Sanders v. Community Cars, 12-03066

Sanders filed a chapter 13 petition; Community Cars is a creditor in the case and repossessed Sanders' vehicle after filing.
Notice of Sanders' bankruptcy was mailed to Community Cars at its address and later received on the same day as the repossession was admitted.
Community Cars' mail handling was lax: mail from the shared PO box was not secured or tracked before reaching Community Cars.
Community Cars had not followed its four-step internal procedure for bankruptcy notices at the time of repossession.
Sanders suffered stress and medical consequences, including sarcoidosis symptoms, after learning of the repossession; she incurred medical bills and lost wages.
The vehicle was surrendered and subsequently sold; Community Cars did not notify Sanders of the disposition or provide a deficiency calculation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Community Cars willfully violate the automatic stay?	Sanders argues stay breach occurred when repossessing after filing.	Community Cars contends it lacked knowledge of the filing at the time.	Yes, willful stay violation established.
What damages flow from the stay violation?	Sanders entitled to actual damages including medical, wages, and mental anguish plus fees.	Defendant challenges extent of damages and reliance on Alabama notice rules.	Compensatory damages awarded: $3,564 medical, $72 lost wages, $2,500 mental anguish; attorney’s fees to be determined; no punitive damages.
Is Community Cars barred from recovering the deficiency after noncompliance with Alabama vehicle-disposition notices?	Offset/rebuttable presumption approaches may apply; otherwise damages may be recoverable.	Defendant asserts some damages may be recoverable for deficiency.	Absolute bar on deficiency recovery; defendant precluded from recovering deficiency.
Should punitive damages be awarded for the stay violation?	Argues egregious conduct merits punitive damages.	No malice; misstatements due to confusion, not intent.	No punitive damages awarded.

Borg-Warner Acceptance Corp. v. Hall, 685 F.2d 1306 (11th Cir. 1982) (stay violation may be punished as contempt with damages for willful violations)
Goichman v. Bloom (In re Bloom), 875 F.2d 224 (9th Cir. 1989) (knowledge of stay needed; willful requires intent to violate stay)
Jove Eng'g, Inc. v. Internal Revenue Service, 92 F.3d 1539 (11th Cir. 1996) (standard for willful violation includes knowledge and intent)
In re Robinson, 228 B.R. 75 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 1998) (presumption of receipt of properly mailed notice; use of mailing certificate)
Folks v. Tuscaloosa Credit Union, 989 So.2d 531 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007) (discusses approaches to remedies for noncompliance with consumer credit statutes)
Credit Nation Lending Services, L.L.C. v. Nettles, 489 B.R. 239 (N.D. Ala. 2013) (appropriate circumstances for punitive damages in stay context)
In re McBride, 473 B.R. 813 (S.D. Ala. 2012) (punitive damages require weighty circumstances; not for single incident)