Hann v. Educational Credit Management Corp. (In Re Hann)

United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 12-9006
IN RE: BARBARA J. HANN,
Debtor.
BARBARA J. HANN,
Plaintiff, Appellee,
v.
EDUCATIONAL CREDIT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE BANKRUPTCY
APPELLATE PANEL FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
Before
Torruella, Stahl, and Thompson,
Circuit Judges.
Adam C. Trampe, with whom Christopher J. Pyles and Sulloway &
Hollis, P.L.L.C. were on brief, for appellant.
Richard D. Gaudreau for appellee.
March 29, 2013
STAHL, Circuit Judge. During appellee Barbara Hann's
chapter 13 bankruptcy, appellant Educational Credit Management
Corporation (ECMC) filed a proof of claim based on Hann's
ostensibly unpaid student loans. Hann, believing that her loans
had been repaid, objected to the claim. After a hearing at which
ECMC failed to appear, the bankruptcy court entered an order
sustaining Hann's objection and "allow[ing]" ECMC's claim "in the
amount of $0.00." When ECMC resumed collection efforts after the
bankruptcy concluded, Hann reopened her case and filed an adversary
complaint against ECMC, alleging that it had violated the order
sustaining her objection. The bankruptcy court ruled for Hann,
concluding that the order had conclusively determined that Hann's
debt was satisfied. The court therefore sanctioned ECMC for
attempting to collect on the debt. The bankruptcy appellate panel
affirmed. ECMC appeals that ruling, arguing that the bankruptcy
court never adjudicated the amount outstanding on Hann's student
loans. We disagree and therefore affirm.
I. Facts & Background
Like many law students, Hann financed her legal education
partially through student loans. Those loans included three
federally insured Stafford Loans of $7,500 each ($22,500 in total),
executed on May 10, 1990; April 30, 1991; and May 20, 1992,
respectively. The loans were originally issued by Society Bank and
subsequently assigned to ECMC. Hann contends that she eventually
-2-
repaid these loans in full, and says that, in the years leading up
to her 2004 chapter 13 filing, she unsuccessfully tried to get
various financial institutions (including ECMC itself) to
acknowledge or verify that fact.
In November 2004, Hann filed her chapter 13 petition in
the Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Hampshire. Three
months later, ECMC filed an unsecured proof of claim in the amount
of $54,756.44 ($31,187.62 in principal, $12,618.27 in interest, and
$10,950.55 in collection costs). ECMC's proof of claim included
copies of the three Stafford Loan promissory notes (which, as
noted, totaled $22,500, not $31,187.62, in principal). Hann
objected to ECMC's claim, contending that ECMC had failed to file
adequate supporting documentation, that Hann had received
conflicting information from ECMC about the outstanding loan
amount, and that Hann's records showed "payments in excess of
original loan amounts." She therefore asked the bankruptcy court
to disallow the claim or, alternatively, to allow the claim "in the
amount proven by appropriate payment records."
The bankruptcy court held a hearing on Hann's objection.
ECMC neither appeared at the hearing nor responded to the
objection. At the hearing, Hann testified at length about her
payment history and her efforts to reconcile her own records with
her lenders' records. The court then instructed Hann to supplement
her testimony with an affidavit clearly outlining her loans and
-3-
payments, which she did. The affidavit stated Hann's belief that
she had repaid the Stafford loans in full and described her
dealings with ECMC and its predecessors, including the fact that in
1995, she received "correspondence from Society Bank indicating the
Stafford notes had been paid." Hann submitted copies of that
correspondence, which appeared to support her position.
