May 11, 2017

May 11, 2017

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

May 10, 2017

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

May 09, 2017

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

May 08, 2017

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Ninth Circuit Holds That Debtor May Recover Attorneys' Fees Incurred Prosecuting Action for Damages Relating to Violation of Automatic Stay

The Ninth Circuit has overruled its own relatively recent decision and has held that a debtor who sues for damages to redress a violation of the automatic stay may recover the reasonable fees it incurs prosecuting the action, even after the stay violation is cured.

The Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay provision, section 362, includes this fee recovery clause: “[A]n individual injured by any willful violation of a stay provided by this section shall recover actual damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees . . . .”  11 U.S.C. § 362(k).  The Ninth Circuit, in contrast to every other court to consider the issue, held in 2010 that section 362(k) allows a debtor to recover only those fees incurred to end the stay violation itself, not the fees incurred to prosecute an action for damages.  See Sternberg v. Johnston, 595 F.3d 937 (9th Cir. 2010).  In a decision issued last week, the Ninth Circuit overruled its own Sternberg decision and held that a debtor may recover the reasonable fees it incurs prosecuting a damages action relating to a stay violation.  See In re Schwartz-Tallard, Case No. 12-60052 (9th Cir. Oct. 14, 2015).  (See opinion here.)

In Schwartz-Tallard, a loan servicer foreclosed on the home of a chapter 13 debtor during the debtor’s bankruptcy, while the debtor was making its monthly payments.  The bankruptcy court found that the creditor had violated the automatic stay and ordered the creditor to reconvey the home to the debtor.  The creditor promptly complied.  The debtor also sought a damages award, and prevailed.  The creditor appealed the damages award, and the debtor prevailed on appeal.  The debtor then sought to require creditor to reimburse the attorney fees the debtor incurred defending its damages award on appeal.  The bankruptcy court denied the motion because under Sternberg, debtors could be reimbursed only for the fees they incurred to end the stay violation.  Here, the creditor had remedied the stay violation before the successful appeal, and thus no fees could be awarded in connection with the appeal. 

The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel reversed on grounds not relevant here and held that the debtor could recover her fees relating to the appeal.  The Ninth Circuit, first as a three-judge panel and then sitting en banc, affirmed the BAP’s decision, but not on the same grounds.  The Ninth Circuit held that Stenberg was decided incorrectly and that the plain text of section 362(k) allows a debtor to collect attorney fees regardless of whether the fees were incurred to remedy the stay violation or to seek damages resulting from a stay violation.  Though it found the text of section 362(k) unambiguous, the Ninth Circuit went on to state that the policies presumably underlying section 362(k) would be advanced only if debtors had adequate “means or financial incentive (or both)” to “vindicate their statutory right to the automatic stay’s protection.”

The most obvious practical impact of Schwartz-Tallard is identified in the decision itself: debtors who previously lacked the financial incentive to pursue damages for stay violations may now be more willing to bring those actions.  For creditors and their attorneys, Schwartz-Tallard is simply another reminder to scrupulously respect the automatic stay.

Copyright Holland & Hart LLP 1995-2017.

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

Mona L. Burton, Holland and Hart, Finance lawyer, Debtor's Rights Attorney
Partner

Working strategically with clients to achieve their goals, Ms. Burton represents creditors, asset purchasers, debtors, committees, trustees, and receivers in bankruptcy and receivership cases. Ms. Burton has handled numerous trials on fraudulent and preferential transfers, claims objections, motions for relief from stay, and plan confirmations and bankruptcy appeals, both on the prosecution and defense side. She has extensive experience representing borrowers and lenders in out-of-bankruptcy-court workouts. 

801-799-5822
Kirk S. Cheney, Holland and Hart, Bankruptcy Lawyer, Fiduciary Rights Attorney
Associate

Mr. Cheney is a commercial litigator focusing on bankruptcy, creditors' rights, and commercial property disputes. He regularly represents clients in state and federal court actions alleging fraudulent transfers, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and related claims. Mr. Cheney has also represented parties in significant bankruptcy cases across the country. In addition, he assists clients with receiverships, foreclosures, and asset purchases and sales. 

208-383-3930
Clarissa M. Collier, Holland and Hart, complex commercial litigation lawyer
Associate

Ms. Collier represents corporations, businesses of varying sizes, and individuals in a broad array of complex commercial litigation matters. In state and federal court, Ms. Collier guides clients through the litigation process in business and commercial contract disputes by preparing pleadings, managing discovery, drafting and opposing dispositive motions, and negotiating favorable settlements. She also represents clients through the post-judgment process, including post-judgment discovery and collections.

In addition to her litigation practice...

303-295-8057