An unmarried couple broke up. The man moved out. The woman refused to return his personal property.
Often in these circumstances, the offended party will build a bonfire in the front yard, burning up the departed lover’s belongings. That’s not what happened here, but the result was the same in a case before Bankruptcy Judge Thomas P. Agresti of Pittsburgh.
After the breakup, the man obtained an order from state court directing a constable to retrieve his property from the woman’s home. The order allowed the man to enforce his rights by contempt if the woman refused to turn over the property.
The woman barred the constable from removing the property. Instead of pursuing contempt and specific performance, the man obtained a money judgment for almost $8,000.
You know what happened next. The woman filed a chapter 7 petition and received a discharge. Later, the man returned to state court aiming to hold the debtor in contempt, believing that the belongings were his and not property of the bankruptcy estate. The debtor responded with a motion to enforce the discharge injunction and hold the man in contempt.
In his November 16 opinion, Judge Agresti ruled that the man had elected remedies under Pennsylvania law and was no longer entitled to an equitable remedy allowing recovery of his property. In other words, if the man had left well enough alone, he could have used the bankruptcy court to regain possession of his personal property because it was neither property of the debtor nor of the estate.
In Pennsylvania, election of remedies is part of the law of estoppel. “When a party has explicitly chosen one of two or more inconsistent remedial rights, the election of remedies doctrine precludes them from benefitting from the other, abandoned remedies,” Judge Agresti said, citing caselaw.
In a complaint, the man could have sought alternative, inconsistent remedies. Later, though, “the civil judgment for money damages forecloses him from obtaining relief based on the remedy of specific performance to retrieve his personal property,” Judge Agresti said.
Alternatively, Judge Agresti held that the money judgment was res judicata, barring the man from seeking another remedy on the same claim.
Filing the action in state court to hold the debtor in contempt was in violation of the discharge injunction, Judge Agresti said. But was the debtor entitled to damages?
Naturally, Judge Agresti cited Taggart v. Lorenzen, 139 S. Ct. 1795, 1801 (2019), where the Supreme Court held there can be no sanctions for civil contempt of the discharge injunction if there was an “objectively reasonable basis for concluding that the creditor’s conduct might be lawful under the discharge order.”
In the case at hand, Judge Agresti said that “neither side could point to any authority directly on point.” He declined to issue sanctions because “there was at least some fair ground of doubt,” and “the legal issue presented here was not originally crystal clear.”
An unmarried couple broke up. The man moved out. The woman refused to return his personal property.
Often in these circumstances, the offended party will build a bonfire in the front yard, burning up the departed lover’s belongings. That’s not what happened here, but the result was the same in a case before Bankruptcy Judge Thomas P. Agresti of Pittsburgh.
After the breakup, the man obtained an order from state court directing a constable to retrieve his property from the woman’s home. The order allowed the man to enforce his rights by contempt if the woman refused to turn over the property.
The woman barred the constable from removing the property. Instead of pursuing contempt and specific performance, the man obtained a money judgment for almost $8,000.
You know what happened next. The woman filed a chapter 7 petition and received a discharge. Later, the man returned to state court aiming to hold the debtor in contempt, believing that the belongings were his and not property of the bankruptcy estate. The debtor responded with a motion to enforce the discharge injunction and hold the man in contempt.
In his November 16 opinion, Judge Agresti ruled that the man had elected remedies under Pennsylvania law and was no longer entitled to an equitable remedy allowing recovery of his property. In other words, if the man had left well enough alone, he could have used the bankruptcy court to regain possession of his personal property because it was neither property of the debtor nor of the estate.