Malloy v. J & V Developers, Inc. (In re Malloy), 572 B.R. 551

Debtor Deborah Malloy filed Chapter 7; J & V Developers, Inc. had a nondischargeable claim under § 523(a)(6).
Automatic stay under § 362(a) remained in effect during pre-discharge period; discharge entered December 29, 2016.
Court earlier determined the Fee Award against Malloy was nondischargeable in Malloy I (535 B.R. 81 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2015)).
Debtor alleged a series of communications (Employer Email, July 30th Letter, October 27th Letter) were designed to pressure payment of the nondischargeable debt.
Court found Debtor failed to prove that J & V or its agents authored or caused the communications or that they were designed to collect the debt.
Judgment entered in favor of J & V; stay-violation and § 362(k) damages denied; attorney’s fees denied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether stay was violated under § 362(a)(6).	Malloy argues communications pressured payment of the debt.	J & V did not cause or author communications; no debt-collection demand.	No stay violation proven.
Whether the stay violation was willful under § 362(k).	Willfulness shown by pressured communications.	No evidence of author; no willful act by J & V.	Willfulness not established; no liability under § 362(k).
Whether the communications were designed to pressure payment of the nondischargeable debt.	Emails/letters intended to coerce payment.	No evidence of design to collect; could be harassment for other reasons.	Not shown; no connection to debt collection.
Whether J & V or its agents authored or caused the communications.	Insufficiently proven authorship; conspiracy to pressure debt.	No credible evidence that J & V/agents sent communications.	Debtor failed to prove authorship by J & V.

In re University Medical Center, 973 F.2d 1065 (3d Cir. 1992) (stay as fundamental debtor protection and purposes of stay)
Taylor v. Slick, 178 F.3d 698 (3d Cir. 1999) (stay goals include stopping harassment and maintaining status quo)
In re Mu’min, 374 B.R. 149 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2007) (discusses scope of stay and harassment protections)
In re Lansaw, 853 F.3d 657 (3d Cir. 2017) (definition of willfulness for stay violations)
In re Sechuan City, Inc., 96 B.R. 37 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1989) (harassment and pressure concepts under § 362(a)(6))
In re Sullivan, 367 B.R. 54 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 2007) (pressure/collection activities under stay analysis)
In re Draper, 237 B.R. 502 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1999) (prohibition on coercive debt collection under stay)
Divane v. A & C Elec. Co., 193 B.R. 856 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (broad interpretation of stay protections against pressure)
Rosas v. Monroe Cty. Tax Claim Bureau, 323 B.R. 893 (Bankr. M.D. Pa. 2004) (broad stay protections language)
In re Grau, 172 B.R. 686 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 1994) (stay protections cited in the § 362(a)(6) context)