Cursing the Debtor by Itself Isn’t a Violation of the Automatic Stay

February 1, 2024

Cursing the Debtor by Itself Isn’t a Violation of the Automatic Stay

A vulgarity directed at the debtor wasn’t a stay violation absent an act designed to collect a debt.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur, adipisicing elit. Soluta dolorem consequuntur corporis pariatur rem aliquam similique animi fugiat iure explicabo eius omnis minima labore natus, repellat aut odio fuga vero. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur, adipisicing elit. Soluta dolorem consequuntur corporis pariatur rem aliquam similique animi fugiat iure explicabo eius omnis minima labore natus, repellat aut odio fuga vero.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur, adipisicing elit. Soluta dolorem consequuntur corporis pariatur remaliquam similique animi fugiat iure explicabo eius omnis minima labore natus, repellat aut odio fuga vero. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur, adipisicing elit. Soluta dolorem consequuntur corporis pariatur remaliquam similique animi fugiat iure explicabo eius omnis minima labore natus, repellat aut odio fuga vero.

ABI MEMBERS ONLY

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary. Please Sign in using your ABI Member credentials.

Not a Member yet? Try Us Out!

Sign up to receive Rochelle's Daily Wire and try out our membership for 30 days. When you do — you'll see why our members "Think ABI First."

Learn More

Opinion Link

View Opinion

https://abi-opinions.s3.amazonaws.com/Wilcox.pdf

Case Details

Case Citation

In re Wilcox, 23-23817 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2024)

Case Name

In re Wilcox

Case Type

Business

Court

9th Circuit

California

California Eastern District

Bankruptcy Tags

Automatic Stay

Ethics

Consumer Bankruptcy

Business Reorganization

Comments

Submitted by EBOLTZ@JOHNORCU... on February 1, 2024 - 08:24

The opinion only obliquely indicates that a non-consumer debt ("Ms. Jones’ state court attorney (who is an employee of Ms. Jones’ law firm) was informed of the debtor’s bankruptcy filing....") lies at the heart of this case, but that factor seems relevant, especially as non-bankruptcy consumer protections might have been otherwise implicated. (Not that bankruptcy judges love non-bankruptcy consumer protections.)