Bankruptcy: Post-Discharge Injunction - New Note with Credit Union

     The United States Bankruptcy Court, Western District of Virginia, Harrisonburg, ruled in the case of Mickens v. Waynesboro Dupont Employees Credit Union, Inc. that a credit union that facilitated a discharged debtor’s cosigning of a new promissory note that covered the credit union debt that previously was discharged was liable for a violation of the bankruptcy law’s post-discharge injunction statute, and the debtor had no liability for the note and was entitled to damages and attorney’s fees.

     The Court decided that the issue was whether the fact that the credit union obtained a new note signed by the debtor for his discharged obligation constituted an “act to collect, recover or offset” the discharged debt in violation of the post-discharge injunction under Bankruptcy Code §524 (a)(2).
     The Court in Mickens decided that the credit union’s act, permitting the debtor to cosign the new note, expressly placed the debtor in the same state of personal liability for the exact debt which was discharged. The notice to the cosigner stated this fact. Bankruptcy Code § 524 (c) lays out detailed requirements which must be met for a debtor to reaffirm a pre-petition debt and thereby remain obligated to pay such a debt in spite of the discharge injunction. The Court ruled that the credit union’s actions would be subject to Bankruptcy Code §524 (c). Therefore, they must fall within the definition of “an act” for the purposes of the discharge injunction, however narrowly that phrase may be defined.
     The Court ruled that while no cases with identical facts were readily apparent at the time it ruled, it concluded that the cases which most closely resembled the fact pattern for this case were those which involved “ clumsy attempts to avoid the injunction.” In these cases the creditors’ attempt to circumvent the requirements in the Bankruptcy Code §524 (c) and (d) through a reliance on the voluntary repayment provision in Bankruptcy Code §524 (f).
     The Court in Mickens ruled that the credit union could not make any serious argument that its actions or new note even attempted to comply with the requirements of Bankruptcy Code §524 (c) and (d). There could be no doubt the credit union was aware of the injunction and intentionally permitted and facilitated the debtor’s signing a new note which returned him to his pre-petition position of personal liability for the pre-petition debt. Such action constituted a willful violation of the post-discharge injunction of Bankruptcy Code §524 (a)(2).
     The Court ruled that the credit union was in violation of Bankruptcy Code §524 (a)(2) and the liability of debtor on the note he cosigned with a friend was void ab initio. The credit union also was liable for damages and attorney’s fees.

Bankruptcy: Debtors Retaining Collateral

     The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals case of Home Owners Funding v. Belanger stands for the proposition that Chapter 7 bankruptcy debtors may retain their collateral after discharge if they are current in their consumer loan installment payments.

     In Belanger the debtors, who had remained current on their payments, filed for Chapter 7 relief and filed a statement of intent under Bankruptcy Code §521 (2) (a) indicating that they wanted to retain possession of their mobile home. The creditor moved the Bankruptcy Court to compel the debtors to reaffirm the debt, redeem the collateral, or surrender it. The creditor, relying on Bankruptcy Code §522 (2) (a), was obviously concerned that the collateral would depreciate to a value less than the balance due, and would be barred from recovering the deficiency. The Court noted that the creditor is presumed to have structured the risk of depreciation into its loan.
     The Court noted that it has held (in the case of Riggs National Bank v. Perry) that a "default-on-filing clause" in an installment loan contract was unenforceable as a matter of law. Therefore, the creditor could not ask for the collateral merely based on the filing. Note, however, that not all courts take this position; see Dominion Bank v. Koons.
     The Court in Belanger denied the creditor's motion and discharged the debtors, holding that the debtor's had complied with Bankruptcy Code §521 (2) (a) by giving notice of their intent to retain the property while continuing to make payments in accordance with their contract with the creditor.
     Attorneys representing debtors can use this opinion against creditors by urging them to remain current with their loans, but not to sign reaffirmation agreements. Many of you have already run into this problem with debtor's counsel.