670 B.R. 355
Bankr. D. Colo.2025Background
- Michael Nordike obtained a state court judgment against the Suttons for damages and unpaid rent after evicting them from his rental property.
- Post-judgment, the Suttons failed to respond to post-judgment interrogatories, leading Nordike to file contempt motions in state court.
- On December 28, 2022, the Suttons filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, invoking the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362.
- The Suttons alleged Nordike violated the automatic stay by not immediately withdrawing his pending contempt motion and by sending emails to their counsel after learning about the bankruptcy.
- After learning of the bankruptcy at a January 5, 2023 hearing, Nordike did not pursue the contempt motion further and later moved to stay the state proceedings; the Suttons sued Nordike for damages under § 362(k).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to promptly withdraw contempt motion | Nordike's delay in withdrawing the contempt motion and scheduling a new hearing violated § 362 | Nordike did not have actual notice before the hearing; after notice, took no affirmative action | No willful violation—no affirmative action taken after notice |
| Email exchange as an act of debt collection | Nordike's emails were threats to collect the debt and enforce contempt, violating the stay | Emails were not collection actions but responses; made clear intention to stay further action | Emails were not affirmative acts to collect; not a willful stay violation |
| Delay in moving to stay state proceedings | Nordike failed to act fast enough to remedy the violation after notice | His work for the government prevented faster response; acted promptly upon return | Actions were reasonable under the circumstances |
| Emotional distress and punitive damages | Sought damages for emotional distress from Nordike's alleged violation | No evidence of actual harm or egregious conduct; no improper actions taken post-notice | No damages warranted; no compensable willful violation |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Chicago v. Fulton, 592 U.S. 153 (2021) (affirmative acts, not mere inaction, are needed to violate the automatic stay)
- Johnson v. Smith (In re Johnson), 501 F.3d 1163 (10th Cir. 2007) (standard for willful violation of the automatic stay)
- Eskanos & Adler, P.C. v. Leetien, 309 F.3d 1210 (9th Cir. 2002) (creditor's duty to promptly discontinue collection post-bankruptcy)