Taggart v. Lorenzen, 060319 FEDSC, 18-489
|Opinion Judge:||BREYER JUSTICE|
|Party Name:||BRADLEY WESTON TAGGART, PETITIONER v. SHELLEY A. LORENZEN, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF STUART BROWN, ET AL.|
|Case Date:||June 03, 2019|
|Court:||United States Supreme Court|
Argued April 24, 2019
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 18-489.
Petitioner Bradley Taggart formerly owned an interest in an Oregon company. That company and two of its other owners, who are among the respondents here, filed suit in Oregon state court, claiming that Taggart had breached the company's operating agreement. Before trial, Taggart filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. At the conclusion of that proceeding, the Federal Bankruptcy Court issued a discharge order that released Taggart from liability for most prebankruptcy debts. After the discharge order issued, the Oregon state court entered judgment against Taggart in the prebankruptcy suit and awarded attorney's fees to respondents. Taggart returned to the Federal Bankruptcy Court, seeking civil contempt sanctions against respondents for collecting attorney's fees in violation of the discharge order. The Bankruptcy Court ultimately held respondents in civil contempt. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel vacated the sanctions, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed the panel's decision. Applying a subjective standard, the Ninth Circuit concluded that a "creditor's good faith belief that the discharge order "does not apply to the creditor's claim precludes a finding of contempt, even if the creditor's belief if unreasonable." 888 F.3d 438, 444.
Held: A court may hold a creditor in civil contempt for violating a discharge order if there is no fair ground of doubt as to whether the order barred the creditor's conduct. Pp. 4-11. (a) This conclusion rests on a longstanding interpretive principle: When a statutory term is" 'obviously transplanted from another legal source, '" it "'brings the old soil with it.'" Hall v. Hall, 584 U.S.__, __. Here, the bankruptcy statutes specifying that a discharge order "operates as an injunction," 11 U.S.C. §524(a)(2), and that a court may issue any "order" or "judgment" that is "necessary or appropriate" to "carry out" other bankruptcy provisions, §105(a), bring with them the "old soil" that has long governed how courts enforce injunctions. In cases outside the bankruptcy context, this Court has said that civil contempt "should not be resorted to where there is [a] fair ground of doubt as to the wrongfulness of the defendant's conduct." California Artificial Stone Paving Co. v. Molitor, 113 U.S. 609, 618. This standard is generally an objective one. A party's subjective belief that she was complying with an order ordinarily will not insulate her from civil contempt if that belief was objectively unreasonable. Subjective intent, however, is not always irrelevant. Civil contempt sanctions may be warranted when a party acts in bad faith, and a party's good faith may help to determine an appropriate sanction. These traditional civil contempt principles apply straightforwardly to the bankruptcy discharge context. Under the fair ground of doubt standard, civil contempt may be appropriate when the creditor violates a discharge order based on an objectively unreasonable understanding of the discharge order or the statutes that govern its scope. Pp. 5-7.
(b) The standard applied by the Ninth Circuit is inconsistent with traditional civil contempt principles, under which parties cannot be insulated from a finding of civil contempt based on their subjective good faith. Taggart, meanwhile, argues for a standard that would operate much like a strict-liability standard. But his proposal often may lead creditors to seek advance determinations as to whether debts have been discharged, creating the risk of additional federal litigation, additional costs, and additional delays. His proposal, which follows the standard some courts have used to remedy violations of automatic stays, also ignores key differences in text and purpose between the statutes governing automatic stays and discharge orders. Pp. 7-11.
888 F.3d 438, vacated and remanded.
At the conclusion of a bankruptcy proceeding, a bankruptcy court typically enters an order releasing the debtor from liability for most prebankruptcy debts. This order, known as a discharge order, bars creditors from attempting to collect any debt covered by the order. See 11 U.S.C. §524(a)(2). The question presented here concerns the criteria for determining when a court may hold a creditor in civil contempt for attempting to collect a debt that a discharge order has immunized from collection.
The Bankruptcy Court, in holding the creditors here in civil contempt, applied a standard that it described as akin to "strict liability" based on the standard's expansive scope. In re Taggart, 522 B. R. 627, 632 (Bkrtcy. Ct. Ore. 2014). It held that civil contempt sanctions are permissible, irrespective of the creditor's beliefs, so long as the creditor was "'aware of the discharge'" order and "'intended the actions which violate[d]'" it. Ibid, (quoting In re Hardy, 97 F.3d 1384, 1390 (CA111996)). The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, however, disagreed with that standard. Applying a subjective standard instead, it concluded that...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP