Schatz v. Chase Home Finance (In Re Schatz), 452 B.R. 544

Debtor David Schatz, Jr. filed a Chapter 13 case on June 26, 2010; Chase sent a mortgage statement to Schatzs on July 31, 2010 after filing.
Schatzs’ Chapter 13 Plan was confirmed on September 24, 2010.
Schatzs filed an adversary complaint on November 29, 2010 alleging stay violation and consumer protection claims.
Chase argued the statement was informational and not a stay violation, and that Counts II–IV lacked jurisdiction.
The court granted dismissal of Count I for failure to state a claim and dismissed Counts II–IV for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction.
The court analyzed whether the statement violated § 362(a)(6) and concluded it did not, applying a reconciliation approach to property vesting under Chapter 13.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Chase’s July 31, 2010 statement violated the automatic stay.	Schatzes claim a stay violation due to post‑petition collection efforts.	Statement was informational, not an attempt to collect a pre‑petition debt.	Count I dismissed for failure to state a claim; no stay violation.
Whether Counts II–IV have subject‑matter jurisdiction in bankruptcy court.	Counts II–IV arise from federal/state statutes and are related to the bankruptcy case.	Bankruptcy court lacks core or related‑to jurisdiction over these claims.	Counts II–IV dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for pleading a claim)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (U.S. 2009) (facial plausibility required; legal conclusions not enough)
In re Pultz, 400 B.R. 185 (Bankr. D. Md. 2008) (informational notices to debtors not stay violations)
In re Zotow, 432 B.R. 252 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2010) (informational statements; no automatic stay violation)
In re Henry, 266 B.R. 471 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2001) (creditor cooperation and information sharing encouraged)
In re Butz, 444 B.R. 301 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2011) (past due notice and threats can violate stay)