In re Tammy Martin v., 474 B.R. 789

Debtor Tammy Martin purchased The Sea Level Lounge from Appellant Eagle Bar, Inc. in 2006 for $210,000 with a down payment and monthly installments.
Debtor filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy in April 2009; discharge occurred August 10, 2009; no reaffirmation agreement was executed or filed for the Lounge debt.
After filing, Debtor continued voluntary payments of $800/month; Appellant later sued in state court (Sept. 30, 2010) seeking enforcement of a post-petition payment agreement.
Bankruptcy case was reopened in December 2010 to enforce the discharge; Debtor sought contempt proceedings against Appellant for violating the discharge injunction.
March 16, 2011 memorandum concluded no reaffirmation or enforceable post-petition contract existed; Appellant found in contempt and damages awarded; July 18, 2011 sanctions order affirmed on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hayes violated the discharge injunction	Martin contends Hayes knowingly violated § 524(a)(2).	Hayes argues no enforceable post-petition contract or reaffirmation existed, so actions were not violations.	Yes, Hayes held in contempt for willful violation.
Whether the damages award was proper	Martin seeks attorney’s fees and lost wages due to the contempt.	Hayes challenges the amount or reasonableness of fees and damages.	Damages affirmed; $3,800 attorney’s fees and $245 lost wages awarded.
Whether there was a valid reaffirmation or post-discharge contract	Debtor allegedly entered into a post-petition agreement to continue payments.	Appellant claims a new contract existed independent of the discharged debt.	No valid reaffirmation or enforceable post-discharge contract; discharge injunction applies.
Whether § 524(f) voluntary payments create obligations or revive the debt	Voluntary § 524(f) payments could reflect continued obligation.	Voluntary payments do not revive the debt or create enforceable obligations.	Voluntary payments do not revive or obligate continuation; they are not enforceable as continued debt.
Whether the alleged oral agreement satisfied Ohio Statute of Frauds	Debtor purportedly agreed to oral post-discharge payments.	Oral agreement cannot satisfy Statute of Frauds without writing and essential terms.	Not satisfied; memorandum lacking essential terms; Statute of Frauds not met.

Espinosa v. United Student Aid Funds, Inc., 553 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 2008) (discharge injunction is an equitable remedy enforcing the debtor's fresh start)
Cox v. Zale Del., Inc., 239 F.3d 910 (7th Cir. 2001) (discharge injunction violated by creditor seeking to collect discharged debt; contempt remedy available)
In re Wicheff, 215 B.R. 839 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. 1998) (finality of contempt order; timing of sanctions on contempt findings)
In re Integrated Res., Inc., 3 F.3d 49 (2d Cir. 1993) (contempt standards and finality considerations in bankruptcy)
Rajotte v. Carter (In re Rajotte), 81 Fed. App’x 29 (6th Cir. 2003) (post-discharge agreements require independent consideration; statute of frauds considerations)
Miles v. Clarke (In re Miles), 357 B.R. 446 (Bankr. W.D. Ky. 2006) (attorney’s fees may be awarded to effectuate discharge injunctions)