A Reminder for Borrowers: Post-Discharge Communications by Creditor Must Coerce or Harass in Order to Violate Bankruptcy Law
In Kirby v. 21 Mortg. Corp., the First Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel examined the Kirbys' claim that the 19 written communications they received from their mortgage holder following their Chapter 7 discharge violated the Bankruptcy Code 524(a)(2)'s injunction. The Kirbys further claimed bankruptcy discharge violations arising from their mortgage holder's delivery of an escrow account disclosure, short sale letter, cash-for-keys letter, and right to cure notice for a total of 26 post-discharge bankruptcy communications. Below, we take a closer look at the decision and its comprehensive review of bankruptcy discharge law along with the process for determining whether a post-discharge correspondence violates the bankruptcy code's injunction.
After the bankruptcy court granted the Kirbys a discharge of all debts on December 4, 2014—including the underlying mortgage debt—the mortgage holder sent the Kirbys eight letters regarding their request for a loan modification, nine monthly statements, an ARM notice and PMI notice.
On review of all communications, the bankruptcy court granted the mortgage holder summary judgment by concluding that each document adequately informed the Kirbys that the mortgage holder was not attempting to collect a debt or hold the recipient personally responsible for the debt if the recipient was discharged in bankruptcy. The bankruptcy court also found compelling evidence that the mortgage holder delivered correspondences to the Kirbys' counsel during the course of post-discharge loan modification negotiations, that the mortgage holder responded to the Kirbys' cease and desist letter by halting all communications, and that the Kirbys' counsel did not send the cease and desist letter until after loan modification negotiations broke down. According to the bankruptcy court, "the vast majority of the written communications…were sent to Mr. Kirby's bankruptcy counsel and given the context of those communications they do not objectively constitute coercive or harassing actions in violation of the protections of the discharge injunction."
The First Circuit's Bankruptcy Panel affirmed on appeal while discussing three separate elements of a discharge injunction claim critical to the review:
- The borrower/former debtor must establish the creditor's violation of the discharge injunction by clear and convincing evidence.
- The discharge injunction does not prohibit every communication between creditor and debtor—only those designed to collect, recover or offset any discharged debt as a personal liability of the former debtor. In other words, correspondence that is informational in nature does not violate the discharge injunction or the automatic stay.
- Review of correspondences for discharge violations is a particularly fact intensive inquiry, but the common factor is a "clear demand for payment of a pre-petition debt accompanied by coercion in the form of a threatened action or some other consequence for nonpayment, or harassment to induce the debtor to pay." Courts look beyond the particular content of communications and consider whether circumstances and context in which the creditor sent the communications give rise to an inference of coercion.
The Kirby communications did not demonstrate clear and convincing evidence of coercion or harassment. In the opinion of the Panel, the mediation communications were sent to the Kirbys' counsel and within the context of the parties' extensive efforts to modify the loan as a resolution of the mortgage prior to foreclosure. Moreover, all post-discharge communications, particularly those sent after the mediation effort concluded, included disclaimer language, were demonstrably informational, and were part of the judicial foreclosure process that the mortgage holder was required to pursue notwithstanding the bankruptcy court's discharge of the underlying debt. Ultimately, the court could not conclude that any of the post-discharge communications, individually or collectively, coerced or harassed the Kirbys to pay a discharged debt.
Topics
- ACA
- ACA International
- Amicus Brief
- Anti-Discrimination Policy
- Appellate Decisions
- Appointment Power
- Appraised Value
- Arbitration
- Arbitration Rule
- Article III Standing
- ATDS
- Attorneys' Fees
- Auto-Dialer
- Automatic Telephone Dialing System
- Bankruptcy
- Bankruptcy Code
- behavioral economics
- Biden Administration
- Biometric Information Privacy Act
- Bitcoin
- Blockchain
- BNPL
- Business Records
- California
- California Consumer Financial Protection Law
- California Consumer Privacy Act
- California Court of Appeal
- California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation
- Car Dealership
- CARES Act
- CCPA
- CDC
- CFPA
- CFPB
- Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
- Chapter 13 Bankruptcy
- Chapter 7 Bankruptcy
- Circuit Split
- City of Miami
- Civil Contempt
- Claim-Splitting
- Class Action
- Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
- Class Certification
- Climate Change
- Cole Memorandum
- Colorado
- Commercial Foreclosure
- Communications
- Compliance
- Compliance Audit
- Compliance Corner
- Congressional Review Act
- Connecticut
- Connecticut Insurance Department
- Constitutional Claims
- Consumer Data Privacy
- Consumer Disclosures
- Consumer Financial Protection Act
- Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
- Consumer Protections
- Coronavirus
- Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act
- Corporate Compliance
- Corporate Governance
- COVID-19
- CPRA
- Craigslist
- Credit Report
- Credit Reporting Agencies
- Creditor
- Cryptocurrency
- cyber regulation
