From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re MacDonald

United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio, W.D
Jun 5, 1980
6 B.R. 23 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1980)

Summary

having been informed by debtor's counsel that filing of bankruptcy was imminent, creditor should have contracted bankruptcy court immediately before repossession of automobile to determine whether bankruptcy petition had indeed been filed

Summary of this case from Matter of Carter

Opinion

Bankruptcy No. 80-00644.

June 5, 1980.

John T. Barga, Tiffin, Ohio, for debtor-movant.

Roger W. Hafford, Fremont, Ohio, for creditor.


MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER


This cause came on for trial on the Debtor's Request For Sanctions and the Application of Creditor to Abandon Property.

Trial having been held with John T. Barga, Attorney for Debtor, and Roger W. Hafford, Attorney for Creditor, present and exhibits and testimony of witnesses introduced, the Court finds the following:

1.) That the violation of The Liberty National Bank of Freemont, Ohio, of stay order under Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code in repossessing the automobile owned by the Debtor after the filing of bankruptcy was not made with malice nor was it willful and wanton. Nevertheless, the Bank, having been informed by Debtor's counsel that the filing of the bankruptcy was imminent, should have called the Court immediately before the repossession to determine if indeed a bankruptcy petition had been filed.

2.) Testimony by the Debtor was that the value of the car was less than the lien of the Bank.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED that:

(1) the automobile is to be abandoned to the Bank as previously ordered;

(2) the Bank is to remove all personal property and return it to the Debtor who will give a receipt therefor;

(3) the Bank is to pay the following damages of a violation of the stay order:

A.) To the Debtor — $50.00.

B.) To the Attorney for the Debtor for attorneys fees — $225.00.


Summaries of

In re MacDonald

United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio, W.D
Jun 5, 1980
6 B.R. 23 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1980)

having been informed by debtor's counsel that filing of bankruptcy was imminent, creditor should have contracted bankruptcy court immediately before repossession of automobile to determine whether bankruptcy petition had indeed been filed

Summary of this case from Matter of Carter
Case details for

In re MacDonald

Case Details

Full title:In re Catherine Annetta MacDONALD, Debtor

Court:United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio, W.D

Date published: Jun 5, 1980

Citations

6 B.R. 23 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1980)

Citing Cases

Springfield Bank v. Caserta

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Plaintiff relies primarily on the decision In re Abt, 1 C.B.C.2d 374, 2 B.R. 323, 5 B.C.D.…

Matter of DePoy, (Bankr.N.D.Ind. 1983)

He also was put on notice and had a duty to inquire further regarding the scope of the stay. In re Reed,…