Johnston v. Telecheck Services, Inc. (In Re Johnston)Johnston v. Telecheck Services, Inc. (In Re Johnston)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Michelle Denise Johnston (the “Debtor”) filed this adversary proceeding against Te
Telecheck failed to file an answer to the Debtor’s adversary complaint. On October 27, 2006, the Clerk of the Bankruptcy Court made an entry of default, and the Debtor’s motion for default was set for hearing on February 9, 2007. At that time, the Debtor introduced evidence on damages pursuant to
For the reasons stated herein, the court will deny any recovery based on alleged violations of West Virginia law that seek to remedy the same wrong that forms the basis for the Debtor’s automatic stay and discharge injunction causes of action, deny the Debtor’s cause of action for violation of the automatic stay, and award the Debtor compensation for losses suffered as a result of Telecheck’s violation of the discharge injunction.
I. BACKGROUND
As alleged by the Debtor, Telecheck processes checks for a large number of retail merchants. When a customer writes a bad check, Telecheck guarantees payment to the retail merchant, and pursues the customer for collection. Until Telecheck collects on the amount owed, no participating retail merchant will accept a personal check from that customer.
Before she filed for bankruptcy on October 14, 2005, the Debtor had written a bad check to one of Telecheck’s participating retail merchants. Telecheck was listed by
II. DISCUSSION
The Debtor asserts that this court can award statutory damages under the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act, in addition to damages under the Bankruptcy Code for violation of the automatic stay and discharge injunction, because the remedies provided by State and federal law are not mutually exclusive. In support of her argument, the Debtor relies on the following cases:
Universal Bank, N.A. v. Machnic (In re Machnic),
In
Machnic,
In
Sturm,
In
Prescott,
the court stated that the creditor, who had not appeared to defend the case, had violated the Bankruptcy Code’s discharge injunction by making post-petition collection calls. In addition, the creditor had violated
For the reasons set forth below, the court concludes that the Debtor cannot assert State law causes of action under
Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution provides that “Congress shall have the Power ... To establish ... uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States.... ” The Bankruptcy Code of 1978, as amended, was created under this express Constitutional grant of power to Congress. As a Congressional enactment, the Bankruptcy Code is “the supreme Law of the Land, ... any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” U.S. Const, art. YI, cl. 2.
Therefore, when a state enacts a statute that affects a party’s rights or duties in a bankruptcy proceeding, the question becomes whether the state law is a bankruptcy law that is expressly preempted by Congress’s power under the Bankruptcy Clause, or whether the state statute is not a bankruptcy law, but is one that has an impermissible application insofar as it relates to the federal bankruptcy law.
E.g., Pobreslo v. Joseph M. Boyd Co.,
The subsections of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act asserted by the Debtor in this case provide:
Threats or coercion.
No debt collector shall collect or attempt to collect any money alleged to be due and owing by means of any threat, coercion or attempt to coerce. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is deemed to violate this section:
(c) False accusations made to another person, including any credit reporting agency, that a consumer is willfully refusing to pay a just debt, or the threat to so make false accusations —
Fraudulent, deceptive or misleading representations.
No debt collector shall use any fraudulent, deceptive or misleading representation or means to collect or attempt to collect claims or to obtain information concerning consumers. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is deemed to violate this section:
(d) Any false representation or implication of the character, extent or amount of a claim against a consumer, or of its status in any legal proceeding. ...
These two State statutes do not seek to regulate bankruptcies — they are enacted pursuant to the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act, which is applicable to resident consumers that enter into consumer credit sales agreements in West Virginia. § 46A-1-104;
Harless v. First Nat’l Bank,
As they relate to this case, however,
A. The Automatic Stay
At least three Circuit Courts of Appeals have concluded that any state law cause of action that would allow a debtor to collect damages for a violation of the automatic stay are foreclosed by the remedies provided by
[Sjtate tort claims alleging violations of the automatic stay provision are completely preempted by federal bankruptcy law. This preemption arises because: (1) Congress placed bankruptcy jurisdiction exclusively in the district courts under28 U.S.C. § 1334(a) ; (2) Congress created a lengthy, complex and detailed Bankruptcy Code to achieve uniformity; (3) the Constitution grants Congress exclusive power over the bankruptcy law, (4) the Bankruptcy Code establishes several remedies designed to preclude the misuse of the bankruptcy process; and (5) the mere threat of state tort actions could prevent individuals from exercising their rights in bankruptcy, thereby disrupting the bankruptcy process.
