Stephanie Lampe v. Kirk Kash
735 F.3d 942
6th Cir.2013Background
- In 2004 Stephanie Lampe obtained a $25,000 judgment against Kirk Kash. Kash filed for bankruptcy in 2012.
- Bankruptcy Rule 1007 required Kash to list creditor addresses; he listed Lampe’s address as c/o Gerhardstein & Branch, the firm that had represented her in 2004 but ceased representing her the same year.
- Notice sent to that firm did not reach Lampe; she received no notice of the bankruptcy and did not participate. The bankruptcy court discharged Kash’s debts, including the judgment to Lampe.
- Lampe sought to revive her judgment in district court; the district court found the discharge covered the debt and denied relief. Lampe appealed. Kash did not file an appellate brief.
- The Sixth Circuit considered whether notice to a former attorney satisfies due-process requirements for depriving a creditor of a debt via bankruptcy discharge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether notice sent to a creditor’s former attorney satisfies Due Process before discharging a judgment debt | Lampe: notice to a law firm that formerly represented her did not reach her and therefore was not constitutionally adequate | Kash: listing the law firm as the address satisfied notice requirements (implied) | Notice to a former attorney who no longer represents the creditor is not "reasonably calculated" to inform the creditor and does not satisfy Due Process; discharge cannot stand as to Lampe |
Key Cases Cited
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950) (Due Process requires notice reasonably calculated to inform interested parties)
- Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (2006) (inquirer must take additional reasonable steps when initial notice likely fails)
- Maples v. Thomas, 132 S. Ct. 912 (2012) (acts/knowledge of former counsel generally not attributable to client)
- U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership, 513 U.S. 18 (1994) (finality and precedent value of court judgments)
- Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89 (1990) (notice-to-counsel can suffice when counsel represents the party)
- Smith v. Ayer, 101 U.S. 320 (1880) (historical recognition that notice to counsel can effect notice to client)
- Commissioner v. Stewart, 186 F.2d 239 (6th Cir. 1951) (same principle regarding notice to counsel)