MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Gale Ann Sansone (hereinafter referred to as Sansone or the debtor) filed a complaint seeking the recovery of compensatory and punitive damages under 11 U.S.C. § 362(h), (unless otherwise indicated, all citations are to 11 U.S.Code) alleging that during the pendency of her bankruptcy proceeding, defendants, who knew of her Chapter 13 case, willfully violated the automatic stay, provided by § 362(a), by commencing or continuing state court civil litigation against her.
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
This court has jurisdiction over this adversary proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(a) (the district courts shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all cases under Title 11), 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) (authorizing the district courts to refer all Title 11 cases and proceedings to the bankruptcy judges for the district) and General Order No. 266, dated October 9, 1984 (referring all Title 11 cases and proceedings to the bankruptcy judges of the Central District of California). This matter is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (0), which the court may hear and determine.
Budget Serv. Co. v. Better Homes of Va., Inc.,
FACTS
Debtor and Michael Sansone, her non-debtor husband, were the managing and operating partners of the Irvine Health Center from 1982 through 1987. In or about 1983, Sansone formed Kokua Management, Inc., to carry out the management of the Irvine Health Center. James R. Wooley (hereinafter referred to as Wooley), Daniel Sigler (hereinafter referred to as Sigler), William Fagan (hereinafter referred to as Fagan), and Gordon H. Grannis (hereinafter referred to as Gran-nis), were, at times prior to the bankruptcy, chiropractors rendering services at the Irvine Health Center facility.
*983 In 1985, Sigler, by his attorney Jeffrey P. Walsworth, Esq. (hereinafter referred to as Walsworth), filed an action in Orange County Superior Court (Sigler Action) against debtor and Kokua Management, Inc., alleging wrongful withholding of monies and other related claims.
On January 7, 1987, Sansone filed a bankruptcy petition under Chapter 13 of Title 11 U.S.Code. Walsworth and Sigler were listed in debtor’s schedules and notified of the bankruptcy filing. On January 28, 1987, Walsworth, on Sigler’s behalf, filed a proof of claim for $30,000. Debtor’s plan, proposing to pay 100% to all unsecured creditors, was confirmed on March 30, 1987, over Sigler’s objection. Thereafter debtor filed an objection to Sigler’s claim.
On August 31, 1987, Walsworth’s firm filed a “Notice of Withdrawal of Claim,” which purported to effect by its filing such withdrawal. On September 16, 1987, following noticed hearing at which neither Walsworth nor Sigler appeared, debtor’s objection was sustained and an order disallowing Sigler’s claim was entered; the order, however, allowed Sigler ten days in which to file an amended claim. A copy of the order was served on Sigler and Wals-worth by the clerk of the court. Sigler never filed an amended claim.
On July 22, 1987, while the bankruptcy was pending, debtor filed a complaint for breach of contract against Wooley, Fagan, and Grannis in Orange County Superior Court (Sansone Action) by which debtor sought to recover monies she claimed owing to the bankruptcy estate. In response to the complaint, on or about September 11, 1987, and while her bankruptcy was pending, Wooley, Fagan, and Grannis, by their attorney Walsworth, filed an answer and a cross-complaint seeking the recovery of money damages against debtor. The cross-complaint generally states that in and after 1985, and while she was managing Irvine Health Center, debtor failed to tender a lawsuit, naming Wooley, Fagan and Gran-nis as defendants, to an insurer, State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. (hereinafter referred to as State Farm), for their defense. It further alleges that she later breached her duty to them by failing to hire competent counsel to defend against the action.
On October 15, 1987, William M. Burd, Esq. (hereinafter referred to as Burd), counsel for debtor in the bankruptcy proceeding, made written demand on Wals-worth to dismiss the Sansone Action cross-complaint asserting, with citation to appropriate Bankruptcy Code authority, that such filing was a violation of the automatic stay provided under § 362. Walsworth responded by letter dated October 22, 1987, that debtor had initiated the action against his clients and that the pleading he filed was “compulsory” under state law. Wals-worth further justified the filing by stating that in his opinion actions brought for damages based upon post-petition conduct of a debtor are not stayed by a bankruptcy proceeding.
