Manning v. CitiMortgage, Inc. (In re Manning)
505 B.R. 383
| Bankr. D.N.H. | 2014Background
- Debtor Manning filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy and listed CitiMortgage as a secured creditor on the homestead at 166 Varney Street, NH.
- A 2009 reaffirmation was signed but not filed; discharge entered September 10, 2009.
- Debtor continued mortgage payments post-discharge under the belief the reaffirmation was enforceable.
- In 2011-2012, Debtor learned the First Reaffirmation was not filed and attempted to refinance, discovering his payments were not reported to credit agencies.
- Defendant indicated it would report post-discharge payments only if the debt were reaffirmed; it later proposed a Second Reaffirmation that was not filed with the court.
- Debtor filed this adversary proceeding alleging discharge-injunction violations; the court granted summary judgment for the Defendant and denied the Plaintiff.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CitiMortgage violated the discharge injunction by failing to report post-discharge payments unless reaffirmed | Manning | CitiMortgage | No violation; safe harbor under §524(j) |
| Whether requesting a Second Reaffirmation after discharge violated §524(a)(2) | Manning | CitiMortgage | No violation; acts within §524(j) ordinary course |
| Whether §524(j) applies to a creditor with a security interest in the debtor's principal residence | Manning | CitiMortgage | Applies; allows ordinary-course actions to obtain periodic payments |
| Whether the Debtor could recover damages for credit-reporting issues | Manning | CitiMortgage | Not addressed as liability; potential remedies exist in other forums |
Key Cases Cited
- Lumb v. Cimentan (In re Lumb), 401 B.R. 1 (1st Cir. BAP 2009) (discharge injunction standards and burden of proof)
- Canning v. Beneficial Maine, Inc., 706 F.3d 64 (1st Cir. 2013) (injunction scope and civil contempt framework)
- Jamo v. Katahdin Fed. Credit Union, 283 F.3d 392 (1st Cir. 2002) ( bankruptcy tradeoffs surrounding reaffirmation and home retention)
- In re Pincombe, 256 B.R. 774 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2000) (clear and convincing standard for discharge-injunction violations)
- In re Mahoney, 368 B.R. 579 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 2007) (extension of penalty standards for post-discharge conduct)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (Supreme Court, 1986) (summary judgment standard; genuine dispute of material fact)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (Supreme Court, 1986) (burden-shifting framework for summary judgment)