Collections: Ensure Good Faith in Pleadings

   Virginia Code §8.01-271.1, and its federal equivalent Rule 11, provide for sanctions against litigants and\or attorneys who file frivolous pleadings or motions. Under the Virginia Code and the Federal Rule, a signature attached to a pleading or motion constitutes a certificate that: 

     1. The signatory has reasonably inquired into the facts and that the claim is well founded in fact, and warranted by existing law, or that there is a good faith argument for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law, and 

     2. The pleading or motion is not interposed for an improper purpose (i.e. delay or harassment). 

     Sanctions include the payment of reasonable attorney fees and expenses incurred as a result of the frivolous pleading or motion. 

Collections: Sanctions on Improper Fair Debt Claim

       In the case of Guidry v. Clare, a United States District Court in Northern Virginia granted an award of $16,000.00 in sanctions against a debtor who was a plaintiff in a Fair Debt Practices Collection Act (FDCPA). The Court held that the debtor’s case, which also included state law claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress, malicious prosecution and false imprisonment, was filed wholly without merit. 

     The Court found that the dispute arose when the debtor wrote the plaintiff, a company that provided cheerleading training, a check for $62.50 for the debtor’s daughter’s class. The check was returned for insufficient funds. The company’s office manager (Clare) contacted the debtor to make the check good. The debtor did not respond. Over the next several months the company made several other efforts to collect on the check, including a letter from the company’s attorney and from a collection agency. The company’s office manager also advised the debtor that the company would seek a warrant for the debtor’s arrest if the debt was not paid within seventy two hours. When the debtor did not respond, the company filed a criminal complaint for misdemeanor larceny by check. A few days later, a policeman served the warrant on the debtor at the same time he served a warrant from another creditor for felony larceny by check. The debtor was arrested and released on her own recognizance on both charges. She paid the face amount of the company’s check, plus a $30.00 bank service charge. As a result of this, the prosecutor withdrew the bad check charge. 

     A few months later the debtor filed her FDCPA action. After much litigation, the case was dismissed, without prejudice, because the case was not served within 120 days. The complaint was refiled. The company’s attorneys sought dismissal and sanctions for filing a frivolous lawsuit. The Court dismissed the case, scheduled a hearing on sanctions, and ordered the parties to prepare briefs. After reviewing the briefs the Court concluded that the debtor’s case was “meritless, indeed flatly frivolous”. The meritless claims included allegations that the company’s manager had failed to make a meaningful disclosure of her identity and debt collection purpose in her telephone calls to the debtor, that a debt collector was barred from filing a criminal complaint, that the company’s manager had made false representations to authorities in order to disgrace the debtor, and that the collection letters failed to disclose their debt collection purpose. The Court ruled that the letters contained the required disclosures and the purpose of the phone calls were clear. The Court further ruled that the law prohibits only the threat of criminal action if there is no intent to follow through on the threat. In this case the intent to follow through was evident from the fact that a warrant was issued, and there was no evidence that the representations to authorities were false or made with an intent to disgrace the debtor. The Court found that there was also no basis for the state law claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress, malicious prosecution and false imprisonment. The Court wrote that “it cannot be forgotten or overlooked” that the case “was spawned by Guidry’s failure to pay a $62.50 debt, or rather by her attempt to pay it with a bad check”. 

     Creditors take heart - there is still some common sense in this world!

Collection: Ensure Good Faith in Pleadings

     Virginia Code §8.01-271.1, and its Federal equivalent Rule 11, provide for sanctions against litigants and\or attorneys who file frivolous pleadings or motions. Under the Virginia Code and the Federal Rule, a signature attached to a pleading or motion constitutes a certificate that:

     1. The signatory has reasonably inquired into the facts and that the claim is well founded in fact, and warranted by existing law, or that there is a good faith argument for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law, and
     2. The pleading or motion is not interposed for an improper purpose (i.e. delay or harassment).
     Sanctions include the payment of reasonable attorney fees and expenses incurred as a result of the frivolous pleading or motion. So, be sure of what you sign when you sign it!