After receiving Hann's materials, the bankruptcy court
sustained Hann's objection by entering an order ("the Claim Order")
that read: "Debtor's objection to Claim No. 1 filed by ECMC is
sustained. This Court allows the claim of ECMC in the amount of
$0.00." Per the common practice in the bankruptcy courts, the
Claim Order had been drafted by Hann's counsel and submitted to the
court as a proposed order. The Claim Order did not include any
specific factual findings or legal conclusions. ECMC did not
appeal or otherwise respond to the order.1
After Hann's chapter 13 case ended in 2010, ECMC resumed
its efforts to collect on Hann's loans. In response, Hann's lawyer
wrote to ECMC to assert, based on the Claim Order, that "ECMC has
no further claim against" Hann. When ECMC refused to desist, Hann
reopened her bankruptcy case and filed an adversary complaint
against ECMC, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief barring
1
ECMC points out that the bankruptcy court's records
appear to show that it was not served with a copy of the Claim
Order by mail, but it does not dispute that it had access to the
order via the court's Case Management/Electronic Case Files system.
-4-
ECMC from continuing its collection efforts, a finding of contempt,
actual and punitive damages, and fees and costs.
The parties cross-moved for summary judgment as to
liability in September 2011. The bankruptcy judge who previously
presided over the case having retired, the case was assigned to a
new judge, who held a hearing on the parties' motions in October
2011. At the hearing, ECMC argued that, although the Claim Order
had disallowed ECMC's claim against Hann's bankruptcy estate, it
did not adjudicate the amount owing on her student loan debt or
discharge that debt within the meaning of the Bankruptcy Code
(because student loan debt is typically nondischargeable under 11
U.S.C. § 523(a)(8)). For her part, Hann contended that the Claim
Order established that, as a factual matter, Hann had paid her debt
in full prior to the bankruptcy, leaving nothing to discharge.
The bankruptcy court agreed with Hann, concluding that
the Claim Order reflected the prior judge's determination that "the
obligation [remaining] on [ECMC's] claim . . . was zero." The
court also noted ECMC's repeated inability to identify or quantify
an outstanding debt obligation. The court thus granted Hann's
motion for summary judgment as to liability and denied ECMC's.
Hann then waived her remaining claims and, at the court's
direction, submitted an affidavit of fees and costs, to which ECMC
objected. The court entered final judgment for Hann, ordering
"that she owes nothing to the defendant" and "awarding [her] costs
-5-
and fees . . . as a remedial sanction for [ECMC's] violation of the
Bankruptcy Code's discharge injunction." See 11 U.S.C. § 524(a)
(creating an automatic injunction against efforts intended to
collect an already discharged debt).
ECMC appealed to the bankruptcy appellate panel (BAP),
which affirmed. Hann v. Educ. Credit Mgmt. Corp. (In re Hann), 476
B.R. 344 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 2012). The BAP said that the key issue
was not whether the debt was dischargeable, but instead whether
ECMC's claim was disallowed "on the grounds of pre-petition payment
in full." Id. at 356. If so, discharge was irrelevant because
"there is no need to except from discharge a debt which no longer
exists." Id. (citation and emphasis omitted). Having framed the
issue that way, the BAP ascribed "critical importance" to the fact
that Hann had objected to ECMC's claim on the ground that she had
already repaid the debt in full. That fact, in combination with
the bankruptcy court's "thorough review of the Claim Objection and
the Claim," persuaded the BAP that "the bankruptcy court found that
there was no obligation" remaining on the loans as of the petition
date. Id. Accordingly, the BAP affirmed the award of sanctions,
explaining that ECMC's continued collection activities in the face
of the Claim Order "constituted an abuse of the bankruptcy process
and defiance of the court's authority." Id. at 360. ECMC now
appeals the BAP's decision.
-6-
II. Analysis
Two concepts feature prominently in the parties'
arguments: claim allowance (or disallowance), which "deals
exclusively with the rights of a creditor against assets of a
debtor's bankruptcy estate"; and dischargeability, which "concerns
whether a creditor may, after the entry of bankruptcy discharge,
continue to pursue the enforcement of its debt as a personal
liability against the debtor." Gregory v. U.S. Dep't of Educ. (In
re Gregory), 387 B.R. 182, 188 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2008).
