Yes. An Ohio bankruptcy court ruled that the debtor’s mortgage creditor violated the discharge injunction by including in its proof of claim charges that had been discharged in the debtor’s prior Chapter 13 case.  In making its decision, the court noted that the creditor refused to amend the proof of claim unless the debtor agreed not to commence any further proceedings against the creditor relating to the proof of claim. In re Luzier, 580 B.R. 725 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio, Oct. 3, 2014)

The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals (BAP) held that attorney’s fees incurred by the condominium association in connection with a post-discharge sheriff’s sale of the debtor’s unit became “due and payable” postpetition. As a result,  the fees were not discharged and the association’s attempt to collect the fees from the debtor did not violate the discharge injunction. In re Jackson, 2017 WL 8160941 (6th Cir., Oct. 18, 2017)

The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals (BAP) held that the condominium associations scheduling of a post-discharge sheriff’s sale of the debtor’s unit to get a new paying homeowner into the unit did not violate the discharge injunction. The court rejected the debtor’s argument that the sale was a disguised in personam collection of a discharged debt in violation of the discharge injunction. In re Jackson, 2017 WL 8160941 (6th Cir., Oct. 18, 2017)

In a divided district, a Georgia bankruptcy court held that the tax sale purchaser held a secured claim that the plan could modify under Code § 1322(b)(2) and pay over the term of the plan. The court reasoned that under state law, legal title to the property remained with the debtor. As a result, the property itself and not just the debtor’s right of redemption were treated as property of the bankruptcy estate. Even though the property had been sold in a prepetition tax sale under Georgia law, the debtor’s filing of a Chapter 13 proceeding during the redemption period allowed the tax sale redemption amount to be paid over the term of the plan. In re Woodley, 579 B.R. 630 (Bankr. N.D. Ga., Dec….

Yes. The 9th Circuit Court recently held that the bankruptcy court’s award of $119,000 in emotional distress damages to a Chapter 7 debtor was reasonable given the facts and circumstances of the mortgage servicer violations, The Court upheld the bankruptcy court’s decision finding that award was reasonable and supported by the evidence. As a result of the creditor’s communications, the debtor suffered from anxiety attacks and felt humiliated, tormented, and harassed.  The debtor’s wife testified that she experienced severe stomach pains. The stress eventually made them contemplate divorce. The bankruptcy court awarded $1,000 for each of the 119 communications violating the injunction, consisting of 19 letters and approximately 100 telephone calls. Bankruptcy court has authority to award “relatively mild” punitive damages for violation of discharge…

Yes. In a recent decision, a North Carolina Bankruptcy Court imposed a one (1) year bar on the debtor’s ability to refile their case. The court imposed this bar where the debtor had filed four (4) consecutive bare-bones bankruptcy cases in order to stop a foreclosure proceeding. The court noted that all of the “bare-bones” cases were dismissed and relied on the public policy concern of abusing the bankruptcy law. In re Stockwell, 579 B.R. 367 (Bankr. E.D. N.C., Dec. 21, 2017)

No. A New York bankruptcy court held that a credit union’s policy of not permitting a bankrupt debtor to open an account at the credit union unless the debtor repaid the debt that was owed to the credit union and discharged in the debtor’s bankruptcy case did not violate the discharge injunction. The court reasonned that the policy did not improperly coerce or harass the debtor to repay a discharged debt. In re Morgan, 578 B.R. 712 (Bankr. N.D. N.Y., Dec. 12, 2017)