Posted by NCBRC - January 26th, 2018
“To name and to shame Bank of America on the public record in an opinion that stays on the books serves a valuable purpose casting sunlight on practices that affect ordinary consumers.” Sundquist v. Bank of America, No. 10-35624, Adv. Proc. No. 14-2278 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2018).
Calling it a “naked effort to coerce this court to erase the record,” the bankruptcy court declined to vacate its 2017 judgment in which it awarded damages for violation of the automatic stay in the amount of $1,074,581.50 and ordered an additional $5 million in punitive damages based on Bank of America’s conduct in connection with Erik and Renee Sundquists’ home mortgage. In addition to the award directed to the Sundquists, the 2017 order included a $45 million punitive damage award to be distributed to various public interest entities which were added to the case as Intervenors. The order also cancelled the Sundquists’ attorney’s contingency fee agreement, citing section 329(b), and ordered payment of her fees on a lodestar basis. Sundquist v. Bank of America (In re Sundquist), 566 B.R. 563 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 2017) (2017 order) (blogged here). Read More
Posted by NCBRC - January 9th, 2018
A bankruptcy court lacks inherent or statutory power to award $375,000 in punitive damages based on the creditor’s violation of Rule 3002.1(c) and disregard of a court order. PHH Mortgage Corporation v. Beaulieu, Nos. 16-256, 16-257, 16-258 (D. Vt. Dec. 18, 2017).
The debtors in three chapter 13 cases had confirmed plans under which they were able to remain in their homes post-petition and pay their mortgages through the trustee. Two sets of debtors, the Gravels and the Beaulieus, successfully completed their payments and the court issued an order stating that they were current on their mortgages and charges through the completion of their plans. PHH sent all three sets of debtors a monthly statement for fees based on property inspection, late charges, and insufficient funds, all of which were were incurred more than 180 days prior to the statement in violation of Rule 3002.1(c). The trustee moved for sanctions in all three cases for violation of Rule 3002.1(c) and, in the Beaulieus’ and the Gravels’ cases, for violation of the Bankruptcy Court’s Order at the close of their cases. Read More
Posted by NCBRC - January 2nd, 2018
Continuous confusing contact with the discharged debtors by the mortgage servicer was appropriately sanctioned at $1,000 per violation notwithstanding the servicer’s formulaic and contradictory disclaimers in some of the correspondence. Ocwen Loan Servicing v. Marino, Nos. 16-1229, 16-1238 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Dec. 22, 2017).
Debtors, Christopher and Valerie Marino, surrendered their real property in their chapter 7 bankruptcy. After they received their discharge in June, 2013, the court granted the mortgagee relief from the automatic stay and closed the case. From June, 2013, through April, 2015, Ocwen, as servicer for the mortgagee, sent nineteen letters stating the amount owed on the debt as the “amount you must pay,” and providing payment due dates. Some of the letters contained the disclaimer that, “if you have received a discharge in bankruptcy, this notification is for informational purposes only and is not intended to collect a pre-petition or discharged debt.” Ocwen also made approximately one hundred calls to the Marinos seeking payment on the discharged debt. Read More
Posted by NCBRC - May 31st, 2017
Invective and personal attacks on the chapter 7 trustee did nothing to further the debtors’ arguments in their motion to dismiss but did not amount to sanctionable conduct. Geltzer v. Brizinova (In re Brizinova), No. 12-42935, Adv. Proc. No. 15-1073 (Bankr. E.D. N.Y. March 3, 2017) (on appeal to the District Court for the Eastern District of New York, No.17-1465).
The trustee, Robert Geltzer, moved for a contempt order and sanctions against Karimvir Dahiya, counsel for the debtors, Estella Brizinova and Edward Soshkin, based on statements he made in connection with a motion to dismiss an adversary complaint in the debtors’ bankruptcy case. In the motion to dismiss, Mr. Dahiya stated, among other things, “Geltzer having realized that he has gotten money from the sons, he could extract more, he has begun his extortionist journey again.” Generally, Mr. Geltzer maintained that Mr. Dahiya’s statements were part of a personal crusade against him, were vexatious and in bad faith, and represented a course of conduct Mr. Dahiya generally followed against bankruptcy trustees. Read More
Posted by NCBRC - March 24th, 2017
“The mirage of promised mortgage modification lured the plaintiff debtors into a kafkaesque nightmare of stay-violating foreclosure and unlawful detainer,” for which the court ordered over $1 million dollars in actual damages plus a significant punitive damage award. Sundquist v. Bank of America, No. 10-35624, Adv. Proc. No. 14-2278 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. March 23, 2017).