On October 30, 1987, Burd again made written demand that Walsworth dismiss the cross-complaint. He further informed Walsworth that in the event the action was not dismissed an adversary proceeding would be commenced against him and his clients in the bankruptcy court under § 362(h) for the recovery of Sansone’s costs, attorneys’ fees and for punitive damages. Walsworth, however, failed and refused to dismiss the cross-complaint.
On November 4, 1987, and while debtor’s bankruptcy proceeding was still pending, Walsworth on behalf of Wooley, Grannis and Sigler filed a second post-petition state court cross-complaint against debtor; this time in the pending 1985 state court Sigler Action. The allegations of that pleading were, word for word, identical to those in the Sansone Action cross-complaint filed just two months earlier except for the addition of a third cause of action on behalf of Sigler.
On November 30, 1987, debtor filed a complaint in the bankruptcy court under § 362(h) against Walsworth, Wooley, Si-gler, Fagan, and Grannis for the violation of the automatic stay based on the filing of the two cross-complaints.
*984 On December 16, 1987, a request for dismissal of the state court cross-complaint was filed by an attorney other than Wals-worth on behalf of Sigler. During July of 1988, requests for dismissal of the state court cross-complaints were filed by attorneys other than Walsworth on behalf of Fagan and Grannis.
Prior to trial defendants Wooley, Fagan and Grannis reached settlements with the debtor and were dismissed.
At trial defendants Walsworth and Sigler denied that the filing of the cross-complaints constituted a willful violation of the automatic stay because, the cross-complaints (1) were never served, (2) were “compulsory” under the California Code of Civil Procedure, and (3) sought recovery of damages based only upon debtor's post-petition conduct. Additionally, they argue that even if they did violate the stay, it was not intentional.
DISCUSSION
Under Bankruptcy Code § 362(a)(1) a stay against the commencement or continuation of virtually all judicial proceedings against the debtor goes into effect automatically at the time a bankruptcy petition is filed.
In re Willard,
The automatic stay is the fundamental protection provided to debtors by the bankruptcy code. It gives debtors a breathing spell from creditors. It stops all collection efforts, harassment, and foreclosure actions. It permits debtors to attempt a repayment or reorganization plan, or simply to be relieved of the financial pressures that drove them into bankruptcy (House Report. No. 95-595, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 340-2 (1977); Senate Report No. 95-989, 95th Cong., 2d 54-55 (1978); reprinted in 1978 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News at 5787, 5840-41 and 6296-97. Congress intended the automatic stay to be broad in scope to protect both debtor and creditors from a piecemeal dismemberment of the debtor’s estate. “Judicial toleration of an alternative procedure of self-help and post hoc justification would defeat the purpose of the automatic stay.”
In Re Computer Communications, Inc.,
A party who initiates or continues pending litigation against a debtor without relief from stay and prior to the granting of the debtor’s discharge takes a considerable risk because § 362(h) provides that “[a]n individual injured by any willful violation of a stay provided by this section shall recover actual damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, and, in appropriate circumstances, may recover punitive damages.”
See Mercer v. D.E.F., Inc.,
When Walsworth and Sigler filed their state court cross-complaints they commenced judicial proceedings against San-sone, who at the time was protected by the automatic stay. The filing of the cross-complaints were violations of § 362(a).
See, e.g., In Re NWFX, Inc.,
However, notwithstanding the violation of the stay, for such breach to be compen-sable the Court must find that the Wals-worth and Sigler violations were “willful.”
RECOVERY OF DAMAGES UNDER SECTION 362(h)
“A willful violation of the automatic stay provision is.... committed when a party acts in violation of the stay with knowledge or notice of sufficient facts to cause a reasonably prudent person to make additional inquiry to determine whether a bankruptcy petition has been filed.”
In Re Stucka,
‘Willful’ is a word ‘of many meanings, its construction [is] often influenced by its context.’
Screws v. United States,
In Re Shealy,
“ ‘[Willfulness’ can be established by inaction when it amounts to a reckless disregard of the § 362 stay.
See, Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston,
As their first legal defense defendants argue that there was no violation of the stay because the cross-complaints, while filed, were never served upon debtor. This claim is meritless. Under CalCode Civ. Proc. § 428.60, where a party has appeared in an action, which debtor had in both matters, proper service is made by mailing a copy of the pleading to the party’s attorney. It was established at trial that the cross-complaints each had attached to them executed proofs of service showing service by mail upon debtor’s state court attorney, William R. Anderson (hereinafter referred to as Anderson). Additionally, Anderson testified that he received the served cross-complaints.
Defendants’ second legal defense is that the filings were not stayed by § 362 because, as Walsworth claimed in his October 22, 1987, letter to Burd, “a cross-complaint is a compulsory action.” And further, even if the filings were technically a violation of the stay, the argument goes, they should not be liable for a “willful” violation since defendants were compelled by state law to file them.
Under California law, if a party against whom a complaint has been filed fails to allege by cross-complaint any “related cause of action” he or she may have against the plaintiff, that party is thereafter precluded from asserting such claim in any other action. Cal. Code Civ.Proc. §§ 426.10-70 (West 1989). Walsworth and Sigler are in error in alleging that the cross-complaints were “compulsory.” Initially, with regard to the Sigler cause, Cal. Code Civ.Proc. § 426.30(a) (read together with CalCode Civ.Proc. § 426.10(c)) makes clear that a cross-complaint is only “compulsory” if the cause to be pled arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as the cause of action the plaintiff alleges in his complaint. The Court does not find that Sigler’s cause for defamation arose out of the “same transaction or occurrence.” Second, neither the Sigler, Woo-ley, 'Fagan or Grannis causes were compulsory because under CalCode Civ.Proc. § 426.40(b) the state court action was pending in a court which was “prohibited by ... federal ... statute from entertaining the cause of action ...,” i.e., § 362 had stayed the action.
*986
If defendants’ cross-complaints could not be filed as “compulsory,” this would not mean, as the defendants contended at trial, that by virtue of the Sansone bankruptcy they were left without any legal forum to test whether their cross-complaints were proper and should be permitted to be filed. Assuming
arguendo,
the subject matter of the cross-complaints made them compulsory under state law, which again the Court does not find, both state law and the Bankruptcy Code provided them with procedures to test their question without
first
violating the stay. Prior to the filing of the cross-complaints Walsworth could have (1) sought a state court extension of time to file his “compulsory” pleadings based upon his doubt as to the applicability of § 362(a), and/or (2) sought relief from stay from the bankruptcy court. Walsworth did neither of these things.
See In Re Randy Homes Corp.,
Finally, Cal. Code Civ.Proc. § 426.50 provides an explicit mechanism for obtaining leave to file an untimely cross-complaint. The section concludes by stating “[tjhis subdivision shall be liberally construed to avoid forfeiture of causes of action.”
The defendants third legal defense is that their cross-complaints were for damages arising out of post-petition conduct. This contention, however, lacks both merit and credibility. The first cross-complaint filed by Walsworth for Wooley, Fagan and Grannis claims a right to damages based upon allegations that at some time in 1985 (prior to the January 1987 filing of her bankruptcy petition) debtor, by virtue of her management of the Irvine Health Center, breached duties she owed them to (1) tender a lawsuit against them to their insurance company for defense, and (2) retain competent legal counsel. Walsworth’s inclusion of the phrase “and to and including the date of this cross-complaint” to allegations of 1985 conduct does not create a postpetition obligation. The alleged breach (or tort) occurred in 1985, and therefore if proved, the wrong created a pre-pe-tition obligation.
The second cross-complaint reiterates verbatim the previous Wooley and Grannis cross-complaints, then adds a new cause of action for defamation by Sigler against debtor. Even so, it suffers the same problem. The third cause begins by alleging that “[a]bout May 1985, and continuing regularly to the present day, [Sansone] began making ... defamatory oral statements.” The Court finds nothing in the pleading, however, which specifically sets forth or describes any post-petition publication or communication about Sigler by San-sone. And the fact that this third cause was added to a verbatim reiteration of the first Wooley and Grannis cross-complaint relating to 1985 conduct, which also adds to the allegations an “and to the present ...” phrase, persuades me that the argument was invented just prior to trial. Moreover, inasmuch as Sansone, Walsworth and Si-gler had been locked in vicious state court combat for approximately two years prior to the filing of the cross-complaints, it simply defies logic and belief that defendants would wait two years to set forth allegations of defamation which began in 1985.
