Attorney fees

by on

Punitive Damages for Stay Violation Were Excessive

The punitive damages awarded by the bankruptcy court were unconstitutionally excessive where they were seven times greater than actual damages and the bankruptcy court increased the damages on remand because it found the lender’s success at the BAP level would eliminate a substantial disincentive to engage in the conduct establishing the automatic stay violation. Rushmore Loan Mgmt Serv., LLC v. Moon, No. 22-1126 (D. Nev. Feb. 6, 2023).

When the debtors, Adnette Gunnels-Moon and Willie Moon, filed for chapter 13 bankruptcy, they listed Rushmore as a mortgage creditor on a loan in Adnette Gunnels-Moon’s name only, but gave the wrong address for Rushmore. For that reason, Rushmore was unaware of the bankruptcy and continued to dun the debtors for monthly mortgage payments. At one point when Rushmore called Willie Moon, he told Rushmore that he and Adnette had filed for bankruptcy. The debtors obtained their discharge in 2016. But Rushmore, apparently adhering to an unwritten policy of not accepting bankruptcy notification from a third party, continued its collection activity through the bankruptcy and after discharge.

The debtors reopened their bankruptcy to seek contempt sanctions against Rushmore for violation of the automatic stay and the discharge order. The bankruptcy court found in favor of the debtors on the automatic stay claim and awarded $742.10 representing the costs of reopening the bankruptcy. It also awarded $100,000 in emotional distress damages to Willie, and $200,000 in punitive damages. The court found no discharge injunction violation because it was unclear when Rushmore became aware of the discharge. The court also awarded $56,150 in attorney’s fees, $10,857.94 in costs, and an additional $3,500 in supplemental fees.

The parties filed cross-appeals. The debtors sought to reverse the bankruptcy court’s denial of the discharge injunction claim and its refusal to award certain fees, and Rushmore sought to reverse the damages award to Willie. Rushmore did not challenge the bankruptcy court’s finding that it violated the automatic stay as to Adnette, and did not seek to overturn the $742.10 in damages based on that claim.

The BAP reversed the $100,000 award to Willie, finding Rushmore did not violate the automatic stay as to him, affirmed the finding that punitive damages were warranted but remanded for reconsideration as to the amount, and affirmed the finding that Rushmore did not violate the discharge injunction. The BAP also remanded for reconsideration of the fee awards.

On remand, the bankruptcy court awarded $67,007.94 in fees and costs and $3,500 in supplemental fees. It increased the punitive damage award to $500,000. It awarded an additional $14,827 for Adnette’s defense of Rushmore’s adversary complaint, $70,415.95 to Adnette in appellate fees related to the first fee decision, and $45,235.82 in appellate fees for the contempt decision appeal, for a total appellate fee award of $115,651.77.

The court began its analysis with Rushmore’s challenge to the attorney’s fee awards noting that the goal of section 362(k) is to return debtors to their status as it was before the automatic stay violation. Rushmore argued that the bankruptcy court should have separated out the fees attributable to litigation of the discharge injunction and deducted those fees from the total fee award on the automatic stay claim.

The district court found the bankruptcy court satisfied the BAP’s instructions by explaining that the litigation of the automatic stay violation was inextricably intertwined with the discharge violation litigation and therefore the fees were inseparable.

The district court also found that the failure of Willie’s claims did not require the court to reduce the fees based on litigation of those claims because the evidence supporting them also either supported the automatic stay claims, or were relevant to the egregiousness of Rushmore’s conduct. The court observed that, although a bankruptcy court is required to award fees causally linked to a stay violation, it may approximate. “The essential goal in shifting fees is to do rough justice, not to achieve auditing perfection.”

The court also rejected Rushmore’s contention that the bankruptcy court should have reduced the punitive damage award based on the BAP’s instruction to revisit that award in light of its having reversed the court’s award of damages to Willie. In fact, the BAP merely instructed the bankruptcy to revisit the award. The bankruptcy court complied with that instruction.

Therefore, the court affirmed the award of $70,507.94 in attorney’s fees and supplemental fees to Adnette for prosecution of the original contempt proceedings.

