Beckford v. Romano (In re Beckford), Case No.: 13–20749 (AMN)

• Decision Date: 23 June 2017
• Docket Number: Case No.: 13–20749 (AMN)
• Citation: 572 B.R. 61
• Court: U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of Connecticut
• Parties: IN RE: Alman Andrew BECKFORD, Debtor Alman Andrew Beckford, Movant v. Michael Romano, Respondent

572 B.R. 61

IN RE: Alman Andrew BECKFORD, DebtorAlman Andrew Beckford, Movant

v.Michael Romano, Respondent

Case No.: 13–20749 (AMN)

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Connecticut, New Haven Division.

Signed June 23, 2017

Alman Andrew Beckford, pro se.

Re: ECF No. 51

RULING AND MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Ann M. Nevins, United States Bankruptcy Judge

Before the court is a motion for contempt filed by the debtor, Alman Andrew Beckford ("Mr. Beckford") seeking sanctions against Michael Romano, Esq. ("Attorney Romano"), counsel for Mr. Beckford's ex-wife, for alleged violations of the automatic stay and discharge injunction.¹ ECF No. 51. In particular, Mr. Beckford seeks damages for Attorney Romano's act of filing, at a time when the automatic stay was in effect, a motion for contempt in the divorce action between Mr. Beckford and his ex-wife. Additionally, Mr. Beckford requests damages for Attorney Romano's act of filing, at a time after the entry of Mr. Beckford's chapter 7 discharge, a second motion for contempt in the divorce action. Both motions for contempt filed by Attorney Romano alleged that Mr. Beckford had failed to comply with the divorce judgment by neglecting to pay a Home Depot credit card bill.

For the reasons that follow, the court grants the motion in part, finding that a violation of the automatic stay has occurred and the court will schedule an evidentiary hearing to assess the amount of damages. The court also denies the motion in part, finding that Attorney Romano did not violate the discharge injunction by filing a second motion for contempt in the divorce action because the entry of a chapter 7 discharge did not discharge Mr. Beckford's obligation owed to his ex-wife to pay his wife's Home Depot credit card bill pursuant to a state court Divorce Judgment (defined below).

I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

This memorandum constitutes the court's findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, applicable here pursuant to Rules 7052 and 9014(c) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. This court has jurisdiction of the motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334(b) and 157(a), and (b)(1), and the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut's General Order of Reference dated September 21, 1984. This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(A) and (I). Venue is proper before this court in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409.

II. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

The following factual and procedural history is relevant to the relief sought in the motion for contempt.

A. The Divorce Judgment

In August of 2011, Marilyn Beckford commenced, with the assistance of Attorney Romano, a dissolution of marriage proceeding in the Connecticut Superior Court against her then-husband, Mr. Beckford (the "Divorce Action").²

Throughout the Divorce Action, Attorney Romano represented Marilyn Beckford. Mr. Beckford proceeded pro se in the Divorce Action. Following a trial on November 26, 2012, the Connecticut Superior Court (Prestley, J.) entered a dissolution of marriage judgment ("Divorce Judgment").³ The Divorce Judgment provided, in relevant part:

• Mr. Beckford would pay alimony to Marilyn Beckford in the amount of $100.00 per week for a period three years;

• Mr. Beckford would quitclaim his interest in property known as Wintonbury to Marilyn Beckford within thirty days;

• Marilyn Beckford and Mr. Beckford would split 50/50 any deficiency on that property;

• Marilyn Beckford was responsible for paying in full the credit card bills from JC Penny, Target, and Sovereign Bank;

• Mr. Beckford was responsible for paying in full the credit card bill from Home Depot (that was in Marilyn Beckford's name only); and

• Mr. Beckford was to pay $1,000 in attorney's fees payable to Attorney Romano within 30 days.

Divorce Judgment, case entry no. 136.00 and 136.50, Ex. 1 to ECF No. 55.

On December 17, 2012, Mr. Beckford moved to open the Divorce Judgment. The Superior Court (Olear, J.), denied his motion to open on January 28, 2013.

B. Mr. Beckford's Bankruptcy Action

On April 19, 2013, Mr. Beckford, representing himself and therefore proceeding pro se , filed a voluntary chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. On the statistical summary of certain liabilities and related data (Official Form 6—Summary 12/07), Mr. Beckford stated that he did not owe any domestic support obligations, but owed $400.00 in domestic support, separation agreement, and divorce degree obligations that were not reported on Schedule E. ECF No. 2, p. 10. On Schedule F (a listing of non-priority unsecured claims), Mr. Beckford identified Home Depot Credit Services as a creditor holding a contingent claim of $6,645.11 for charge account fees decreed in judgments. ECF No. 2, p. 23. The address listed for Home Depot Credit Services was P.O. Box 183175, Columbus, Ohio, 43218. ECF No. 2, p. 23.

