Santander Consumer USA, Inc. v. Houlik (In re Houlik)
- Citation:
- 10th Cir. B.A.P. - BAP No. KS - 11-096 (Bankr. Case No 09-12159)
- Tag(s):
-
- Ruling:
- REVERSE lower court's ruling, concluding that the bankruptcy court did not have the authority to award damages to debtors, Jeffrey P Houlik and Charla Houlik, in the amount of $474.86 actual damages and $25,000 in punitive damages for sanctions for the creditor, Santander's, repossession of debtors' vehicle.
- Procedural context:
- After a vehicle was repossessed by creditor, Santander's agent, debtors sought relief by filing a claim for violation of the automatic stay by the creditor and also sought damages under an Order to Show Cause for Violation of the Automatic Stay. Creditor failed to respond, and the court ordered a default order for turnover of the truck and awarded damages to the debtors in the amount of $32,510.29.
Thereafter, the creditor returned the vehicle and filed a motion to vacate the bankruptcy court's default order. After evidentiary hearings were held in respect to the motions and the creditor's assertion that they were not properly served with the initial motion. Ultimately, the bankruptcy court construed debtor's motion for violation of the stay as a motion to enforce the discharge injunction and for appropriate contempt sanctions, awarding $474.86 in actual damages and $25,000 in punitive damages. From the decision, the creditor appealed to the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel.
- Facts:
- Debtors filed for Chapter 11 relief in July 2009 and it was confirmed on December 2009. From the plan, CitiFinancial was to received $17,305 in monthly installments of $343. In October 2010, debtors requested and were granted a final decree by the bankruptcy court, and thereby voluntarily closing their Chapter 11 case.
In September 2010, CitiFinancial assigned its servicing claim to Santander. Believing the debtors were two payments behind on their vehicle, Santander repossessed the vehicle on December 27, 2010. At the time of the repossession of the vehicle from debtors' home, there was a confrontation between the repossession agent and the debtors. From that repossession, debtors requested their case be reopened, and pursued damages under creditors alleged violation of the automatic stay.
- Judge(s):
- Cornish, Brown and Rasure.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary. Please Sign In using your ABI Member credentials. Not a Member yet? Join ABI now - it is absolutely worth it!
