36
On August 28, 2019, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
held that a post-discharge mortgage statement sent to a Chapter
13 debtor-mortgagor did not violate the discharge injunction and
further found that sanctions were not appropriate. [In re Roth, 935
F.3d 1270 (11th Cir. 2019)]
Arlene Roth (hereinafter referred to
as "Roth") filed a voluntary petition for
bankruptcy under Chapter 13 on December
22, 2010. Id. at 1273. Her chapter 13 plan
provided for the subject property to be
surrendered. On June 27, 2014, Roth received
her discharge and Nationstar (the servicer on
the subject property) was notified.
Approximately four months later,
Nationstar started sending Roth monthly
statements related to her mortgage.
Although the statements disclosed they
were not an attempt to collect a debt, Roth
nonetheless had her attorney send a cease
and desist letter. When the statements did
not stop, Roth, through her attorney, filed
a motion for sanctions in the bankruptcy
court alleging violations of 11 U.S.C. §524,
as well as a separate civil action claiming
violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C §1692e
et seq, and the Florida Consumer Collection
Practices Act (FCCPA). On December 14,
2015, after receiving another "informational
statement" from Nationstar, Roth filed
a second motion for sanctions in the
bankruptcy case. e bankruptcy court
denied Roth's motion for sanctions by
finding that the "informational statement"
was not an attempt to collect a debt and did
not run afoul of §524.
PERIODIC
STATEMENTS
AND ROTH V.
NATIONSTAR
Legal Industry Update
NATIONAL FOCUS
By: Seth J. Greenhill