In the first 30 pages of the 109-page opinion, the court walked through the facts of the case illustrating Bank of America’s egregious conduct and including extensive quotes from Renee Sundquist’s journal. A few highlights include the following facts. Though struggling financially, Erik and Renee Sundquist were current on their home loan, defaulting only after Bank of America told them that the only way they could get loan modification would be if they were in default. After that began a series of abortive modification attempts during which Bank of America consistently lost paperwork, denied modification for no apparent reason, or otherwise dangled modification before the Sundquists without actually providing it, while at the same time going forward then retreating on foreclosure actions. At one point, a Bank of America employee told Renee that modifications were “not real” but were simply a way for Bank of America to make more money before foreclosure. Read More
Posted by NCBRC - August 17th, 2016
The Florida Department of Revenue violated the bankruptcy court’s confirmation order when it intercepted the debtor’s travel reimbursement funds for payment toward a domestic relations order. Florida Dept. of Rev.v. Gonzalez, No. 15-14804 (11th Cir. Aug. 11, 2016).
Irain Gonzalez’s confirmed chapter 13 plan provided for payment of his domestic support arrearages and for direct ongoing payments on that support obligation. Nonetheless, the Florida DOR intercepted his work-related travel reimbursement money and applied it to the support obligation. Mr. Gonzalez filed a motion for contempt due to the DOR’s contravention of the terms of the confirmed plan. During the contempt hearing the DOR agreed to release the funds and cease collection efforts. The bankruptcy court granted the motion for contempt and awarded attorney’s fees. In re Gonzalez, No. 11-23183-BKC-LMI, 2012 WL 2974813 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. July 20, 2012). The district court affirmed. In re Irain Gonzalez, No. 1:15-CV-20023-KAM, 2015 WL 5692561 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 29, 2015). Read More
Posted by NCBRC - August 2nd, 2016
A mortgage creditor violated the automatic stay by mistakenly filing a claim to which it had no rights and by failing to immediately return payments on that claim it had received by the trustee. In re Mocella, 552 B.R. 706, No. 10-42287 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2016).
Joseph J. and Kimberly A. Mocella filed chapter 13 bankruptcy in June, 2010, and listed a debt to GMAC of approximately $10,000.00, secured by their car. GMAC filed a proof of claim (claim 2) for the secured debt. Nationstar Mortgage filed a proof of claim for over $76,000.00 secured by the Mocellas’ residence. On December 4, 2014, Nationstar filed a Transfer of Claim in which it stated that GMAC had transferred claim 2 to Nationstar. In fact, Nationstar intended to file the Transfer of Claim for a bulk servicing transfer from Ocwen Loan Servicing relating to an unsecured HomeSaver Loan Nationstar had given the Mocellas. Read More
Posted by NCBRC - July 30th, 2015
Filing a proof of claim for a deficiency judgment that was discharged in a previous bankruptcy violates the discharge injunction. Green Point Credit v. McLean, No. 14-14002 (11th Cir. July 24, 2015). Green Point Credit, LLC and Green Tree Servicing LLC (Green Tree) filed a proof of claim for a debt that had been discharged in the McLean’s previous bankruptcy and the McLeans filed an adversary proceeding seeking damages for violation of the discharge injunction. Four days later, Green Tree, acknowledging that the claim had been filed in error, withdrew it. The bankruptcy court found that Green Tree violated the discharge injunction and awarded compensatory damages for the McLean’s emotional distress, attorney’s fees, and a “coercive” sanction. The district court affirmed. Read More
Posted by NCBRC - June 16th, 2015
In an opinion that would have benefited from Gertrude’s advice to Polonius “More matter, with less art,” the First Circuit found that a debtor may be sanctioned for inadvertent failure to comply with a court order despite lack of harm to creditors, trustee or court. Charbono v. Sumski, No. 14-2151 (1st Cir. June 15, 2015). Read More
Posted by NCBRC - June 10th, 2015
A bankruptcy court awarded almost $70,000.00 in damages for PNC’s stay violation. In re Ogden, No. 11-19841 (Bankr. D. Colo. June 1, 2015). It is easy to feel imaginary malice behind the often frustrating interactions with impersonal, computer operated, entities with which we all find ourselves conducting business. In this case, however, the court found that the debtor’s sense of actual ill will was confirmed by testimony from PNC’s representative in its defense to the charge of stay violation. Read More