Lastly, the Court notes that Walsworth was not, after being forewarned by Burd’s letters of the stay violation following the filing of the first cross-complaint, without a remedy. Walsworth could easily have included in the second cross-complaint factual allegations to both the Sigler and Woo-ley/Grannis causes which made it absolutely clear that he was aware of the bankruptcy, aware of the stay, and was pleading and seeking recovery on account of conduct which occurred only after the filing of the petition. He did none of these. For all the foregoing reasons the Court finds this defense unpersuasive.
As a final defense Walsworth and Sigler argued that if they did violate the stay they
*987
should not be punished because it was not intentional. Not even a “good faith” mistake of law or a “legitimate dispute” as to legal rights relieve a willful violator of the consequences of the act.
In Re AM Int’l, Inc.,
The Court finds the defendants’ violation of the automatic stay to be “willful”; the acts of Walsworth were deliberate and intentional. The acts of Walsworth are imputed to Sigler.
Haile v. N. Y. State Higher Educ. Servs. Corp.,
As a result of Walsworth and Sigler’s actions, as between their acts and the financial burden placed upon an innocent debtor who is already laboring under the stress of periodic payments under a Chapter 13 plan, Walsworth and Sigler should pay the costs incurred in defending the rights the automatic stay afford. “An award of attorney’s fees is appropriate where an initial violation of the stay is followed by Debtor’s having to resort to the courts to enforce his rights.
In re Shriver,
Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds Sigler and Walsworth liable to debtor for her actual damages, including her attorney’s fees and costs. Inasmuch as Wals-worth filed two cross-complaints on behalf of six defendants, only one of which was Sigler, the award is to be allocated V6th to be paid jointly and severally by Walsworth and Sigler, and %ths of the award to be paid by Walsworth separately.
PUNITIVE DAMAGES UNDER SECTION 362(h)
Having resolved the matter of whether a “willful” violation occurred, the' question remains whether Walsworth’s actions were simple misunderstandings of the law and/or his duty under them? Or alternatively was' Walsworth’s conduct malicious?
Punitive damages are not intended to compensate an injured party; they are by definition meant to punish wrongful action which was intentional or malicious, and to deter the wrongdoer or others from similar conduct.
City of Newport v. Facts Concerts, Inc.,
Under § 362(h) bankruptcy courts have awarded punitive damages where the violation of the stay was characterized or described in the following ways: (1) as wrongful, with a high degree of malice and taken with “conscious disregard” of the stay,
In Re Kroh Bros. Dev. Co.,
A case similar to the one at bar is
In re Elegant Concepts, Ltd.,
Throughout the course of the proceedings, having carefully observed his demeanor and expression, the Court finds Walsworth’s testimony regarding his alleged misunderstandings of bankruptcy law or his claimed honest motives and intentions in filing the cross-complaints, to be wholly unpersuasive. While always polite and generally well-mannered, he was nevertheless evasive, inconsistent in his recollections, and erratic in the manner in which he displayed his legal abilities.
The Court finds that Walsworth’s conduct in this action fits squarely with the kinds of acts punitive damages are designed to punish and deter. He is, after all, a lawyer. Lawyers are the guardians of the law, and it is the laws of a free and democratic society which make justice, with respect for the individual, possible.
*989
(Preamble to A.B.A. Model Code of Professional Responsibility.) His acts demonstrate an intentional abuse of legal power and authority for an improper purpose. His conduct was callous and spiteful, and demonstrated a high degree of deliberate and arrogant defiance of federal bankruptcy law. A significant punitive damage award is warranted due to Walsworth’s utter disrespect for the bankruptcy process by violating the automatic stay, after specific warning, not once, but twice. The automatic stay is the linchpin of the bankruptcy proceeding, providing the debtors’ only shield from the actions of creditors as they attempt to reorganize not only their finances but their shattered lives.
See In re Stringer, II,
In making its decision regarding punitive damages, the Court is particularly mindful that they are imposed not only to punish, but also to deter the wrongdoer and any others who might consider engaging in the same kind of malicious conduct. At trial Walsworth testified that he heads a firm of eight to ten attorneys. It disturbs the Court greatly that Walsworth might be considered to be by his young associates, or anyone else, a “smart” lawyer.
