In re: Deborah Lynn Partida
NV-14-1482-JuKuPa
| 9th Cir. BAP | May 27, 2015Background
- Debtor Deborah L. Partida was convicted of embezzlement and ordered to pay $193,337.33 in criminal restitution; she completed her prison term but had unpaid restitution when she filed Chapter 13.
- Debtor listed the restitution obligation in her bankruptcy schedules; the Government received notice and the Chapter 13 plan was confirmed.
- After receiving a notice of intent to offset, the Government garnished Debtor’s pension and retirement benefits (total about $740) post-petition.
- Debtor moved in bankruptcy court for contempt, arguing the garnishments violated the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a).
- The bankruptcy court denied contempt, relying on an exception under § 362(b)(1); the Panel reviewed whether the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA) nonetheless supersedes the automatic stay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MVRA enforcement provision overrides § 362(a) to permit collection of criminal restitution from debtor/property of estate | Partida: § 362(a) automatic stay bars postpetition enforcement; it should trump MVRA | United States: MVRA’s “notwithstanding any other Federal law” and broadened reach allow enforcement against all property, including estate property | Held: MVRA overrides § 362(a); Government may enforce restitution against debtor and estate property |
| Whether post-conviction enforcement of restitution is excepted from the stay under § 362(b)(1) | Partida: garnishment violated stay; MVRA not an exception in § 362(b) | United States: alternative argument that § 362(b)(1) excepts criminal proceedings/enforcement | Held: Court did not need to decide § 362(b)(1) because MVRA supersedes § 362(a) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Novak, 476 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2007) (MVRA’s "notwithstanding" clause can override conflicting federal anti‑alienation statutes)
- Cisneros v. Alpine Ridge Group, 508 U.S. 10 (U.S. 1993) (interpretation of "notwithstanding" language and its effect on statutory conflicts)
- Children’s Hosp. & Health Ctr. v. Belshe, 188 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 1999) (statutory interpretation begins with plain language)
- Consejo de Desarrollo Economico de Mexicali, A.C. v. United States, 482 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2007) (contextual reading of statutory "notwithstanding" clauses)
- United States v. Youssef, 547 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2008) (questions of statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Siriani v. Northwest Nat’l Ins. Co., 967 F.2d 302 (9th Cir. 1992) (appellate courts may affirm on any ground supported by the record)