Directing a vulgar insult at a debtor is no violation of the automatic stay. Indeed, basing a contempt motion on a text message to a debtor that said, “You’re such a piece of s—t,” “has absolutely no merit and it borders on being sanctionable,” according to Bankruptcy Judge Christopher D. Jaime of Sacramento, Calif.

The creditor had been suing the debtor in state court before the debtor filed a chapter 7 petition. After filing, the debtor’s counsel sent the creditor’s counsel an email with a copy of the petition and in substance demanded that the creditor dismiss the complaint.

A few minutes later, the creditor sent the debtor the above-referenced text message.

Eight days later, the debtor filed a motion seeking a finding of contempt of the automatic stay and sanctions composed of $1,000 for emotional damages, attorneys’ fees and “punitive damages sufficient to deter them from future violations of the Automatic Stay.”

The contempt motion did not allege that the debtor had taken any action aside from sending the text message.

In his January 25 opinion, Judge Jaime began analysis of the merits by noting how the debtor’s motion did not identify any specific provision in Section 362(a) that the creditor had allegedly violated. He concluded that subsections (a)(1) and (a)(6) were the only possible grounds for a stay violation. They proscribe continuation of lawsuits or acts to collect prepetition debts.

Describing the law in his circuit, Judge Jaime said:

It has long been the law of this Circuit that harassing and coercive communications with a debtor violate the automatic stay when they occur in the context of an attempt to collect a prepetition debt.

Immediately, Judge Jaime concluded that “the text message is neither the continuation of a prepetition action or proceeding against the debtor nor is it an act or attempt to collect a prepetition debt.” He found that the text message was neither harassing nor coercive, but if it were, he said it was “not an act or attempt to collect a prepetition debt.”

Finding the creditor’s testimony to have been persuasive and unrebutted, Judge Jaime interpreted the facts as indicating that vulgarity caused no damage to the debtor. He said:

That the debtor herself is a frequent user of similar vulgarities negates any inference that the text message could have offended the debtor’s sensibilities such that it could have shamed or guilted the debtor into paying any debt.

Judge Jaime explained why the message did not violate the stay:

[T]he text message does not order the debtor to do anything, does not ask the debtor for anything, does not demand anything from the debtor, and it does not suggest or imply that anything will happen to the debtor, her property, or property of the estate.

Rather, Judge Jaime said that the “text message to the debtor falls into the realm of permissible communications meant only to convey information to the debtor.” He denied the contempt motion, saying “there is absolutely no basis for sanctions under 11 U.S.C. § 362(k) or otherwise.”