank was entitled to a jury trial on a debtor's 11 U.S.C.S. § 362(k)(1) action under U.S. Const. amend. VII. [1]-Applying the U.S. Supreme Court's Granfinanciera analysis, the court found that an action for violation of the automatic stay did not have an analogue in 18th century England; [2]-It was not necessary for the court to decide whether an 11 U.S.C.S. § 362(k)(1) action sought legal rather than equitable relief because the court concluded that a stay violation action asserted a public right; [3]-The court joined other courts that held that the rights created and vindicated by § 362(k)(1) were so fundamental to the bankruptcy system that they should be viewed as public rights; [4]-The fact that the bank did not file a proof of claim was irrelevant in light of the fact that a § 362(k)(1) action asserted a public right.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Calderon v. Bank of Am. Corp. (In re Calderon). Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member
Consumer case opionion summary, case decided on July 01,2013, LexisNexis #0913-037