Dischargeability, however, is not really at issue here. ECMC says
that the BAP mistook the disallowance of ECMC's claim for a
discharge, and thus erroneously held "that an order disallowing a
Chapter 13 claim necessarily discharges an underlying
nondischargeable debt." But the BAP said no such thing. Rather,
it concluded that the issue in this case "is not whether a
nondischargeable debt can be discharged by virtue of its
disallowance, but whether there is a debt at all where the claim
has been disallowed on the grounds of pre-petition payment in
full." 476 B.R. at 356 (emphasis added).2 And ECMC now agrees
that a claim disallowance order can dissolve an underlying
2
The BAP did go on to say: "By definition, where there is
no claim, there is no debt and nothing is discharged." 476 B.R. at
357. In a vacuum, this sentence arguably could be read to suggest
that disallowance is tantamount to discharge, but we think the
context makes clear the BAP's meaning: that where a claim has been
disallowed because the debt has already been repaid, "there is no
claim, . . . no debt and nothing [to be] discharged."
-7-
nondischargeable debt if it is based on a factual finding that the
debt has been repaid -- ECMC just disputes whether that actually
happened in this case. Thus, the key question here is simply
whether the Claim Order disallowed ECMC's claim on the ground that
Hann had already repaid her loans (in which case dischargeability
is beside the point). We consider that legal question de novo.
See Sharfarz v. Goguen (In re Goguen), 691 F.3d 62, 68 (1st Cir.
2012); cf. Monarch Life Ins. Co. v. Ropes & Gray, 65 F.3d 973, 983
(1st Cir. 1995). We then address the issue of sanctions.3
A. The Claim Order
ECMC insists that the Claim Order did not determine that
Hann had repaid her student loans, but merely ruled that ECMC could
not collect anything from the bankruptcy estate -- that is, it
disallowed the claim, and nothing more. As ECMC sees it, there is
a crucial difference between a claim disallowance order saying
"Hann owes nothing" or "ECMC is owed nothing" and one saying (as
the Claim Order actually does) that ECMC's claim is "allowed in the
3
When we review a bankruptcy court decision, whether it
reaches us via the BAP or a district court, we typically
"concentrate on the bankruptcy court's decision." Stornawaye Fin.
Corp. v. Hill (In re Hill), 562 F.3d 29, 32 (1st Cir. 2009). But
here, where the bankruptcy court did not issue a written opinion
but the BAP did, we think it makes sense to focus on the BAP's
analysis. Nevertheless, we afford "no special deference" to the
BAP's decision. See id. Nor do we defer to the bankruptcy court's
interpretation of the Claim Order, because it was issued by a
different judge. See Monarch Life Ins., 65 F.3d at 983 & n.12; cf.
Martha's Vineyard Scuba Headquarters, Inc. v. Unidentified, Wrecked
& Abandoned Steam Vessel, 833 F.2d 1059, 1066-67 (1st Cir. 1987).
-8-
amount of $0.00." The latter, ECMC says, "does not purport to
adjudicate" the amount of the underlying debt. Thus, ECMC contends
that the Claim Order means only that its claim was disallowed,
which should not prevent ECMC from pursuing an outstanding
nondischargeable student loan debt. ECMC also warns that requiring
courts to interpret unelaborated claim disallowance orders like
this one in order to determine whether they ruled that the
underlying debt was satisfied would thrust those courts into a
"subjective analytical quagmire."
Hann's response is the same as it was below: that she
objected to ECMC's claim on the ground that she had paid off her
loans, and then presented evidence to that effect, prompting the
bankruptcy court to rule (albeit in oblique language) that she had
indeed satisfied her debts. In response to ECMC's argument about
the pitfalls of deciphering an unexplained claim disallowance
order, Hann posits that the task is fairly straightforward where,
as here, the debtor provided the ordering judge with "substantial"
-- and unrebutted -- evidence that the debt has been paid.4
4
Hann's proposed "substantial evidence" standard is drawn
from our cases discussing the shifting burden of persuasion on a
proof of claim. See Juniper Dev. Grp. v. Kahn (In re Hemingway
Transp., Inc.), 993 F.2d 915, 925 (1st Cir. 1993) (a proof of claim
is presumptively valid unless countered by an objection supported
by substantial evidence, in which case the risk of nonpersuasion
returns to the claimant). Here, we do not rely on this standard
because our task is to determine why the claim was disallowed, not
whether it should have been.
