Summary:
Despite finding that a debt was dischargeable and that the creditor had violated the discharge injunction, the bankruptcy court refrained from "mak[ing] a determination as to the nature and extent of the damages and/or sanctions to be awarded...." The district court rejected the argument that a finding of discharge violation was most analogous to the an order 'terminating, modifying, or conditioning' the stay" that automatically halts efforts to collect pre-petition debts from the bankrupt debtor outside the bankruptcy forum is a final, immediately, appealable decision. See Ritzen Grp., Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC. 140 S. Ct. 582, 589 (2020). Instead the district court concluded that lacking any assessment of damages, the appeal was interlocutory and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wetzel, 424 U.S. 737, 744 (1976)
Commentary:
It seems odd that a creditor would spend the time and money on appealing a discharge violation without first knowing what the amount of the exposure from damages was, especially as the appellee's legal costs from this appeal will now be part of those damages. Possible reasons could include a complicated and costly determination of actual damages or a bad faith attempt to delay any payment.
For a copy of the opinion, please click:
Blog comments