The court next addressed the bankruptcy court’s award of fees to Adnette for litigation surrounding Rushmore’s adversary complaint. The bankruptcy court originally declined to award those fees, but did so after the BAP remanded with instructions to revisit the issue. At that time, the bankruptcy court determined that Rushmore’s complaint sought to dismiss the automatic stay claim. Therefore, the bankruptcy court concluded that Adnette’s defense of Rushmore’s complaint was part of her litigation in support of her automatic stay claim. The district court found no error in this conclusion and affirmed the $14,827 attorney fee award.

Rushmore challenged the bankruptcy court’s award of fees incurred in the appeals of the fee decision, the supplemental fee decision, and the adversary fee decision. Specifically, Rushmore contended that the bankruptcy court should have required Adnette’s attorney to specify the amount of time he spent on the issues Adnette prevailed on, and not award any fees for the time spent on Willie’s failed claim for discharge violation.

The district court found no error in the bankruptcy court’s attorney fee award. It held that the bankruptcy court did not apportion any fees to litigation of Willie’s claims. It also held that there was no clear distinction between the evidence supporting the discharge injunction and the automatic stay claims. The court upheld the award of Adnette’s full fees for defending the fee award on appeal.

As to the appellate fees related to the appeal of the contempt order, Rushmore argued that because the bankruptcy court reduced those fees after remand by 20%, Rushmore prevailed on that appeal and the debtors were not entitled to fee shifting. While the court did not entirely agree, it found that “[t]he bankruptcy court abused its discretion in failing to apportion fees for time spent on Willie’s unsuccessful appeal on the discharge injunction issue.” It found those fees both severable as a practical matter, and not related to the automatic stay violation. The court found that it could reasonably calculate the proper reduction, and it did so, reducing the total fee award based on the contempt order by 80%, to $11,308.96.

Rushmore next argued that the awards in general were disproportionate to the actual damages of $742.10 which Adnette incurred before Rushmore ceased its offending conduct.

The court disagreed. It found that section 362(k)’s deterrent effect is furthered by permitting the debtor to recover attorney’s fees for successfully litigating an automatic stay violation. In this case, Rushmore followed an unwritten and undisclosed policy of ignoring third party information regarding bankruptcy of its borrowers. Because it learned early on that Adnette was in bankruptcy but ignored that information without telling her that the information had to come from her to compel action, it needlessly perpetuated the automatic stay violation. The bankruptcy court took these facts into consideration and did not abuse its discretion in calculating appropriate damages.

Turning to the issue of punitive damages, the court noted that, on remand, the bankruptcy court increased the punitive damage award from $200,000 to $500,000. The bankruptcy court based its decision on the reprehensible nature of Rushmore’s position that it need not act on third party information of bankruptcy and its continued collection efforts. It was also persuaded that greater deterrent was needed because the BAP’s decision against Willie’s claims eliminated his ability to sue on his own behalf for Rushmore’s conduct.

Rushmore countered that the punitive award violated its due process rights by punishing it for prevailing on appeal as to Willie.

In reviewing a punitive damage award on constitutional challenge the court considered: “the degree of the defendant’s reprehensibility or culpability, the relationship between the penalty and the harm to the victim caused by the defendant’s actions, and the sanctions imposed in other cases for comparable misconduct.”

Based on these factors, the court agreed that the punitive damage award was unconstitutionally excessive. It found the award punished Rushmore for its conduct to Willie and others similarly situated rather than for any harm suffered by Adnette. It also found an award greater than a 4:1 ratio of punitive to actual damages requires both particularly egregious conduct, and relatively small actual damages. Here, though Adnette’s award of $742.10 was small, the entire fee award was not.

Having found that the bankruptcy court erred with respect to the punitive damages award, the court found that remanding with instructions to reconsider that award would merely consume more time and money in what was already an outsized case. Therefore it calculated punitive damages. It found that Rushmore’s appeals were not unreasonable and it’s conduct not malicious. There was no evidence that it extended to other borrowers. The court concluded that a 1.5 multiplier satisfied the principles of punishment and deterrence. It reduced the award of punitive damages to $128,002.41.

As the district court anticipated, Rushmore filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

Gunnels-Moon D Nev Feb 2023

by on

Trustee Entitled to Attorney’s Fees for Exemption Dispute

Where the debtor’s original exemption claim was for bodily injury, the trustee had a reasonable argument that the actual post-petition settlements of her personal injury case, which specified that they were for non-bodily-injury damages, did not fall under that exemption. Because the trustee’s objection related to the post-settlement exemption claim, it was timely. Biondo v. Gold, Lange, Majoros & Smalarz, P.C., No. 22-1666 (6th Cir. Feb. 8, 2023).

