Mele v. Bank of America Home Loans (In re Mele), 486 B.R. 546

Plaintiff Mele filed bankruptcy to stop foreclosure and obtain a fresh start; she had converted from Chapter 13 to Chapter 7 and was discharged in January 2011.
Plaintiff continues to reside in the subject home, has not paid the mortgage since August 2010, and did not reaffirm the debt.
Defendant Bank of America sent fifteen letters/forms and made limited post-discharge contact, all addressed to Plaintiff at the property; several documents contained information required by FHA/FDCPA guidance.
Plaintiff alleged these communications violated the discharge injunction under 11 U.S.C. § 524(a)(2) by seeking personal payment on a discharged debt.
The court separated the communications into informational, FHA-related, responsive, and statements, and examined their individual and collective effects.
The court concluded that none of the fifteen documents, considered individually or collectively over an 18-month period, were an attempt to collect a personal debt and thus did not violate § 524.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 524(a)(2) was violated by the communications	Mele contends the totality of notices and forms sought personal payment.	Bank of America argues communications were informational or in rem, not personal collection.	No violation found.
Whether the defendant acted willfully	Mele asserts willfulness due to knowledge of discharge and renewed contact after discharge.	Bank of America acknowledges knowledge of discharge but disputes personal collection intent.	Willfulness not established as to personal collection.
Whether the individual documents sought to collect a debt personally	Each piece, at property address and with collection terms, constitutes personal collection.	Documents are informational or in rem notices; none demanded personal payment.	None of the documents individually sought personal collection.
Whether the collective effect over time violated § 524	Repeated notices and aggressive contact cumulatively amount to collection.	Overall, communications served informational/in-rem purposes, not personal collection.	Cumulative effect did not violate § 524.
Whether in rem rights and FHA notices negate a discharge violation	In rem actions to foreclose remain after discharge and can trigger collection effects.	In rem rights and FHA-required notices are permissible post-discharge and do not collect personally.	In rem notices and FHA disclosures do not violate § 524.

In re Brown, 481 B.R. 351 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2012) (informational notices may be allowed; mortgage-related contacts can be in rem)
In re Schatz, 452 B.R. 544 (Bankr. M.D. Pa. 2011) (secured creditor communications encouraged; informational notices permitted)
In re Henry, 266 B.R. 457 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2001) (post-discharge communications may be appropriate to facilitate payments)
In re Jennings, 454 B.R. 252 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2011) (discusses discharge scope and lien preservation)
Long v. Bullard, 117 U.S. 617 (1886) (discharge extinguishes personal liability but lien may survive)
Universal American Mortgage Co. v. Bateman, 331 F.3d 821 (11th Cir. 2003) (secured creditor may enforce lien post-discharge)