Once a determination is made that punitive damages are appropriate, the Court must then determine the appropriate amount of such damages.
“An award of punitive damages ‘... should be gauged by the gravity of the offense and set at a level sufficient to insure that it will punish and deter.
Mercer v. DEF, Inc.,
In
In re Kroh Bros. Dev. Co.,
Based upon the foregoing findings, punitive damages are awarded against Wals-worth and in favor of Sansone in the sum of $25,000.00. No punitive damages are assessed against Sigler based upon his testimony, and the Court’s belief, that he only followed the advise of his attorney, whom *990 he believed to know the law and act in good faith.
The Court reached the above conclusions even prior to Walsworth being caught in an apparent penury during the trial.
TAPE RECORDED EVIDENCE SHOWING PERJURY
In early testimony as an adverse witness, Walsworth was asked by the debtor’s attorney whether he had made certain statements during a telephone conversation with debtor’s state court attorney, Anderson, on August 10, 1987. Burd’s examination of Walsworth proceeded as follows:
Q. Do you recall having a telephone conversation with William Anderson on August 10, 1987, in which you told him that you had proof that the lawsuit had been noticed to State Farm?
A. I am aware Mr. Anderson makes that false declaration. There was never any such conversation with Mr. Anderson.
Q. You never told Mr. Anderson that you could either make or break his client’s case against State Farm because you could prove notice?
A. That’s correct.
Q. Never said that?
A. I don’t recall ever saying anything like that.
The telephone conversation pertained to debtor’s intended lawsuit against State Farm. Sansone asserted that she had tendered the 1985 Sigler Action to State Farm for defense, but that State Farm, in bad faith, denied receiving notice of such request from her and thereafter failed to tender such defense. It was from these same circumstances that the Wooley, Fa-gan and Grannis cross-complaints for damages arose. Walsworth claimed on their behalf that, to their detriment, she failed to tender the lawsuit to State Farm for their defense.
At a later point in the trial Anderson testified that on August 10, 1987, he had a telephone conversation with Walsworth wherein Walsworth stated his client could make or break Sansone’s claim against State Farm. When asked whether he had any corroboration of his testimony, he stated that he had recorded the conversation. The Court, over the objection of Walsworth and Sigler, and after Anderson laid a foundation, admitted the tape into evidence for the limited purpose of impeaching Wals-worth’s credibility. See Fed.R.Evid. 105.
In essence, the tape recording of the telephone conversation verified Anderson’s testimony. In the conversation Walsworth told Anderson that he had the evidence necessary for debtor to establish that she had given State Farm the required notice. He then offered that for one-half of the damages Sansone recovered against State Farm, he and Sigler would provide this evidence. Walsworth further stated that if he was not given one-half of debtor’s recovery, he would make sure that the notice requirements were not met. The significant portions of the tape recording are as follows:
ANDERSON: How can I go to my clients and suggest to them that they share 50% of what they get, which is going to be substantial, with you when we don’t know whether you have anything that would be worth even pursuing?
WALSWORTH: Well, I think whether you ever get anything out of State Farm depends upon Sigler.
ANDERSON: In what way?
WALSWORTH: Well, because he can make or break your whole case.
ANDERSON: How can he make or break my client’s case against State Farm?
WALSWORTH: Easily. There are certain conversations and documentation to which we are privy to that you guys are not. We will have to relinquish all our work product as to attorney-client privileges in regard to those.
ANDERSON: I just don’t understand how Sigler can help my client in advancing any action against State Farm.
ANDERSON: What are you offering my client?
WALSWORTH: I’m offering them a lot. We could make or break their case.
*991 ANDERSON: In what way? What are you offering?
WALSWORTH: One of the absolute mandatory requirements that your people are ever going to have to establish against State Farm is notice.
ANDERSON: And you’re going to contend that no notice was ever given?
WALSWORTH: What I say is that we can make or break your case in that regard.
ANDERSON: And if my clients agree with you, you’ll make sure that notice is met, is that what you’re saying?
WALSWORTH: Absolutely.
ANDERSON: You have information that notice was given, is that what you’re saying?
ANDERSON: I take it that you have some inside information from State Farm in some way?