Eastern Equip. & Servs. Corp. v. Factory Point Nat’l Bank,
As it is applied by the Debtor in this adversary proceeding,
The court finds the reasoning of the Second, Sixth, and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals compelling, and holds that, to recover damages for an alleged violation of the automatic stay of the Bankruptcy Code, the Debtor is limited to the private right of action in
B. Discharge Injunction
Like stay violation cases, several courts have determined that state law causes of action that would allow a debtor to collect damages for a violation of the discharge injunction are foreclosed by the remedies provided by § 524 of the Bankruptcy Code:
[W]e observe[] that: “states may not pass or enforce laws to interfere with or complement the Bankruptcy Act or to provide additional or auxiliary regulations.” The district court correctly noted that the broad enforcement power under the Bankruptcy Code preempts virtually all alternative mechanisms for remedying violations of the Code. Other courts that have been faced with a state unjust enrichment claim have held that Congress’s intent in enacting the remedial provisions of the Bankruptcy Code leaves “no room for the state cause of action.”
In contrast, in Vahlsing v. Commercial Union Insurance Co., [928 F.2d 486 (1st Cir.1991)] a panel of this Court permitted a state law cause of action for violation of the§ 362 automatic stay to go forward. However, in that case ... [t]here was no comparable overlap between a specific remedy available under the Bankruptcy Code and the state law remedies.... Therefore, we agree with the district court that the state law cause of action for unjust enrichment is preempted by the Bankruptcy Code.
Bessette v. Avco Fin. Servs.,
Moreover, this court does not believe that any private right of action exists for a violation of the Bankruptcy Code’s discharge injunction. In
Alexander v. Sandoval,
Like substantive federal law itself, private rights of action to enforce federal law must be created by Congress. The judicial task is to interpret the statute Congress has passed to determine whether it displays an intent to create not just a private right but also a private remedy. Statutory intent on this latter point is determinative. Without it, acause of action does not exist and courts may not create one, no matter how desirable that might be as a policy matter, or how compatible with the statute. “Raising up causes of action where a statute has not created them may be a proper function for common-law courts, but not for federal tribunals.”
Id.
at 286-87,
At least one commentator has argued that such a Congressional intent can be inferred in § 524 based on the following reasoning:
There are both explicit and implicit indicia of congressional intent to create a private right of action under 524. To begin with, the express language of the Bankruptcy Act of 1978 and the amendments thereto establish Congress’s intent to give complete effect to the discharge and eliminate any doubt concerning its effect as a total prohibition on debt collection efforts. In order to accomplish this purpose, Congress designed 524(a)(2) to be a novel and hybrid injunction-like remedy that could be enforced in any bankruptcy court anywhere in the country or in any federal or state court. Congress’s intent to create such a novel, hybrid injunctive-like remedy through use of the term “operates as an injunction” instead of the traditional terms of “injunction” or “enjoins” is supported by examining the novel, hybrid injunctivelike remedy for asbestos-related claims and bankruptcies provided for in 524(g) and (h).
That an implied right of action to remedy violations of this injunction exists is supported by the fact that an implied right of action for rescission has been found when any of the six requirements for a valid reaffirmation agreement under 524(c) is lacking. Furthermore, since the proffered analogy between 362 and 524 has been shown to be false, the fact that 362(h) contains an express right of action for actual damages, attorney’s fees, and punitive damages whereas 524 contains no express right of action for anything is immaterial.
Robert P. Wasson, Jr., Remedying Violations of the Discharge Injunction Under Bankruptcy Code 524, Federal Nonr-Bankruptcy law, and State Law Comports with Congressional Intent, Federalism, and Supreme Court Jurisprudence for Identifying the Existence of an Implied Right of Action, 20 Bankr.Dev. J. 77, 145-46 (2003).
The court does not believe that this argument is sound, and in fact, it is contrary to existing law. First, the court does not place any special meaning to the language of § 524(a)(2) and (3) that a discharge “operates as an injunction” such that Congress intended to create a “novel, hybrid injunctive-like remedy.” In short, if an order operates as an injunction, then it is an injunction. Second, §§ 524(g) and (h) represent special interest legislation concerned solely with asbestos related claims. Those subsections are only applicable to a narrow subset of facts, and were intended to codify the injunction entered by the court in
Kane v. Johns-Manville Corp.,
Finally, and most importantly, the court rejects the idea that it is immaterial that
Congress amended the Bankruptcy Code in 1984 to provide an express right of action under the automatic stay provision of11 U.S.C. § 362(h) . It did so because reliance on contempt power to remedy violations of§ 362 had been widely criticized. Congress amended § 524 at the same time it amended§ 362 , but no private right of action was added in § 524. The contrast, we think, is instructive.
