Rogers v. Selene Finance, 2:14-ap-02068

Philip and Jill Rogers filed Chapter 7 on October 28, 2010, and received a discharge on February 2, 2011.
The Rogers previously pursued contempt proceedings against CitiMortgage and Selene; a predecessor judge found CitiMortgage and Selene in contempt in 2013 for failure to provide loan accounting and for two visits to the Rogers’ home, enjoining collection of principal, interest, or fees until further order.
The Rogers filed an adversary proceeding against Selene on February 26, 2014, seeking cancellation of indebtedness and later moved for contempt again in 2017, relying on the same alleged pre-2013 visits and unspecified calls/letters.
At the 2013 hearing the Rogers testified about two unverified visits by unidentified individuals and mentioned letters/phone calls, but produced no correspondence or proof linking the visitors to Selene.
Selene contends the Rogers have not made mortgage payments for years and that any post-discharge actions would be enforcement of a lien (permissible) rather than attempts to collect personal liability.
The court concluded the Rogers presented no new evidence of a willful post-discharge violation by Selene and denied additional contempt relief and reconsideration; the adversary proceeding remains dismissed and closed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Selene violated the discharge injunction/automatic stay by post-discharge contacts and visits	Rogers argue visits, calls, and letters constituted prohibited collection activity and warrant contempt sanctions	Selene argues Rogers produced no evidence tying visitors/calls/letters to Selene and any actions likely enforced Selene's lien, not personal liability	Court denied contempt: no clear-and-convincing proof of willful violation by Selene
Whether prior contempt findings justify additional sanctions now	Rogers seek penalties beyond 2013 sanctions based on same facts	Selene notes it already suffered sanctions and loss of payments; additional penalties unwarranted	Court denied additional sanctions as duplicative; prior remedy sufficient
Whether the Rogers presented new evidence supporting reconsideration	Rogers filed motion to reconsider dismissal relying on prior allegations	Selene maintained lack of new evidence linking it to alleged conduct	Court denied reconsideration for lack of new proof
Whether post-discharge lien enforcement is permissible communication	Rogers treat communications as collection of personal debt	Selene asserts lien enforcement and non-personal communications are permitted	Court recognized lien enforcement can be legitimate and found no showing Selene sought to collect personal liability

In re Flint, 557 B.R. 461 (Bankr. N.D. W. Va. 2016) (discharge injunction requires clear-and-convincing proof of willful violation; lien enforcement post-discharge may be permissible if not seeking personal liability)