Bates v. CitiMortgage, Inc. (In re Bates), 517 B.R. 395

The court heard cross-motions for partial summary judgment on contempt of the discharge injunction by Plaintiffs and Citi and Freddie Mac.
Plaintiffs allege six counts (I–VI) of contempt for post-discharge actions violating 11 U.S.C. § 524(a).
The court previously denied Plaintiffs’ earlier MSJ and allowed consideration of that record with the current cross-motions.
Count I concerns Citi’s mailed statements in 2009–2011 stating a past due amount and late charge, with a warning not to collect personally.
Counts II–V concern a Citi loan modification and related communications after discharge, including a modification rider and reporting to credit agencies and IRS Form 1099-A.
Count VI concerns a June 2013 telephone contact by Citi about insurance on the foreclosed home, after discharge and foreclosure.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Citi's monthly statements violate the discharge injunction?	Citi’s format coerced repayment despite discharge.	Statements were informational and within § 524(j) allowed collection actions.	No violation; summary judgment for Citi on Count I.
Did the September 22, 2009 letter and loan modification violate the discharge injunction?	Letter sought payment of discharged debt and revived liability.	Modification fell under § 524(j) as a post-discharge avoidance of foreclosure.	No violation; Count II denied for Plaintiffs; summary judgment for Defendants.
Did the Loan Modification Agreement itself violate the discharge injunction?	Modification attempted to collect on discharged debt.	Modification actions fall within § 524(j) as intended to prevent foreclosure.	No violation; Count III denied for Plaintiffs; Defendants receive summary judgment.
Did Citi’s failure to report payments and online access denial violate the discharge injunction?	Non-reporting and restricted access were harassment of the discharged debtor.	No duty to report; actions were lawful and not coercive.	No violation; Count IV denied for Plaintiffs; Defendants granted summary judgment.
Did Citi’s June 2013 phone call constitute coercion or harassment after discharge?	Call was coercive and caused emotional distress.	Call was an error; post-discharge contact without coercion.	Yes, liability established for Count VI; damages to be determined after hearing.

OneBeacon American Ins. Co. v. Commercial Union Assurance Co. of Canada, 684 F.3d 237 (1st Cir. 2012) (coercion standard for discharge injunction analysis)
Pratt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Co. (In re Pratt), 462 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 2006) (objective coercion analysis for discharge injunction)
Manning v. CitiMortgage, Inc. (In re Manning), 505 B.R. 383 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2014) (tradeoffs in post-discharge mortgage modification context)
Jamo v. Katahdin Fed. Credit Union, 283 F.3d 392 (1st Cir. 2002) (reaffirmation and discharge implications in mortgage context)
Lumb v. Cimenian (In re Lumb), 401 B.R. 1 (1st Cir. BAP 2009) (coercion assessment in discharge injunction cases)
Baltodano v. Merck, Sharp, and Dohme (I.A) Corp., 637 F.3d 38 (1st Cir. 2011) (discharge injunction framework and material facts standard)