Prior to filing for chapter 7 bankruptcy, the debtor was in a car accident. In her bankruptcy filings she listed the personal injury claim with an unknown value. She claimed an exemption in potential recovery, tracking the text of section 522(d)(11)(D), for “payment[s]” she received “on account of personal bodily injury, not including pain and suffering or compensation for actual pecuniary loss.”

The trustee did not object to the exemption. He hired a law firm to litigate the debtor’s claims against the driver of the other vehicle and the debtor’s insurance company. The insurance company settled for $48,500 specifically covering “medical expenses, attorney’s fees, ‘lost wages,’ and all ‘other forms of economic or non-economic loss.’” The driver of the other car settled for $70,000, covering “pain and suffering.”

The debtor moved to compel the trustee to turn over $23,675 from the settlement recovery arguing that the funds were exempt under section 522(d)(11)(D). She and the trustee settled the exemption claim, and the trustee moved to recover $2,880 in attorney’s fees he incurred in litigating the motion to compel. The debtor objected, arguing that the attorney’s services did not fulfill the requirement under section 330(a)(1)(A) that they be either reasonably likely to benefit the estate, or necessary to the administration of the case. The bankruptcy court granted the trustee’s request for fees, and the district dismissed the appeal as equitably moot.

The debtor appealed to the Sixth Circuit.

The court began with the parameters of section 522(d)(11)(D)’s exemption, finding that while funds resulting from personal bodily injury are exempt, the exemption does not include “payments for pain and suffering and for pecuniary losses.” The exemption is also typically interpreted to exclude payments for medical bills. Here, the two settlements specified that they were for damages other than personal bodily injury. For that reason, the circuit court found the trustee’s objection to the exemption was reasonable and for the benefit of the estate.

The debtor argued that the trustee forfeited his opportunity to object to the exemption because he failed to do so when she filed the exemption claim in her original bankruptcy schedules.

Under section 522(l), in the absence of a timely objection, an exemption is automatically allowed. Citing Mercer v. Monzack, 53 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1995), the court found that “exemptions should be unambiguous and should be read to conform with the law.” The debtor must therefore unambiguously identify particular property as exempt before the clock begins to run.

Here, the debtor’s claimed exemption related only to recovery for bodily injury, as contemplated by section 522(d)(11)(D). It was not until the actual settlements were reached that the debtor at least arguably attempted to apply the exemption to non-bodily injury recovery. The trustee’s post-settlement objection was related to the debtor’s recovery based on medical expenses and other pecuniary losses, as well as pain and suffering. Because the actual funds the debtor sought to exempt differed from the description in her claimed exemption, the court found her original exemption claim did not trigger section 522(l)’s clock and the trustee’s objection was not time-barred. While the trustee could have lodged a prophylactic objection to the debtor’s exemption from the outset, he was not obligated to do so.

Because the district court’s finding that the appeal was equitably moot was not jurisdictional, the circuit court declined to address that issue.

The court affirmed.

Biondo 6th Cir Feb 2023

by on

Debt Owed to Trust is DSO

Where the debtor’s payments to his ex-wife’s Trust were in lieu of alimony and were understood by both the debtor and his ex-wife to be for her future support, the payments were in the nature of a domestic support obligation not dischargeable in bankruptcy. Hundt v. Ventrone (In re Ventrone), No. 21-11643, Adv. Proc. Nos. 22-00005, 22-00026 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Jan. 2023).

In order to buy a house, the plaintiff and her then-husband, the debtor, withdrew $415,000 from a Trust established for the plaintiff’s benefit. They then entered into a post-nuptial agreement providing that in the event of divorce, “the original Distribution invested in the Property of $415,000, . . . shall be returned to the Trust at the time of sale, free and clear from any and all claims by [Debtor].”

Three years later, the debtor and the plaintiff divorced. They entered into a property settlement agreement (PSA) which incorporated the post-nuptial agreement and PSA further provided that:

“The parties agree that in the event that the sale of the Marital Residence does not satisfy their $415,000.00 obligation to the Trust, that they shall divide the deficiency between the net sale proceeds returned to the Trust and the $415,000.00 liability with [Debtor] being responsible for 37.5% of the deficiency and [Plaintiff] being responsible for 62.5% of the deficiency.”

