“No Fair Ground of Doubt”: U.S. Supreme Court Sets Standard for Holding Bankruptcy Creditors in Civil Contempt


Over the last year, we have discussed the case of Taggart v. Lorenzen (2019) and the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to consider whether a creditor can be held in civil contempt for attempting to collect a debt after the bankruptcy court issues a discharge order in a consumer bankruptcy case. The U.S. Supreme Court recently released its decision in this case, and the decision was unanimous. Writing for the majority, Justice Breyer clarified that a creditor can be held in civil contempt only in situations in which there is “no fair ground of doubt as to whether the order barred the creditors conduct.” The Court went on to clarify that the holding means that “civil contempt may be appropriate if there is no objectively reasonable basis for concluding that the creditor’s conduct might be lawful.”

As you might realize from reading this language from the case, the Court’s decision is friendlier to creditors in situations involving bankruptcy cases where the creditor continues trying to collect on a debt that it believes the debtor owes. We will say more about the case and the implications of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision.

Recalling the Facts of Taggart

You may recall the facts of Taggart, but we want to provide you with a brief recap in order to situate the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision within the facts of this specific case. In Taggart, the debtor, Bradley Taggart, previously owned a business interest in a company. The other owners of the business brought a claim against Taggart, arguing that he had breached the company’s operating agreement. Prior to the trial in this lawsuit, Taggart filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The bankruptcy court granted Taggart a discharge. However, after the discharge, the state court in which Taggart was being sued received a petition for attorney’s fees from Taggart’s other business owners seeking attorney’s fees.

Those other business owners argued that Taggart had “returned to the fray” after the bankruptcy discharge and therefore was liable for attorney’s fees. Taggart wanted to hold the business owners in civil contempt for violating the discharge order.

Requirement of “No Fair Ground of Doubt”

The bankruptcy court agreed with the business owners, and Taggart appealed. The district court found in favor of Taggart, concluding that he had not “returned to the fray.” The business owners appealed, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that a creditor’s “good faith belief that the discharge order does not apply to the creditor’s claim precludes a finding of contempt, even if the creditor’s belief is unreasonable.”

In effect, the U.S. Supreme Court largely agreed with the Ninth Circuit. More specifically, it found that “a court may hold a creditor in civil contempt for violating a discharge order if there is no fair ground of doubt as to whether the order barred the creditor’s conduct.” To put it another way, if there is any fair ground of doubt as to whether a creditor can attempt to collect—or if there is any fair ground of doubt that the debtor “returned to the fray”—then the creditor cannot be held in civil contempt.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision makes clear that civil contempt in such a scenario is only appropriate when there is no reasonable explanation for the creditor’s belief that it was lawfully allowed to attempt to collect after a bankruptcy discharge.

Contact an Oak Park Bankruptcy Attorney With Questions

The Taggart case has a somewhat complicated fact pattern, but the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision makes clear that, in order to hold a creditor in contempt for attempting to collect a debt after a discharge, it must be absolutely clear that the creditor does not have any legitimate reason for thinking it can continue attempting to collect the debt.

If you are considering bankruptcy, or if you have questions about your rights after a bankruptcy discharge, you should speak with an Oak Park bankruptcy lawyer. An advocate at the Emerson Law Firm can discuss your case with you today. Contact us for more information about the services we provide to consumers in Illinois.

See Related Blog Posts:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Phantom Debt Collection Scams on the Rise in Illinois

Have you been contacted by a person claiming to be a debt collector who is seeking to recover a debt you allegedly owe? If so, you are not alone. According to a recent report from CBS Chicago , such parties claiming to be debt collectors are on the rise, and they are scamming Chicago-area residents. These alleged debt collectors are part of schemes known as “phantom debt collection scams,” since they involve the attempt to collect on a debt that the consumer does not actually owe. How can you avoid becoming a victim in a debt-collection scam ? What should you do if you have been targeted by a fake debt collector? How Do Phantom Debt Collection Scams Work? Now, you might be thinking to yourself: I would never agree to make payment on a debt that I did not owe. But the scam is not always that simple. Parties at the center of debt-collection scams often target consumers who do actually owe debts (to someone or to some entity), and they prey on the fact that these c...
Read more

Payday Lending and Predatory Lenders in Illinois

If you are in substantial debt in the Chicago area and are living in a paycheck-to-paycheck cycle, you may have taken out a payday loan to make ends meet. While payday lending is illegal in a number of states due to the predatory nature of these loans, it remains legal in Illinois. As a result, many debtors in the state have used payday lenders, and far too many of those borrowers cannot repay what they owe. According to a recent article from Progress Illinois , consumers have filed complaints about payday lenders in the state, illuminating a need for federal rules that address harmful lending practices . Predatory Payday Lenders and Protections for Consumers Due to the perceived predatory nature of payday loans, twelve states in the country have banned these lenders from operating completely, according to a fact sheet from loans.org . The states that currently have laws prohibiting payday lenders from operating include Arkansas, Arizona, Connecticut, Georgia, Mary...
Read more

New Information on Debts That Bankruptcy Cannot Discharge

If you are thinking about filing for bankruptcy in the Oak Park area, it is important to know that certain kinds of debts cannot be discharged in a bankruptcy case. Under U.S. bankruptcy law, these are known as non-dischargeable debts, or exceptions to discharge. There are certain types of debts that have long been identified clearly as non-dischargeable debts, while there are misconceptions about other types of debts that may or may not be dischargeable. As an article in CNBC discusses, the U.S. Supreme Court recently issued a ruling in the case of Bartenwerfer v. Buckley , which clarifies that debts incurred due to another party’s fraud cannot be discharged in an individual’s bankruptcy case. Our Oak Park bankruptcy attorneys can explain the Court’s recent ruling and provide you with additional information on dischargeable and non-dischargeable debts. Supreme Court Says Debt Incurred Due to Another’s Fraud is Non-Dischargeable The recent Bartenwerfer case involved a debtor attempti...
Read more