In Re Cepero (1998)
green
· 15 citation events
across 8 courts.
Showing the 8 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Perry v. Chase Auto Finance (In re Perry) (2015)
Corp. v. Sharon (In re Sharon), 234 B.R. 676, 687 (6th Cir. BAP 1999)(attorney's fees of $2,122.50); Stephens v. Guaranteed Auto (In re Stephens), 495 B.R. 608, 615 (Bankr.N.D.Ga.2013)(actual damages of $1,559 and attorney’s fees of $4,325); Mitchell v. BankIllinois, 316 B.R. 891, 904 (S.D.Tex.2004) ($8,520.97 in actual damages, including attorney’s fees, plus appellate attorney fees and costs); Will v. Ford Motor Credit Corp. (In re Will), 303 B.R. 357, 369 (Bankr.N.D.Ill.2…
actual damages of $1,832.40
green
TranSouth Financial Corp. v. Sharon (In Re Sharon) (1999)
The failure to fulfill this duty, regardless of whether the original seizure was lawful, constitutes a prohibited attempt to ‘exercise control over the property of the estate’ in violation of the automatic stay.”); Expeditors Int’l of Washington, Inc. v. Colortran, Inc. (In re Colortran, Inc.), 210 B.R. 823 (9th Cir. BAP 1997) (“A creditor who fails to return the estate’s property after it knows of the debtor’s bankruptcy is subject to sanction for willful violation of the a…
“Despite the lawful prepetition repossession, [creditor] violated the automatic stay of § 362(a)(3) by maintaining possession of the Accord after receiving notice of the bankruptcy filing.”
green
In re Johnson (2016)
Bank, 853 F.2d 497, 500 (6th Cir.1988) (holding that bankruptcy court has discretion to impose punitive damages if it believes the actual damages are “insufficient to deter ... deliberate and repeated violations of the automatic stay”); In re Cepero, 226 B.R. 595, 600 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 1998) (awarding punitive damages “to punish [the creditor], and deter it from future violations of the automatic stay, and to properly encourage [the creditor] to institute procedures that will …
awarding punitive damages “to punish [the creditor], and deter it from future violations of the automatic stay, and to properly encourage [the creditor] to institute procedures that will avoid future violations”
green
In re Adams (2014)
LLC, 489 B.R. at 251 (affirming a bankruptcy court’s award of punitive damages that equaled and, therefore, cancelled the violator’s security interest in the repossessed vehicle); Andrus, 2004 WL 2216493 , at *15-16 (awarding a punitive damage of $8,000 that encompassed the value of the repossessed vehicle, therefore, resulting in the release of the creditor’s lien); In re Meeks, 260 B.R. 46, 48 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.2000) (awarding punitive damages that included the cancellation o…
prohibiting a creditor from asserting any claim against a debtor relating to a repossessed vehicle when the creditor willfully violated the automatic stay
green
In Re Meadows (2008)
In re Cepero, 226 B.R. 595, 600 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 1998).
green
In Re Singer (2007)
The failure to fulfill this duty, regardless of whether the original seizure was lawful, constitutes a prohibited attempt to ‘exercise control over the property of the estate’ in violation of the automatic stay.”); *440 In re Yates, 332 B.R. 1, 4-5 (10th Cir. BAP 2005) (creditor’s postpetition retention of motor vehicle which it had lawfully repossessed from debtors prepetition constituted an “exercise of control” over property of the estate and violated automatic stay); In …
“Despite the lawful pre-petition repossession, [creditor] violated the automatic stay of § 362(a)(3) by maintaining possession of the [vehicle] after receiving notice of the bankruptcy filing.”
green
In Re Flack (1999)
Such knowledge does not have to come through formal means, and even if not scheduled, a willful violation may be established where the creditor has sufficient facts to cause, “... a reasonably prudent person to make further inquiry.” In re Clayton, 235 B.R. 801, 807 (Bankr.M.D.N.C.1998); In re Cepero, 226 B.R. 595, 598 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 1998).
green
In Re Stockwell (2001)
See In re Cepero, 226 B.R. 595 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 1998) (fact that creditor too busy to check records in timely manner does not detract from willfulness of conduct).
fact that creditor too busy to check records in timely manner does not detract from willfulness of conduct