-9-
At the outset, we can agree with ECMC that it is far
better for bankruptcy courts that disallow claims on the ground
that the underlying debt is satisfied to say so in clear language.
We think this case would not be before us if the Claim Order simply
said "ECMC's claim is disallowed because the underlying loans have
been repaid." But the onus of avoiding ambiguity in these
situations does not rest solely with bankruptcy judges. The Claim
Order was submitted by Hann's counsel as a proposed order; had
Hann's counsel proposed clearer language, this entire second
proceeding most likely would have been unnecessary.
Nevertheless, we do not agree with ECMC that an inquiry
into the reasoning behind the Claim Order is unworkable. We have
said before that when a court order's "phraseology is imprecise,
there may be some play in the joints. For example, a reviewing
court can comb relevant parts of the record to discern the
authoring court's intention." Negrón-Almeda v. Santiago, 528 F.3d
15, 23 (1st Cir. 2008); accord R & G Mortg. Corp. v. Fed. Home Loan
Mortg. Corp., 584 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 2009); see Subsalve USA
Corp. v. Watson Mfg., Inc., 462 F.3d 41, 45 (1st Cir. 2006)
(construing an unclear order in light of the "record of the
proceedings below"). These cases dealt with orders that came to us
on direct appeal, but there are also times when we look to the
record in a prior proceeding, as when we must determine what issues
were actually decided for preclusion purposes. E.g., Miller v.
-10-
Nichols, 586 F.3d 53, 61 (1st Cir. 2009); Hoult v. Hoult, 157 F.3d
29, 32 (1st Cir. 1998); see 18 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal
Practice & Procedure: Jurisdiction § 4420, at 520 (2d ed. 2002)
(the first step in identifying issues decided in a prior case is a
"painstaking examination of the record of the prior action"). To
be sure, when the option is available, the wisest course will often
be to "vacate the [ambiguous] order and return the case to the
authoring court for clarification." Subsalve USA, 462 F.3d at 45.
Here, though, we cannot take that route because the Claim Order was
not appealed from, and clarification would be unavailable anyway
because the ordering judge has retired. Indeed, that fact
prevented the bankruptcy court itself from simply clarifying the
Claim Order; had the ordering judge been available to preside over
the adversary proceeding, he could have made the order's scope
clear. Under these circumstances, we deem it appropriate to "comb
relevant parts of the record to discern the authoring court’s
intention." Negrón-Almeda, 528 F.3d at 23.
Our scrutiny establishes that the Claim Order was indeed
based on the conclusion that Hann had repaid her loans. This
situation is not unlike one where we must determine whether a
factual issue was a necessary component of an unexplained judgment
or a general jury verdict in an earlier case. For example, in
Hoult, we concluded, on the basis of the arguments made and the
evidence presented, that the jury had necessarily decided a
-11-
particular question that was the "centerpiece," "the central and
pivotal issue," in the initial trial. 157 F.3d at 32-33. Here,
Hann's claim that she had repaid her loans in full had at least
that status, given that it was her central -- if not sole --
argument against ECMC's claim.5 And there is no dispute that the
bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to determine that the debt
underlying the claim had been repaid. See Langenkamp v. Culp, 498
U.S. 42, 44 (1990) ("[B]y filing a claim against a bankruptcy
estate the creditor triggers the process of 'allowance and
disallowance of claims,' thereby subjecting himself to the
bankruptcy court's equitable power." (citation omitted)).