In 2018, the parties sold the property but the proceeds were not sufficient to fully repay the trust. The debtor failed to make the payments required by the PSA to make up his share of the deficiency. After the Family Court issued a couple of contempt orders and held a contempt hearing, it ordered the debtor to make a one-time payment to the court for $30,625, and to make three other payments in the amount of $1,225 each. All the payments represented amounts owed to the Trust. The debtor complied with the order except that each of the checks he submitted to the Family Court contained conditional language that ultimately prevented the plaintiff from depositing them. The debtor refused to submit acceptable replacement checks.

The Family Court issued a bench warrant and after a hearing on that warrant, the court ordered the debtor to liquidate his 401K accounts and pay the proceeds to the plaintiff to satisfy Marital Obligations. The court also ordered the debtor to pay $4,500 in attorney’s fees.

The debtor filed for chapter 13 bankruptcy. The Trust filed a claim for $174,451.79 plus the attorney’s fees as awarded by the Family Court. “Out of an abundance of caution,” the plaintiff filed the identical claim. The debtor objected to the claim on the bases that the contempt order was for only $113,913.28, that attorney’s fees should not have been included, and that the claim was not for a domestic support obligation. The debtor and the plaintiff (along with the Trust) filed opposing adversary complaints relating to whether the plaintiff’s claims were nondischargeable domestic support obligations under various paragraphs in section 523(a).

The case came before the court on the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Though the plaintiff cited several provisions of section 523(a), the court rested its decision on section 523(a)(5) which excepts domestic support obligations (DSO) from discharge in chapter 13.

The court began its analysis with the question of whether the plaintiff’s claim was for a DSO, finding that to qualify as such the debt must be, “(i) ‘owed to or recoverable by’ a governmental unit or a person with a specific relationship to the Debtor such as a spouse, former spouse, or child of the Debtor; (ii) the underlying obligation [must be] in the nature of alimony, maintenance, or support of such person; (iii) the obligation [must arise] from an agreement, court order, or as otherwise defined; and (iv) the debt [must not be] assigned to a non-governmental entity unless voluntarily done by the spouse, former spouse, or child of the Debtor.”

The court rejected the debtor’s argument that the claim was not a DSO because it was payable to the Trust rather than to the plaintiff herself. The court found that where the obligation is in the nature of support for a spouse or child, it qualifies as a DSO even though it may be payable to another entity.

The court looked to three factors to determine whether the payments were intended for support: “(i) the language and substance of the agreement; (ii) the parties’ financial circumstances; and (iii) the function of the obligation.”

Here, under the terms of the PSA, the debtor was obligated to make payments to the Trust “in lieu of alimony” for the plaintiff’s support. The court noted that the plaintiff’s income was substantially less than the debtor’s and the plaintiff had the responsibility of paying her own and their children’s expenses. In testimony in the Family Court the debtor acknowledged that the Trust constituted the plaintiff’s future support and that his payment into it was in furtherance of that end. That the obligation was for support was reinforced by the fact that the plaintiff sought and received enforcement by the Family Court.

Having found the plaintiff’s claim was a nondischargeable DSO, the court turned to whether the plaintiff’s claim for $4,500.00 in attorney’s fees was also nondischargeable as a DSO. It found the law well-settled that an award of attorney’s fees in connection with a divorce proceeding are in the nature of a DSO.

The court concluded that the claim in the modified amount of $118,413.28, as well as the $4,500 attorney’s fee award and any additional legal fees awarded by the Family Court, were nondischargeable under section 523(a)(5). It granted summary judgment to Plaintiffs. The debtor filed a motion to reconsider on March 7.

Ventrone Bankr ED Pa Jan 2023

by on

American Servicing Co. v. Schwartz-Tallard, No. 12-60052 (9th Cir.)

Type: Amicus
Date: January 23, 2015
Description: Whether a debtor can obtain an award of attorney fees under section 362(k) for prosecuting stay violation. Seeking to overturn Sternberg v. Johnston, 595 F.3d 937 (9th Cir. 2010).
Result: Judgment affirmed, August 29, 2015, Petition for rehearing filed September 12, 2014; En banc decision affirming judgment of BAP and overturning Sternberg.

Schwartz-Tallard opinion

Schwartz-tallard NACBA 9th Jan 2015

Schwartz Tallard 9th Cir En banc opinion