Englund v. SBS Financial Services, Inc. (In Re Englund)

401 B.R. 377, 2009 Bankr. LEXIS 334, 2009 WL 396463
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 19, 2009
Docket08-6049
StatusPublished

This text of 401 B.R. 377 (Englund v. SBS Financial Services, Inc. (In Re Englund)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Englund v. SBS Financial Services, Inc. (In Re Englund), 401 B.R. 377, 2009 Bankr. LEXIS 334, 2009 WL 396463 (bap8 2009).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This an appeal of the bankruptcy court’s order denying the Debtors’ motion for contempt against creditor SBS Financial Services, Inc. for alleged violations of the discharge injunction. The motion was denied on purely procedural grounds; the bankruptcy court concluded that the Debtors were required to file an adversary proceeding under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7001 — instead of a motion — because they sought to recover monetary damages from SBS Financial. We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(b).

*378 Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9020 specifically states that motions for contempt are governed by Rule 9014 — the rule under which contested motions are brought. The fact that a motion for contempt seeks monetary damages does not transform the action into one that must be pursued as an adversary proceeding. 1 Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9014 provides essentially the same due process requirements for contested matters that are applicable to adversary proceedings and should alleviate any concerns the bankruptcy court might have for the creditor’s due process protections.

Accordingly, the bankruptcy court’s order is reversed and the matter is remanded for further proceedings.

1

. See, e.g., In re Zumbrun, 88 B.R. 250, 252 (9th Cir. BAP 1988); In re Bock, 297 B.R. 22, 32 (Bankr.W.D.N.C.2002). See also Budget Service Co. v. Better Homes of Virginia, 804 F.2d 289, 291 (4th Cir.1986) (granting motion for monetary sanctions for violation of automatic stay).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In Re Bock
297 B.R. 22 (W.D. North Carolina, 2002)
Fortune & Faal v. Zumbrun (In Re Zumbrun)
88 B.R. 250 (Ninth Circuit, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
401 B.R. 377, 2009 Bankr. LEXIS 334, 2009 WL 396463, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/englund-v-sbs-financial-services-inc-in-re-englund-bap8-2009.