Creditor continues to collect after BK filing

[Invincible88]

I'm in the middle of my Chapter 7 currently. One of the creditors listed on my petition continued sending me late notices after filing. Then it was a letter threatening legal action could be taken by their recovery team. Then I get an email from their recovery team. I politely responded to their manager who sent me the email that the account in question was part of my bankruptcy, gave them the case #. That's all I wrote back to them. No response to the email. Two weeks later I get another letter in the mail threatening legal action that is dated two weeks AFTER I emailed the manager in their recovery division. I confirmed this creditor is listed on my petition as a debt and that they were notified via the Bankruptcy court (on the page that lists all the notifications going out) on the date of filing. So they've been notified twice. What's interesting is in their latest letter to me in the mail, it says to call them to resolve. It does not give an option to respond in writing or by email. This is a decently established creditor, not really a mom and pop type. While I understand it's possible for mistakes to happen, none of my other creditors are violating the stay at all. My credit report has been updating non-stop showing accounts being moved to bankruptcy status. So I think the creditor knows I'm in bankruptcy and is willfully violating the stay.

My question is not should I take legal action against the creditor. What I want to know is if the creditor can come back and say they were not informed and render the discharge invalid on that basis? All signs point to the creditor knows and is just ignoring the stay. I'll deal with that separately, but I just wanted to know if they can claim they weren't informed of the BK as a basis for reversing the discharge of the debt in question?

Thanks.

[justbroke]

My question is not should I take legal action against the creditor. What I want to know is if the creditor can come back and say they were not informed and render the discharge invalid on that basis?

No, they could not. They at least received constructive notice and probably actual notice as well (via the mailing of the notice of bankruptcy). They'd have to 100% prove that they did not have actual or constructive notice so that they could show that they were only in "technical" violation of the stay.

All signs point to the creditor knows and is just ignoring the stay. I'll deal with that separately, but I just wanted to know if they can claim they weren't informed of the BK as a basis for reversing the discharge of the debt in question?

It would be a high bar for them to prove that they didn't receive the mailing from the court AND your notice by email.

This is the type of case that your attorney should take since it's obvious that the creditor won't stop.

[Invincible88]

No, they could not. They at least received constructive notice and probably actual notice as well (via the mailing of the notice of bankruptcy). They'd have to 100% prove that they did not have actual or constructive notice so that they could show that they were only in "technical" violation of the stay.

It would be a high bar for them to prove that they didn't receive the mailing from the court AND your notice by email.

This is the type of case that your attorney should take since it's obvious that the creditor won't stop.

Yeah, I don't know what else we could do besides my attorney mailing them a certified letter informing them of the bankruptcy, which seems to be outside of the norm. I'm probably missing it, but I can see the mailing list on my petition. The creditor's mailing address is there, but it looks like the BK court emailed them notice to a bankruptcy email address for that creditor. Does the Bankruptcy court always send a physical notice in the mail to creditors as well? Other question is what do you suppose is the end game here for the creditor? They have to know I'm in BK and they're soon to be discharged. What is to be gained by sending me these letters? Is it a lazy attempt to collect a few extra bucks before the debt discharges? Seems like a horrible risk for any creditor to take, knowingly violating the stay, which could cost them thousands in fines.

[justbroke]

Some (major) creditors have electronic noticing set up and when the bankruptcy petition lists an address, it is converted to the "electronic" notification address (an email address). Some creditors even use something known as EDI (electronic data interchange) which is another electronic noticing system.

There's no end game for a creditor. A stay violation is very very serious and the bankruptcy court treats it as such. If this is a wilful violation of the stay, the court can (and usually does) impose sanctions of as much as $1,000 per "contact" after notice of the bankruptcy was issued. Since they appear to be an "electronic" subscriber of bankruptcy notices, it will be very difficult for them to avoid the wilfulness of their actions.

[Invincible88]

Some (major) creditors have electronic noticing set up and when the bankruptcy petition lists an address, it is converted to the "electronic" notification address (an email address). Some creditors even use something known as EDI (electronic data interchange) which is another electronic noticing system.

There's no end game for a creditor. A stay violation is very very serious and the bankruptcy court treats it as such. If this is a wilful violation of the stay, the court can (and usually does) impose sanctions of as much as $1,000 per "contact" after notice of the bankruptcy was issued. Since they appear to be an "electronic" subscriber of bankruptcy notices, it will be very difficult for them to avoid the wilfulness of their actions.

When you say they'll have to prove they didn't receive the electronic notice from the BK court and my email, I'm concerned they'll simply erase the two and claim they never received them. Perhaps their internal systems lag and one hand doesn't know what the other is doing. Seems odd though that I'm having this issue with only one creditor, whom has now been notified twice. I am a little surprised there isn't a more robust way of confirming creditors receive notice from the BK court. Seems like it would be too easy for a creditor to claim they were never notified and use that as a proxy to continue collecting. I'll loop my attorney in.

[shipo]

I think you're overthinking it; there is no way for them to prove they didn't get it, however, in the end it doesn't matter, you're covered and they're violating the stay.

[flashoflight]

Let your attorney handle this. This is not your job. He will loop you back in if he needs the voicemails, email, postal mail, or texts.

If you added this creditor late after filing, they are still subject to the automatic stay but the creditor's systems may not be able to handle late filed notifications.

[justbroke]

I think you're overthinking it; there is no way for them to prove they didn't get it, however, in the end it doesn't matter, you're covered and they're violating the stay.

Repeating this!

They violated the stay (period) and whether that's a "technical" violation or "wilful" violation is the only issue. The did, in fact, violate the stay even if they didn't have notice. I don't think they have any way to show that the violation was only technical.

[Invincible88]

Let your attorney handle this. This is not your job. He will loop you back in if he needs the voicemails, email, postal mail, or texts.

If you added this creditor late after filing, they are still subject to the automatic stay but the creditor's systems may not be able to handle late filed notifications.

Thanks. The creditor was on the initial petition on date of my filing. I went back through my records and they've actually sent me 3 separate letters in the mail, all dated at least two weeks after I filed, plus the email. I'll turn it over to my attorney.