Hann explained, during her testimony and in her
subsequent affidavit, that she "believe[d] the student loan claims
were paid in full prior to the commencement of the Chapter 13
proceeding." She submitted materials appearing to support that
belief. Her arguments and documentation went unrebutted. The
bankruptcy court questioned Hann in person, reviewed her
supplemental materials, and sustained her objection. As in Hoult,
it may be "[t]heoretically" possible that the Claim Order is based
on some conclusion other than pre-petition repayment, but it is not
5
ECMC observes that Hann's written objection to its claim
says only that ECMC had "failed to file adequate documentation"
supporting its claim, and that Hann's "records indicate payments in
excess of original loan amounts"; it does not say that Hann had
repaid her loans in full, with interest. But that was clearly her
position at the hearing and in her subsequent submissions to the
court.
-12-
"plausible." Id. at 33. Perhaps matters would be different if
ECMC had disputed the issue, or simply appeared at the hearing to
offer a basis for its claim. But, given what actually happened
during the claim objection process, it is clear that, as the BAP
put it, "the bankruptcy court . . . in disallowing the Claim,
necessarily determined that it had, in fact, been paid in full."
476 B.R. at 357.
The fact that Hann squarely raised the issue of whether
she had repaid her loans distinguishes this case from State of
Florida Department of Revenue v. Diaz (In re Diaz), 647 F.3d 1073(11th Cir. 2011), on which ECMC relies. In Diaz, the debtor
objected to a proof of claim for unpaid child support on the basis
that the documentation offered by the state in support of the claim
showed (erroneously, it turned out) that the debt was roughly
$20,000 less than the amount stated in the proof of claim itself.
Id. at 1080. The state did not respond to the objection, and so
the bankruptcy court sustained it, allowing the claim in the lesser
amount. When the state later resumed its collection efforts, the
bankruptcy court ruled that doing so violated the discharge
injunction. The Eleventh Circuit reversed, explaining that the
debt was nondischargeable, id. at 1089-90, and that in any event
"the amount of the debt . . . was never litigated during the
underlying bankruptcy proceedings," because "the only issue before
the bankruptcy court at the time of the claim objection was the
-13-
amount of the child-support debt that would be paid by the
bankruptcy estate through Diaz's Chapter 13 plan, not the total
amount of the child-support debt," id. at 1091. Here, although the
ultimate issue in the claim objection hearing was the same as in
Diaz (i.e., the amount the creditor would get from the estate),
that issue was resolved by way of a subsidiary factual issue not
raised in Diaz: whether the debt had already been repaid. Cf.
Hoult, 157 F.3d at 32. Thus, Diaz addressed a different
situation.6
B. The Sanctions
We turn, then, to the imposition of sanctions, which we
review for abuse of discretion. Jamo v. Katahdin Fed. Credit Union
(In re Jamo), 283 F.3d 392, 403 (1st Cir. 2002). In its final
judgment, the bankruptcy court awarded Hann "costs and fees in the
amount of $9,143.72 against [ECMC] as a remedial sanction for its
violation of the Bankruptcy Code's discharge injunction." The BAP
affirmed the sanctions on a different basis. It concluded that
"ECMC's continued collection activities notwithstanding the court's
determination that nothing was owed constituted an abuse of the
bankruptcy process and defiance of the court's authority." 476
B.R. at 360. Thus, the BAP found that -- discharge injunction
6
Further, the BAP did not make the error made by the
bankruptcy court in Diaz, which was to conclude that the
nondischargeable debt at issue had been discharged by virtue of the
claim objection process. 647 F.3d at 1090; see supra note 2 and
accompanying text.
-14-
aside -- the sanctions were a proper exercise of the bankruptcy
court's equitable powers under 11 U.S.C. § 105(a). Id. at 359-60;
see Ameriquest Mortg. Co. v. Nosek (In re Nosek), 544 F.3d 34, 37
(1st Cir. 2008) (§ 105 gives bankruptcy courts authority to enforce
Bankruptcy Code provisions and related court orders, and prevent
abuses of the bankruptcy process); Bessette v. Avco Fin. Servs.,
Inc., 230 F.3d 439, 445 (1st Cir. 2000) (noting that "§ 105
provides a bankruptcy court with statutory contempt powers," which
"inherently include the ability to sanction a party").
ECMC raises two objections to the sanctions. First, it
says that the bankruptcy court did not comply with the usual
requirement that a party be given notice and an opportunity to be
heard before civil contempt sanctions are imposed. See United
States v. Winter, 70 F.3d 655, 661 (1st Cir. 1995). We do not
agree. To begin with, since Hann's adversary complaint expressly
sought sanctions pursuant to § 105 (or for violations of the
automatic stay), ECMC cannot claim to have been unaware of the
possibility of sanctions prior to the summary judgment hearing.
Then, at the hearing itself, the bankruptcy court gave ECMC
fourteen days to object to Hann's forthcoming affidavit of fees and
costs. ECMC did object, raising arguments similar to those it
presents here. The bankruptcy court's final judgment makes clear
that it considered and rejected those arguments. Thus, ECMC was
afforded the "minimal procedures" that are typically required
-15-
before civil contempt sanctions can be imposed, and no additional
hearing was required. See id.; cf. Lamboy-Ortiz v. Ortiz-Vélez,
630 F.3d 228, 246 (1st Cir. 2010) (the district court was within
its discretion to sanction an attorney without holding a hearing,
in part because he had the opportunity to brief the sanctions issue
in his opposition to the other party's fee request); Muthig v.
Brant Point Nantucket, Inc., 838 F.2d 600, 606-07 (1st Cir. 1988)
(the briefing process provided an adequate opportunity to present
evidence and argument on a Rule 11 motion), abrogated on other
grounds by Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384 (1990).
Second, ECMC argues that, even if the Claim Order did
rule that Hann's loans had been repaid (as we have now determined),
ECMC cannot be sanctioned for doing something that was not clearly
proscribed by the Claim Order's text. This argument relies on the
sound proposition that, for a party to be held in contempt for
violating a court order, that order should be clear and
unambiguous. E.g., United States v. Saccoccia, 433 F.3d 19, 27
(1st Cir. 2005). But the BAP did not affirm the sanctions only
because ECMC's actions contravened the Claim Order; it was ECMC's
entire course of conduct that led the BAP to conclude that ECMC had
abused the bankruptcy process. And the BAP had good reason to
think so. ECMC filed a proof of claim against Hann, ignored the
claim objection process, and then resumed its efforts to collect on
the underlying debt without attempting to verify whether the debt
-16-
had survived the bankruptcy. ECMC also ignored an effort by Hann's
counsel to explain that the claim order had settled the issue. Cf.
In re Larson, 479 B.R. 355, 361 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2012) (creditor
abused the bankruptcy process by ignoring the existence of a
reaffirmation agreement and then, upon being told of it, refusing
to comply with its terms). At the very least, ECMC -- having sat
out the claim objection process -- could have sought a
clarification from the court after Hann's counsel asserted that the
Claim Order had indeed extinguished the debt. See Infusaid Corp.
v. Intermedics Infusaid, Inc., 756 F.2d 1, 2 (1st Cir. 1985) (a
party "in doubt about the lawfulness of a proposed course of action
. . . can ask the [ordering] court for guidance").
Under these circumstances, it is no answer for ECMC to
say that it relied in good faith on cases like Diaz. Unlike Diaz,
this case involved a factual dispute over whether the underlying
debt still existed -- which ECMC would have realized if it had
sought to learn what happened at the hearing on its own claim.
Thus, even if ECMC's conduct did not violate the discharge
injunction, see Diaz, 647 F.3d at 1090-91, it was an abuse of the
bankruptcy process. We therefore affirm the bankruptcy court's
imposition of sanctions, albeit on different grounds. See
Spenlinhauer v. O'Donnell, 261 F.3d 113, 117 (1st Cir. 2001).
-17-
III. Conclusion
An unadorned order disallowing a claim based on a
nondischargeable debt should not generally carry with it lurking
post-bankruptcy consequences for the creditor. And there will
certainly be cases where the record will not justify a
determination that the bankruptcy court ruled that the debt was
paid. Here, however, we think the record of the claim objection
process and ECMC's conduct is sufficiently clear. Consequently,
the judgment of the bankruptcy appellate panel is affirmed.
-18-