Bankruptcy: The Automatic Stay

     Federal Bankruptcy law provides for an automatic stay (injunction) to take effect immediately upon filing for bankruptcy. The stay prevents creditors from taking any further action against debtors without court approval. The stay can stop a foreclosure or vehicle auction, even if notice of the filing is given moments before the sale is to occur. The automatic stay, unless lifted by the Bankruptcy Judge, or in some cases the trustee, remains in effect until it is terminated at the time of discharge, at which time it is replaced by a permanent injunction.
     Violation of the automatic stay is a serious offense. A willful violation can result in a finding of contempt of court. Sanctions for violating the stay can be awarded as well. These sanctions can include a fine and/or an assessment of attorney’s fees. A finding of contempt of court is also punishable by a jail sentence. Attorney consultation is always recommended when action against bankrupt debtors is contemplated.
     The automatic stay may be lifted upon proper motion and argument by creditor's counsel. Reasons for making such a motion include, among others, lack of insurance on the property, or other similar reasons resulting in the creditor being unprotected while its rights are being determined.

Collections: Sanctions on Improper Fair Debt Claim

     In the case of Guidry v. Clare, a United States District Court in Northern Virginia granted an award of $16,000.00 in sanctions against a debtor who was a plaintiff in a Fair Debt Practices Collection Act (FDCPA). The Court held that the debtor’s case, which also included state law claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress, malicious prosecution and false imprisonment, was filed wholly without merit.
     The Court found that the dispute arose when the debtor wrote the plaintiff, a company that provided cheerleading training, a check for $62.50 for the debtor’s daughter’s class. The check was returned for insufficient funds. The company’s office manager (Clare) contacted the debtor to make the check good. The debtor did not respond. Over the next several months the company made several other efforts to collect on the check, including a letter from the company’s attorney and from a collection agency. The company’s office manager also advised the debtor that the company would seek a warrant for the debtor’s arrest if the debt was not paid within seventy two hours. When the debtor did not respond, the company filed a criminal complaint for misdemeanor larceny by check. A few days later, a policeman served the warrant on the debtor at the same time he served a warrant from another creditor for felony larceny by check. The debtor was arrested and released on her own recognizance on both charges. She paid the face amount of the company’s check, plus a $30.00 bank service charge. As a result of this, the prosecutor withdrew the bad check charge.
     A few months later the debtor filed her FDCPA action. After much litigation, the case was dismissed, without prejudice, because the case was not served within 120 days. The complaint was refiled. The company’s attorneys sought dismissal and sanctions for filing a frivolous lawsuit. The Court dismissed the case, scheduled a hearing on sanctions, and ordered the parties to prepare briefs. After reviewing the briefs the Court concluded that the debtor’s case was “meritless, indeed flatly frivolous”. The meritless claims included allegations that the company’s manager had failed to make a meaningful disclosure of her identity and debt collection purpose in her telephone calls to the debtor, that a debt collector was barred from filing a criminal complaint, that the company’s manager had made false representations to authorities in order to disgrace the debtor, and that the collection letters failed to disclose their debt collection purpose. The Court ruled that the letters contained the required disclosures and the purpose of the phone calls were clear. The Court further ruled that the law prohibits only the threat of criminal action if there is no intent to follow through on the threat. In this case the intent to follow through was evident from the fact that a warrant was issued, and there was no evidence that the representations to authorities were false or made with an intent to disgrace the debtor. The Court found that there was also no basis for the state law claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress, malicious prosecution and false imprisonment. The Court wrote that “it cannot be forgotten or overlooked” that the case “was spawned by Guidry’s failure to pay a $62.50 debt, or rather by her attempt to pay it with a bad check”.
     Creditors take heart - there is still some common sense in this world!

Bankruptcy: Denial of Discharge and Sanctions

     A Roanoke District Court affirmed a Bankruptcy Court’s denial of a Chapter 7 discharge and the award of sanctions to the creditor. The case was Brown v. Presidential Financial Corp.
     In Brown the debtor left the state of Georgia knowing that a collection action was pending against him. He sold his Georgia residence and paid creditors with the sales proceeds, excluding the creditor in this case. In Virginia the debtor filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition within eight days. The creditor filed an objection to discharge under Bankruptcy Code §727(a)(2)(A), alleging that the debtor intended to hinder, delay or defraud the creditor.
     The District Court, upon the debtor’s stipulation of the facts, determined that the evidence was sufficient for the Bankruptcy Court to rule in favor of the creditor and deny the discharge.
     The District Court also upheld the Bankruptcy Court’s award of sanctions against the debtor; the Bankruptcy Court awarded the creditor its attorney’s fees and costs. The Bankruptcy Court had found that the debtor repeatedly failed to comply with the creditor’s multiple motions to compel discovery, as well as the Court’s orders to turn over the requested materials.