Mr. Beckford additionally identified Romano and Assoc. Law, as a collection agent for Home Depot Credit Services, as a creditor holding a contingent claim of $0.00. ECF No. 2, p. 24. Mr. Beckford listed the address for Romano and Assoc. Law as 41 New Britain Avenue, Rocky Hill, CT 06067. ECF No. 2, p. 24. On Schedule H (a listing of co-debtors), Mr. Beckford listed Marilyn Beckford. ECF No. 2. p. 27. On Schedule J (a listing of the current expenditures of individual debtors), Mr. Beckford indicated a monthly expense of $400.00 for alimony, maintenance, and support paid to others. ECF No. 2, p. 30. On the creditor mailing matrix filed with the petition, Mr. Beckford listed Romano and Associates Law Offices with an address of 41 New Britain Avenue, Rocky Hill, CT 06067 but did not separately list Marilyn Beckford. ECF No. 2, p. 50. On April 21, 2013, the Bankruptcy Noticing Center ("BNC") served, by first class mail, the Notice of Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Case, Meeting of Creditors & Deadlines on Romano and Associates Law Offices at 41 New Britain Avenue, Rocky Hill, CT 06067. ECF No. 7.

On May 30, 2013, the chapter 7 trustee, John J. O'Neil, filed a Report of No Distribution and, thereafter on August 21, 2013, Mr. Beckford received an order of discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727. ECF No. 30.

C. Contempt Proceedings In Divorce Action

On July 25, 2013, at a time when the automatic stay remained in effect, Attorney Romano, on behalf of Mr. Beckford's now ex-wife, Marilyn Beckford, moved, in the Divorce Action, for an order of contempt against Mr. Beckford for his failure to pay the Home Depot bill as required under the Divorce Judgment ("2013 Motion for Contempt"). Case entry no. 148.00. Mr. Beckford, on August 9, 2013, opposed the motion for contempt citing the fact that he had a pending bankruptcy case. Case entry no. 149.00. On August 28, 2013, the Connecticut Superior Court (Carbonneau, J.) entered an order noting that Marilyn Beckford did not appear to be actively pursuing the motion for contempt. Case entry no. 150.00. The order marked Mr. Beckford's objection off the court's calendar without prejudice for Mr. Beckford to reclaim his objection should Marilyn Beckford seek to pursue the motion for contempt in the future. Case entry no. 150.00.

On June 11, 2014, at a time when the automatic stay had expired,⁴ Attorney Romano filed a second motion for contempt ("2014 Motion for Contempt"). Case entry no. 151.00. The 2014 Motion for Contempt alleged, in pertinent part, that Mr. Beckford had failed to comply with the Divorce Judgment by neglecting to pay the Home Depot bill. Case entry no. 151.00. On August 29, 2014, the Connecticut Superior Court (Albis, J.) ruled that to the extent the 2014 Motion for Contempt

seeks to have [Mr. Beckford] held in contempt for his failure to pay the Home Depot credit card bill in accordance with Order # 9 of the orders incorporated in the judgment dated November 12, 2012, the court finds that because of his good faith belief that the debt has been or will be discharged in his bankruptcy case, [Mr. Beckford] has not willfully violated a court order. However, the court further finds that [Mr. Beckford] failed to prove that the obligation in question was properly listed in his bankruptcy petition, [Mr. Beckford] testifying only that he named his former wife's attorney as a creditor to receive notice of the bankruptcy filing.

Accordingly, as a remedial order the court determines that there has been no showing that [Mr. Beckford's] obligation under Order # 9 of the orders incorporated into the judgment dated November 12, 2012 has been discharged in bankruptcy, and that the said obligation remains in full force and effect.

Case entry no. 153.00.

On September 29, 2014, the Connecticut Superior Court denied Mr. Beckford's request for re-argument of Judge Albis' decision. Case entry no. 154.00. Mr. Beckford appealed to the Connecticut Appellate Court, which unanimously affirmed the decision.

Beckford v. Beckford , 157 Conn.App. 903, 114 A.3d 1245 (2015) (per curiam ). On September 16, 2015, the Connecticut Supreme Court denied Mr. Beckford's petition for certification. Beckford v. Beckford , 319 Conn. 904, 122 A.3d 1280 (2015).

D. Instant Motion for Contempt

On October 7, 2015, in this instant proceeding, Mr. Beckford filed a motion for contempt against Attorney Romano for violating the Bankruptcy Code's automatic stay provision and the discharge injunction. ECF No. 51.⁵ On December 21, 2015, Mr. Beckford stated on the record during the hearing on the motion for contempt that he understood the Divorce Judgment "put [hi]s ex-wife's responsibility for paying Home Depot entirely on [him]." ECF No. 65 at 00:08:20—00:08:32 and 00:54:00—00:54:18.⁶ He further acknowledged that he had not been liable for the Home Depot credit card bill prior to the Divorce Judgment. ECF No. 65 at 00:27:40–00:28:12. Counsel for the issuer of the Home Depot credit card, during the hearing, confirmed that Mr. Beckford did not, personally, have a Home Depot account or credit card and, in his client's view, only Marilyn Beckford owed Home...