Knowles v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC (In Re Knowles), 442 B.R. 150

Debtor Mona Lisa Knowles filed a chapter 13 petition; Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC serviced the first mortgage on her home.
The loan originated with private individuals (the Thompsons) and was ultimately assigned to Wachovia; Bayview handled servicing.
Wachovia filed prepetition claims; Knowles’ amended plan (confirm June 12, 2006) provided for Bayview arrearage payments.
After a house fire, Knowles received an insurance check; a consent order allocated $42,500 to Bayview and $6,125.91 held in escrow to resolve any remaining balance.
Knowles filed a 2008 complaint alleging RESPA violations, automatic stay violations, and liability under § 105; bankruptcy court granted summary judgment on RESPA and later ruled on stay and § 105(a) counts in Bayview’s favor.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether RESPA applies to the loan and QWRs	Knowles contends loan is federally related and QWRs trigger RESP A duties.	Bayview argues loan is not federally related; QWRs fail to identify disputed item.	RESPA does not apply; no genuine issue as to federal loan status.
Whether Bayview violated the automatic stay by its statements/claims	Knowles claims stay violations via payoff/tax statements and fee requests.	Bayview asserts actions were not against property of the estate or debtor and were permissible.	No automatic stay violation; actions were not against property of the estate or debtor.
Whether Bayview violated § 105(a) generally	Bayview’s post-confirmation fees and treatment of the plan violate § 105(a).	Plan reserved claims; fee requests were to be determined through proper procedures; no modification of plan.	§ 105(a) does not itself create a substantive violation; no impermissible action found.
Whether the appeal is frivolous for Rule 8020 fees	Knowles asserts merits; Bayview seeks fees if frivolous.	Appeal is frivolous if meritless.	Appeal not frivolous; Rule 8020 fees denied.

In re Nosek, 544 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2008) (broad § 105(a) authority tempered by Code limits)
In re Bartel, 404 B.R. 584 (1st Cir. BAP 2009) (finality and scope of partial judgments in bankruptcy appeals)
In re Campbell, 545 F.3d 348 (5th Cir. 2008) (proof of claim relates to stay and automatic stay effects)
In re Morgan Guard Trust Co. of N.Y., 804 F.2d 1491 (9th Cir. 1986) (mere request for payment does not violate the stay)
In re Zotow, 432 B.R. 252 (9th Cir. BAP 2010) (automatic stay and notices; informational statements not stay violations)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (burden-shifting framework for summary judgment)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (preponderance standard and genuine issue of material fact)
In re Lance Nosek, 544 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2008) (see Nosek above (duplicate for citation consistency))
Alberty-Velez v. Corporación de Puerto Rico para la Difusión Pública, 361 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2004) (limitations on § 105(a) powers)