Pertuso,
As applied in this adversary proceeding, the Debtor’s State law causes of action for a violation of the discharge injunction are preempted by the Bankruptcy Code. The discharge injunction of § 524 prohibits Telecheck from attempting to collect on a debt discharged in a bankruptcy proceeding.
C. Damages
The Debtor alleges in her complaint that Telecheck willfully violated the automatic stay by continuing to list the Debtor as an individual from whom no participating retail merchant was to accept a personal check until such time as the Debtor paid what she owed to Telecheck. The Debtor further alleges that Telecheck violated the discharge injunction by rejecting two checks that the Debtor wrote to Telecheck’s participating retail merchants. Had the Debtor paid her pre-petition obli
1. Violation of the Automatic Stay
Before damages may be awarded for a wilful violation of the automatic stay, however, the debtor must be “injured.”
Importantly, with respect to the debtor, the automatic stay is in place from the date of the filing of the petition to the date of discharge.
Here, the Debtor filed her Chapter 7 petition on October 14, 2005 and was awarded a discharge on January 25, 2006. The Debtor never knew that Telecheck was continuing to report her to its participating retail merchants as an individual from whom they were not to accept personal checks until May 2006—well after the automatic stay had terminated. Accordingly, the Debtor never knew that Telecheck had violated the automatic stay; consequently, because she had no knowl
2. Violation of the Discharge Injunction
The discharge injunction provided by § 524 of the Bankruptcy Code prohibits a creditor from attempting to collect on a debt that has been discharged in a bankruptcy proceeding. The discharge injunction is effective as of the date that a debtor receives a discharge.
Determining whether a party may be held liable for civil contempt is a two part inquiry: (1) did the party know of the lawful order of the court, and (2) did the defendant comply with it.
Burd v. Walters (In re Walters),
In this case, Telecheck was mailed a copy of the Debtor’s order of discharge on January 26, 2006. Accompanying the order of discharge was an explanation of the effect that the discharge had on Telecheck’s pre-petition debt. Notwithstanding the fact that it had notice of the Debt- or’s discharge, Telecheck caused two checks that the Debtor wrote to its participating retail merchants—one in May 2006 and the other in June 2006—to be rejected based on the fact that the Debtor owed an unpaid pre-petition debt to it. Accordingly, Telecheck violated the discharge injunction.
In determining what sanctions are appropriate for a creditor’s violation of the discharge injunction a court should be mindful that a sanction of civil contempt is not punitive; it is remedial in nature. The purpose of civil contempt is to compensate the complaining party and/or coerce the defendant into complying with orders of the court.
E.g., Walters,
In this case, the Debtor proffered that she had suffered losses as a result of Telecheck’s violation of the discharge injunction in the amount of $500. 5 The Debtor asserted that this amount was sufficient to compensate her for: (1) her need to contact her attorney, (2) attendance at the court hearing, and (3) the inconvenience of having her two personal checks rejected by Telecheck’s participating retail merchants. The court finds that this amount is reasonable based on the totality of the circumstances in this case. The Debtor’s attorney also stated that, as a result of Telecheck’s violation of the discharge injunction, he was required to expend costs, paralegal’s time, and attorney’s time to enforce the court’s order. The total fees and costs claimed is $2,343.67, representing 2.0 hours of paralegal time, 8.4 hours of attorney’s time and $62.67 in costs. The court’s review of the time sheets submitted by the Debtor’s attorney confirms that the amount of fees and expenses incurred as a result of Telecheck’s violation of the discharge injunction is reasonable under the circumstances.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the court will dismiss the Debtor’s causes of action pursuant to
Notes
. In the Debtor’s complaint, the Debtor alleges a violation of
The Debtor's complaint also alleges a violation of
. The Debtor’s Chapter 7 case was filed before the effective date of the 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act ("BAPCPA”). As part of BAPCPA’s revisions to the Bankruptcy Code, the former subsection governing damages for violating the automatic stay,
. The Order entered contains no analysis concerning preemption issues, and, after the Order was entered the creditor filed a motion to vacate it on the grounds that it was never properly served with the debtor’s motion for contempt. The parties later reached an agreed settlement and the case was closed.
. Because
. Because Telecheck never appeared in this case, the court did not require any evidence of mitigation.
See, e.g., Pa. State Police v. Suders,