Bugg v. Gray, No. 14-6027 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseWhen debtor filed for bankruptcy, he was living in rental property owned by creditors. Creditors violated an automatic stay and evicted debtor. On appeal, creditors challenged the bankruptcy court's finding that they had willfully violated the automatic stay, and bankruptcy court's award of actual and punitive damages. The court concluded that creditors waived any right they may have had under 11 U.S.C. 362(e); creditors are barred from judicial estoppel from claiming that the stay had expired under section 362(e); the bankruptcy court's findings that creditors willfully violated the automatic stay and of actual damages are not clearly erroneous; but the bankruptcy court abused its discretion in awarding punitive damages where the bankruptcy court did not make specific findings of fact as to motive and egregious conduct in violating the stay and a creditor's failure to appear at trial does not satisfy the Eighth Circuit test of egregious, intentional, misconduct. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Court Description: Bankruptcy Appellate Panel - automatic stay. Creditors' eviction and disposition of debtor's property violated the automatic stay. Bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to hear claim relating to violation of the stay. Creditors did not object to continuances and their actions were inconsistent with intent to insist on time constraints of section 362(e) and, having failed to do so, they have waived their rights. Creditors are barred by judicial estoppel from claiming the stay expired under section 362(e). Bankruptcy court did not clearly err in finding that creditors had knowledge of the bankruptcy petition and acted deliberately and that they willfully violated the automatic stay. Bankruptcy court's findings as to actual damages were not clearly erroneous. The court did not make specific findings as to the motive or egregious conduct in violating the stay and the creditor's failure to appear at the trial does not satisfy that standard for punitive damages. Thus, the bankruptcy court abused its discretion in awarding punitive damages. [ November 20, 2014
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.