- Cybersecurity
- D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals
- Damages
- Data Breach
- Data Privacy Laws
- Data Security
- Debt Buyers
- Debt Collection
- Debt Collector
- Debt Dispute
- Debt Purchase
- Debtor
- Deceased Debtors
- Default Notice
- Department of Education
- Department of Financial Protection and Innovation
- Department of Financial Services
- DFPI
- DFS
- DFS Part 500
- Digital Financial Asset Law
- Disclosure
- Discovery Rule
- District of Columbia
- Document Retention
- Dodd-Frank
- Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
- Due Process Clause
- ECOA
- Economic Impact Payment
- Education
- Education Debt
- Eighth Amendment
- Electronic Communications
- Eleventh Amendment
- Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
- Employee Benefits
- Employer Participation Student Loan Assistance Act
- Equal Opportunity Act
- European General Data Privacy Regulation
- Eviction
- Excessive Fines Clause
- Executive Order
- Exempt Status
- Exemption
- FACTA
- Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act
- Fair Credit Billing Act
- Fair Credit Reporting Act
- Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
- Fair Employment and Housing Act
- Fair Lending
- Fair Market Value
- Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017
- FCBA
- FCC
- FCRA
- FDCPA
- Federal
- Federal Arbitration Act
- Federal Communications Commission
- Federal Housing Administration
- Federal Housing Finance Agency
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 68
- Federal Trade Commission
- FHA
- Fifth Amendment
- Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
- Final Rule
- Financial CHOICE Act
- Financial Registration
- Financial Regulatory
- Financial Risk
- FinTech
- First Amendment
- First Circuit Court of Appeals
- Florida
- Florida Supreme Court
- For-Profit Student Loans
- Forbearance
- Forbearance Agreement
- Foreclosure
- Foreclosure Sale
- Fourteenth Amendment
- Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
- FTC
- Furnishers
- GDPR
- hacking
- Hardship Declaration
- HealthTech
- Hearsay
- HMDA
- Hobbs Act
- HUD
- Human Intervention Test
- Hunstein
- IDFPR
- Illinois
- Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act
- Illinois Predatory Loan Prevention Act
- Illinois Student Loan Bill of Rights
- Illinois Supreme Court
- Investigation
- IRS
- Judicial Estoppel
- Kathleen Kraninger
- Kentucky
- kickbacks
- Lack of Standing
- Landlord and Tenant
- Least Sophisticated Consumer Standard
- Legal Standing
- Legislation
- Lender Credit Bid
- LGBTQ
- Licensing
- Litigation
- Loan Defaults
- Loan Discharge
- Loan Modification
- Loan Servicing
- Louisiana
- Maine
- Mandatory Arbitration
- Marijuana
- Marketing Services Agreements
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Massachusetts Appeals Court
- Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act
- Massachusetts Land Court
- Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
- Material Misrepresentation
- Materiality Requirement
- Medical Debts
- Medical Expenses
- Medical Marijuana
- Minnesota
- Monetary Damages
- Mortgage
- Mortgage Acceleration
- Mortgage Debt
- Mortgage Foreclosure
- Mortgage Loan Acceleration
- Mortgage Loans
- Mortgage Servicers
- Mortgage Servicing
- Motion to Dismiss
- MSA
- Municipal Code
- Municipal Code Violations
- Nevada
- New Jersey
- New York
- New York Court of Appeals
- New York Department of Financial Services
- New York Legislation
- New York Real Property Procedures and Acts
- Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
- NMLS
- North Carolina
- North Carolina Consumer Finance Act
- North Dakota
- Notice of Proposed Rule Making
- NPRM
- NYCRA
- NYS DFS
- Obama Administration
- OFAC
- Office of Foreign Assets Control
- Origination
- Paragraph 22
- Part 500
- Pennsylvania
- Personal Jurisdiction
- Post-Discharge-Communications
- PPP
- Pre-Foreclosure Mediation
- Preemption
- Privacy
- Private Colleges and Universities
- Private Right of Action
- Private Student Loans
- Property Rights
- Property Value
- Proposed Legislation
- Real Estate Settlement Act
- Redlining
- referral fees
- Regulated Entities
- Regulated Non-Depositories
- Regulated Organizations
- Regulation
- Regulation X
- Regulatory
- Regulatory Compliance
- Regulatory Relief
- Remote Working
- Residential Foreclosure
- RESPA
- Reverse Mortgage
- Revocation Claims
- Revocation of Election to Accelerate
- Rhode Island
- Rhode Island Supreme Court
- Richard Cordray
- RICO
- Right of Redemption
- Right to Cure
- Right to Cure Notice
- Right to Reinstate
- Risk Management
- Robocalls
- Rohit Chopra
- S.A.F.E. Mortgage Licensing Act
- Safe-Harbor Provision
- Sanitary Codes
- SCOTUS
- Second Circuit Court of Appeals
- Securities & Exchange Commission
- Separation of Powers
- Settlement
- Settlement Conference
- Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
- Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
- Social Media
- Standard of Proof
- Statute of Limitations
- Statutory Damages
- Statutory Interpretation
- Stimulus
- Student Loans
- Students
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Tax
- Tax Implications
- Tax Lien
- TCPA
- Telephone Consumer Protection Act
- Texas
- Texting
- Third Circuit Court of Appeals
- TILA
- Trump
- Trump Administration
- Truth in Lending Act
- U.S. Constitution
- U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
- UCC
- UDAAP
- Unauthorized Use
- Undue Hardship
- Unfair and Deceptive Practices
- Unfair Competition
- Uniform Commercial Code
- United States Treasury
- Unsolicited Advertisement
- Usury Laws
- Utah
- Video Conferencing
- Virginia
- Virtual Currency Business Act (VCBA)
- Voluntary Discontinuance
- Voluntary Dismissal
- Washington D.C.
- Wisconsin
- Wisconsin Consumer Act