In re McBride, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71022

Debtor couple Kathy and John McBride filed a Chapter 13 petition in Aug. 2011.
Holmes Motors repossessed the McBrides’ PT Cruiser post-petition, triggering § 362 stay issues.
McBride informed Holmes Motors of bankruptcy; Holmes disregarded the information.
The lease was argued as a true lease or disguised security interest; the bankruptcy court found ambiguities and colorable arguments.
The bankruptcy court held the stay was violated and awarded compensatory damages, attorney’s fees, and punitive damages.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether McBride’s vehicle possession created stay protection.	McBride had a colorable interest; possession plus dispute over the lease’s nature brought it within the stay.	Neither the vehicle nor the lease was property of the estate; no stay protection.	Yes, the McBrides had a colorable interest triggering the stay.
Whether Holmes Motors’ repossession was a willful stay violation.	Holmes ignored bankruptcy notice and repossessed despite knowledge of the filing.	Holmes relied on a Mississippi order and acted in good faith; not willful.	Willful violation; affirmed in part.
Whether punitive damages were appropriate and properly calculated.	Punitive damages allowed for willful stays where circumstances justify exemplary relief.	No weighty circumstances; conduct not egregious or malicious.	Punitive damages not appropriate; affirmed compensatory damages and fees, reversed punitive.

In re 48th Street Steakhouse, Inc., 835 F.2d 427 (2d Cir.1987) (protective reach of the automatic stay for possessory interests in debtor's possession)
Johnson v. Johnson, 501 F.3d 1163 (10th Cir.2007) (willfulness requires known stay and intended violation; oral notice suffices)
Sublett, 895 F.2d 1381 (11th Cir.1990) (district court review standard in bankruptcy appeals; de novo on law, deferential on fact)
BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (U.S. 1996) (relevance to determining punitive damages methodology and constitutionality)