One to facts, in conjunction with the fresh new bankruptcy court’s “thorough writeup on the Claim Objection while the Allege,” persuaded this new BAP that “the fresh bankruptcy judge discovered that there is zero responsibility” remaining on financing since the latest petition time

Brand new bankruptcy proceeding judge decided that have Hann, finishing your Allege Order reflected the prior judge’s devotion you to “the duty [remaining] on the [ECMC’s] claim ? is no.” The fresh judge as well as listed ECMC’s regular failure to recognize otherwise measure a great obligations responsibility. Hann following waived the woman remaining says and you will, on court’s direction, submitted a keen affidavit regarding charge and you will can cost you, to which ECMC objected. The newest judge entered last wisdom to have Hann, buying “you to definitely she owes nothing to the offender” and “awarding [her] costs and you can charge ? since a corrective sanction to possess [ECMC’s] pass of Case of bankruptcy Code’s launch injunction.” Select eleven U.S.C. § 524(a) (performing an automatic injunction against efforts designed to assemble a currently discharged personal debt).

ECMC appealed into case of bankruptcy appellate panel (BAP), and therefore affirmed. Hann v. Educ. Credit Mgmt. Corp. (From inside the re also Hann ), 476 B.Roentgen. 344 (B.An excellent.P. very first Cir.2012). The fresh BAP said that the primary material was not if the debt try dischargeable, but instead whether ECMC’s claim is disallowed “on the basis of pre-petition fee completely.” Id. within 356. Therefore, launch was irrelevant since the “you don’t have so you’re able to except out-of discharge a financial obligation and therefore not any longer is present.” Id. (citation and you can focus excluded). Having framed the challenge that way, brand new BAP ascribed “important strengths” that Hann got objected in order to ECMC’s allege with the the ground you to definitely she got already repaid the debt in full. Id. Accordingly, the fresh BAP confirmed the fresh prize regarding sanctions, detailing that ECMC’s payday advance Enfield continued collection points facing the latest Allege Acquisition “constituted an abuse of case of bankruptcy techniques and defiance of one’s court’s power.” Id. from the 360. ECMC now appeals the new BAP’s decision.

Ropes & Gray, 65 F

Two maxims feature plainly on the parties’ objections: claim allocation (otherwise disallowance), and therefore “profit solely into liberties out-of a collector facing possessions of a great debtor’s bankruptcy home”; and you can dischargeability, hence “issues if a collector will get, following the admission from personal bankruptcy discharge, still go after this new enforcement of their obligations since your own accountability contrary to the borrower.” Gregory v. You.S. Dep’t of Educ. (Inside the re Gregory ), 387 B.Roentgen. 182, 188 (Bankr.N.D.Kansas 2008). Dischargeability, although not, isn’t in question right here. ECMC says that BAP mistook the new disallowance from ECMC’s allege to possess a discharge, meaning that mistakenly stored “one your order disallowing a chapter 13 allege fundamentally discharges a keen hidden nondischargeable debt.” Nevertheless the BAP said no such as issue. Instead, it concluded that the challenge in such a case “isn’t whether or not an effective nondischargeable financial obligation are discharged of the advantage of their disallowance, however, whether or not there is certainly a debt after all the spot where the claim has been disallowed on the basis of pre-petition fee entirely.” 476 B.R. during the 356 (stress additional). 2 And ECMC today believes one a state disallowance purchase is reduce a fundamental nondischargeable obligations if it’s predicated on a good informative discovering that the debt has been reduced-ECMC simply problems whether or not that actually took place in cases like this. Thus, the primary concern is only whether the Claim Order disallowed ECMC’s allege on to the ground one Hann had already repaid the girl financing (in which particular case dischargeability try near the point). I thought one courtroom concern de- novo. Pick Sharfarz v. Goguen (From inside the lso are Goguen ), 691 F.3d 62, 68 (1st Cir.2012); cf. Monarch Lifetime Inches. Co. v. three dimensional 973, 983 (first Cir.1995). We up coming target the problem away from sanctions. step 3