Taggart v. Lorenzen
139 S. Ct. 1795, 204 L. Ed. 2d 129, 2019 U.S. LEXIS 3890 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court may hold a creditor in civil contempt for violating a bankruptcy discharge order if there is no fair ground of doubt as to whether the order barred the creditor's conduct. This means there must be no objectively reasonable basis for concluding that the creditor's conduct might be lawful.
Facts:
- Bradley Taggart formerly owned an interest in an Oregon company, Sherwood Park Business Center (Sherwood).
- Sherwood and two of its other owners filed a lawsuit against Taggart in Oregon state court, claiming he had breached the company’s operating agreement.
- Before the state court trial, Taggart filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code in Federal Bankruptcy Court.
- The Federal Bankruptcy Court issued a discharge order releasing Taggart from liability for most prebankruptcy debts.
- After the discharge order was issued, the Oregon state court entered judgment against Taggart in the prebankruptcy suit and awarded attorney’s fees to Sherwood.
- Sherwood sought to collect these attorney’s fees, which were incurred after Taggart filed his bankruptcy petition, arguing that Taggart had 'returned to the fray' of the litigation, making him liable for them.
Procedural Posture:
- Sherwood Park Business Center and two of its other owners (respondents) filed a lawsuit against Bradley Taggart (petitioner) in Oregon state court, alleging breach of an operating agreement.
- Taggart filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in Federal Bankruptcy Court.
- The Bankruptcy Court issued a discharge order for Taggart.
- After the discharge order, the Oregon state court entered judgment against Taggart and awarded attorney's fees to Sherwood.
- Taggart returned to the Federal Bankruptcy Court, seeking civil contempt sanctions against Sherwood for violating the discharge order by attempting to collect the attorney's fees.
- The Bankruptcy Court initially found that Taggart had 'returned to the fray' of litigation and thus refused to hold Sherwood in civil contempt.
- Taggart appealed the Bankruptcy Court's decision to the Federal District Court.
- The District Court reversed, finding Taggart had not 'returned to the fray,' and remanded the case to the Bankruptcy Court.
- On remand, the Bankruptcy Court, applying a 'strict liability' standard, held Sherwood in civil contempt and awarded Taggart damages and attorney's fees.
- Sherwood appealed the contempt finding to the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, which vacated the sanctions.
- Taggart appealed the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the panel's decision, concluding that a creditor's 'good faith belief' that the discharge order did not apply (even if unreasonable) precluded a finding of contempt.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a creditor's subjective good faith belief that a bankruptcy discharge order does not apply to their claim preclude a finding of civil contempt for violating that order, or should an objective standard apply?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Breyer
No, a creditor's subjective good faith belief that a bankruptcy discharge order does not apply to their claim, even if unreasonable, does not by itself prevent a finding of civil contempt for violating that order. Instead, a court may hold a creditor in civil contempt if there is no fair ground of doubt as to whether the order barred the creditor's conduct. The Court reasoned that when a statutory term is 'obviously transplanted from another legal source,' it 'brings the old soil with it.' Since bankruptcy statutes state that a discharge order 'operates as an injunction' (11 U.S.C. §524(a)(2)) and courts can issue orders 'necessary or appropriate' to carry out bankruptcy provisions (11 U.S.C. §105(a)), these provisions incorporate traditional standards for enforcing injunctions through civil contempt. Under traditional equity practice, 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 'fair ground of doubt' standard is generally objective; a party's subjective belief of compliance will not insulate them if that belief was objectively unreasonable. The Court rejected the Ninth Circuit's purely subjective 'good faith belief' standard, finding it inconsistent with traditional contempt principles and likely to lead creditors to collect discharged debts unfairly. It also rejected Taggart's proposed 'strict liability' standard, arguing it would lead to excessive, costly, and delayed litigation through frequent 'advance determinations' in bankruptcy court, undermining the Bankruptcy Code's purpose of a 'fresh start' and prompt resolution. The Court also distinguished the discharge order context from automatic stays, which have different statutory language and purposes.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the standard for civil contempt in bankruptcy discharge violations, rejecting both a purely subjective 'good faith' standard and a 'strict liability' approach. By adopting an objective 'fair ground of doubt' standard, the Supreme Court aims to balance protecting debtors' fresh start with preventing undue burdens on creditors. This ruling emphasizes the historical connection between bankruptcy injunctions and general equity principles, potentially influencing the interpretation and enforcement of other injunction-like provisions in federal law. It also highlights the Court's reluctance to impose standards that could lead to excessive and costly litigation, preferring to limit federal intervention to objectively clear violations.
