DiBattista v. Selene Fin. LP (In re DiBattista)
Decision Date | 09 April 2020 |
Docket Number | No. 19-CV-8118 (CS),19-CV-8118 (CS) |
Citation | 615 B.R. 31 |
Parties | IN RE: Bret S. DIBATTISTA, Debtor. Bret S. DiBattista, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Selene Finance LP, Defendant/Appellant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Carlos J. Cuevas, Francis J. O'Reilly, Law Office of Francis J. O'Reilly, Esq., Carmel, New York, Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee.
Richard J. Davis, Stephen J. Bumgarner, Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C., Birmingham, Alabama, Counsel for Defendant/Appellant.
Before the Court is the appeal of Defendant-Appellant Selene Finance LP ("Selene")1 from the Bankruptcy Court's July 23, 2019 (Bankr. Doc. 30 ("Order").)2 For the following reasons, the Order is AFFIRMED in part and VACATED and REMANDED in part.
On July 24, 2009, Plaintiff-Appellee Bret S. DiBattista filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. (Doc. 10-1 at 1.)3 DiBattista owned real property located at 28 Wintergreen Avenue in Newburgh, New York (the "Real Property"), which was encumbered by a mortgage load held by Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. ("Countrywide"). (Id. at 11.) In the Statement of Intention filed with his Chapter 7 petition, DiBattista stated that he intended to retain the Real Property and continue making payments to Countrywide. (Id. at 34.)
On October 18, 2009, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order of discharge releasing DiBattista from all of his dischargeable debts. (Id. at 48.) The discharge order prohibited (Id. at 49.) As a result of the discharge order, DiBattista was discharged from his personal liability on the mortgage note, although the lender retained its lien on the property and its right to foreclose upon default. Countrywide Home Lending received notice of the discharge order shortly thereafter. (Id. at 76.)
Selene states, upon information and belief, that DiBattista defaulted on his mortgage payment due December 1, 2012, and each mortgage payment thereafter. (Id. at 103-04.) On September 6, 2018, Countrywide assigned the note and mortgage to MTGLQ Investors, L.P., which then retained Selene to service the note and mortgage. (Id. at 104.)
(Id. ) The letter contained several disclaimers, one of which read, "Please note that if you are in bankruptcy or received a bankruptcy discharge of this debt, this communication is not an attempt to collect the debt against you personally." (Id. at 79.) As the Bankruptcy Court noted, the disclaimer was "at the bottom of the second page, and not very noticeable." (Doc. 18-1 ("Hearing Tr.") at 11:13-14.)
On September 13, 2018, Selene attempted to contact DiBattista via telephone, but he did not answer, so it left him a message. (Selene's App. at 104.) DiBattista returned the call the following day and confirmed his phone number, but did not provide any additional information to Selene. (Id. ) Between November 29, 2018, and January 24, 2019, Selene called DiBattista and members of his family more than thirty times. (Id. at 72, 80-82.)
Additionally, in November 2018, Selene began reporting on DiBattista's credit report that he was 120 days past due on his mortgage payments. (Id. at 72; see id. at 83-86.)4 DiBattista did not learn that Selene had reported this debt until January 2019, and in that same month, Selene reported to credit agencies that DiBattista was 180 days past due with payment. (Id. at 72.)
On January 22, 2019, Selene received a cease-and-desist letter from DiBattista's counsel. (Id. at 105; id. at 87-88, see id. at 89 ( ).) In the letter, DiBattista's counsel explained that DiBattista's debt had been discharged in 2009 and that the discharged order was "mailed to your client." (Id. at 87.)5 DiBattista's counsel went on to explain that the letter Selene had sent DiBattista and the phone calls it had made to him violated the discharge order, and therefore DiBattista demanded that Selene "immediately cease and desist any further attempt to seek collection of the pre-petition debt, and immediately take all necessary actions necessary to restore my client's credit to where it was prior [t]o your reporting ... within 7 days." (Id. ) DiBattista's counsel concluded that "[f]ailure on [Selene's] part to comply with this demand will lead my client to seek judicial intervention to have you held in contempt, whereby, you may be assessed sanctions, monetary penalties, or any other remedy the Court deems appropriate." (Id. at 88.) Selene made three more calls after receiving the letter. (Id. at 72, 82.)
On February 14, 2019, DiBattista filed a motion to reopen the bankruptcy proceedings to "enforce the discharge injunction." (Bankr. Doc. 15.) On March 6, 2019, Selene sent a letter to DiBattista's counsel stating it had received his January 22 letter by fax on that date. (Selene's App. at 89.) Selene stated that it began servicing DiBattista's mortgage account on August 30, 2018, and "upon review of the account, it was determined that prior to Selene's servicing of the account, it was discharged through a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy." (Id. ) Selene further stated that it would "cease and desist all contact with the mortgagor; however, ... Selene will continue to enforce its lien rights with respect to the property secured by the security instrument ... [and] will continue to mail notices regarding matters related to the foreclosure of the property." (Id. ) But Selene made clear that "[t]he notices are intended for informational purposes only as we acknowledge that Mr. Di[B]attista is not personally liable for the debt." (Id. ) Selene also stated that it had (Id. ) DiBattista's counsel responded on March 15, 2019, stating that Selene's letter was late and (Id. at 134.) DiBattista attested that his credit score was reduced by sixty points due to Selene's credit reporting. (Id. at 72.)
On April 2, 2019, the Bankruptcy Court reopened the bankruptcy proceedings. (Bankr. Doc. 17.) On May 20, Selene's counsel communicated with DiBattista's counsel by phone and email, stating that Selene had "ceas[ed] any future collection efforts" and instructed the major credit reporting bureaus to delete its previous credit reporting. (Selene's App. at 136.) Selene offered to pay DiBattista's attorney's fees for filing the motion to reopen, (id. ), but DiBattista's counsel stated his client intended to proceed with a motion for contempt sanctions, (id. at 139).
(Id. at 10:23-11:6.) Accordingly, the Bankruptcy Court held Selene in contempt. (Id. at 10:22.)
The Bankruptcy Court then turned to damages, and stated that DiBattista (Id. at 11:10-14.) The Court is also said it would award attorney's fees as well as filing fees, and directed DiBattista's counsel to submit an affidavit documenting those amounts. (Id. at 11:15-21.)
On July 23, the Bankruptcy Court entered the Order. In it, the court stated:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Anderson v. Credit One Bank, N.A. (In re Anderson)
...under Taggart v. Lorenzen , ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 1795, 1801-02, 204 L.Ed.2d 129 (2019). See Dibattista v. Selene Fin. LP (In re Dibattista ), 615 B.R. 31, 43 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) ; Minech v. Clearview Fed. Credit Union (In re Minech ), 632 B.R. 274, 281-84 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2021), and the ca......
-
Windstream Holdings, Inc. v. Charter Commc'ns Inc. (In re Windstream Holdings, Inc.)
...not required. Taggart v. Lorenzen, ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 1795, 1802, 204 L.Ed.2d 129 (2019). See also Dibattista v. Selene Fin. LP (In re Debattista ), 615 B.R. 31 (S.D.N.Y. 2020), which dismissed the argument that the willful violation of an order in the sense of an intent to violate, ......
-
Anderson v. Credit One Bank (In re Anderson)
... ... Lorenzen , 139 S.Ct. 1795, ... 1801-02 (2019). See Dibattista v. Selene Fin. LP ... ( In re Dibattista ), 615 B.R. 31, 43 ... ...
-
Anderson v. Credit One Bank (In re Anderson)
... ... Lorenzen , 139 S.Ct. 1795, ... 1801-02 (2019). See Dibattista v. Selene Fin. LP ... ( In re Dibattista ), 615 B.R. 31, 43 ... ...