WALSWORTH: Absolutely. Haven’t you figured out that we’ve been on their payroll for the last three years?
WALSWORTH: Let me put it to you this way. If [Sansones] and Sigler can split it down the middle whatever they get, they’re ahead of the game a lot more than they are now because I guaranty you that I know their case inside and out. I’ve been with them for three years and I know ... State Farm’s position on it, and I guaranty it. And I’m not just saying this, I can guaranty it. I can make or break Sansone’s case and they know it.
ANDERSON: Who? Sansones or State Farm?
WALSWORTH: State Farm.
Walsworth contends that the admission of the tape was in violation of both federal and state law. Federal Rule of Evidence 613 allows prior inconsistent statements to be admitted for the purposes of impeaching a witness. Additionally, 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) states:
It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State. 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d).
Here, Anderson was not acting under color of law and was a party to the communication. Thus, the sole issue under 18 U.S.C. § 2511 is whether Anderson recorded his conversation with Walsworth for the purpose of committing a “criminal or tor-tious act.”
Moore v. Telfon Communications Corp.,
The court then addressed the alleged violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) and stated that because the franchisor’s president was not acting under color of law and was a party to the communication, as was Anderson in his conversation with Wals-worth, the “interception is unlawful only if *992 done for the purpose of committing a criminal, tortious or injurious act.” Id. at 965; 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(a), (d). The court held that Congress did not intend the words “criminal” or “tortious” “to embrace every act which disadvantages the other party to this communication. Such a reading would nullify the exemption created by § 2511(2)(a), (d). Presumably there is some disadvantage in having any conversation intercepted in the absence of consent of all parties. Congress, we believe, intended to permit one party to record conversation with another when the recorder is acting out of a legitimate desire to protect himself.” Id. at 966.
Walsworth contends that Anderson recorded the conversation for the purpose of using it against him and his clients in the future and was, therefore, recorded for the purpose of committing a criminal, tor-tious, or injurious act. Walsworth’s argument, however, fails to understand the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation of the term “injurious act” in Moore, supra. The content of Walsworth’s telephone conversation i.e., he would withhold evidence unless his extortionate demands were met, are exactly the. kinds of conversations the Moore court authorizes to be recorded under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(a), (d). The Court finds that Anderson was simply, as Moore finds permissible, “acting ‘out of a legitimate desire to protect himself.’ ” Id. In addition, the Court does not find that Anderson had any criminal, tortious, or injurious purpose in recording the conversation.
It is not the purpose of the statute to protect persons from having the contents of their discussion disclosed by the person with whom they had such discussion; rather, the purpose is to prevent the interception of a telephone call by a third person. who is not a party to the conversation. Persons normally cannot have a constitutionally protected expectation that the person to whom they voluntarily reveal incriminating information will keep it secret.
United States v. Hodge,
Of course, the upshot of the testimony regarding the telephone conversation between Anderson and Walsworth is that Walsworth directly perjured himself at trial. Furthermore, the content of the conversation is evidence that the cross-complaints were brought in bad faith. As previously noted, I found Walsworth to be totally unbelievable throughout the course of his testimony and the Court came to this conclusion even before the playing of the tape recorded conversation.
CONCLUSION
The Court finds Walsworth’s conduct throughout this entire matter to be not only outrageous in its effect upon the debt- or, but to demonstrate an utter disrespect for the Courts of the United States.
The Court, by this opinion, will refer the matter of Walsworth’s conduct at trial to the California State Bar and the Bar of the Central District for disciplinary proceedings, and to the United States Attorney’s Office for a determination of whether there is reason to believe that he committed bankruptcy crimes as proscribed under 18 U.S.C. § 152.
This opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of law required by Bankruptcy Rule 7052 and Rule 52 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Plaintiff Gale Ann Sansone shall recover damages from defendants, as follows: Compensatory damages from defendants Jeffrey P. Walsworth, Esq. and Daniel Si-gler, jointly and severally, in the sum of $2,118.88; Additional compensatory damages from defendant Jeffrey P. Walsworth, Esq., separately, in the sum of $10,594.42; Punitive damages from Jeffrey P. Wals-worth, Esq. in the sum of $25,000.00.