United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 01-9010
IN RE: STEPHEN J. JAMO AND LYNN M. JAMO,
Debtors.
___________________
STEPHEN J. JAMO AND LYNN M. JAMO,
Plaintiffs, Appellees,
v.
KATAHDIN FEDERAL CREDIT UNION,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL
OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
Before
Selya, Circuit Judge,
Stahl, Senior Circuit Judge,
and Lipez, Circuit Judge.
Daniel L. Cummings, with whom Norman, Hanson & DeTroy, LLC
was on brief, for appellant.
George J. Marcus, with whom Lee H. Bals and Marcus, Clegg
& Mistretta, P.A. were on brief, for Maine Credit Union League
and Credit Union National Association, amici curiae.
Richard D. Violette, Jr. for appellees.
March 26, 2002
SELYA, Circuit Judge. This bankruptcy appeal requires
us to decide an issue of first impression at the circuit level:
In a Chapter 7 case, may a lender who is owed both secured and
unsecured debts insist upon reaffirmation of the latter as a
condition to reaffirmation of the former? The bankruptcy court
ruled that such an "all or nothing" negotiating posture amounted
to a per se violation of the automatic stay, Jamo v. Katahdin
Fed. Credit Union, 253 B.R. 115 (Bankr. D. Me. 2000) [Jamo I],
and the bankruptcy appellate panel (the BAP) agreed, Katahdin
Fed. Credit Union v. Jamo, 262 B.R. 159 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 2001)
[Jamo II]. We reverse.
I. BACKGROUND
The critical facts are not in dispute. On March 18,
1999, the debtors, Stephen J. Jamo and Lynn M. Jamo (husband and
wife), initiated proceedings under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy
Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 701-766. On the filing date, they owed
$61,010 to Katahdin Federal Credit Union (the credit union).
This indebtedness was composed of $37,079 owed on a promissory
note secured by a first mortgage on their residence in
Millinocket, Maine; $12,731 owed on unsecured personal loans;
and $11,200 owed on credit cards.
In their bankruptcy petition, the debtors indicated
that they desired to reaffirm the mortgage obligation. When
-2-
their attorney inquired about reaffirmation, the credit union
responded, through counsel, that it would not enter into a
reaffirmation agreement unless the debtors also agreed to
reaffirm their other indebtedness with the credit union. In
taking this position, the credit union cited a "long-standing"
policy that stated in relevant part:
It shall be the policy of [the credit union]
to allow members to reaffirm debts owed to
the credit union. If members have more than
one debt with [the credit union], all debts
must be reaffirmed or re-written (post-
petition). Reaffirmation will not be
granted to members who wish to have some
debts excused (discharged), and to reaffirm
others.
Initially, the debtors' counsel tried to get the credit
union to accept a reaffirmation of the secured indebtedness
alone. When that effort failed, he signaled that the debtors
would consider reaffirming all of their obligations to the
credit union. The credit union then proposed a comprehensive
reaffirmation package that bundled the debtors' outstanding
obligations into two loans (each secured by a home mortgage) and
dramatically reduced the debtors' total monthly payments. The
debtors executed the papers presented by the credit union.
The deal came a cropper when the debtors' counsel
balked. See 11 U.S.C. § 524(c)(3)(A)-(B) (stipulating that, as
a condition precedent to reaffirmation, counsel for a
-3-
represented debtor must certify that the agreement "represents
a fully informed and voluntary agreement by the debtor . . .
[and] does not impose an undue hardship on the debtor"). In
refusing to approve the arrangement, the lawyer singled out the
proposed reaffirmation of the unsecured debts and questioned
whether his clients were "succumbing to the extortion that is
inherently present in the Credit Union's all or nothing approach
to reaffirmation."
The "linked" reaffirmation agreements were filed with
the bankruptcy court. Absent counsel's stamp of approval,
however, the court had no choice but to reject them.1
The debtors promptly notified the credit union that
they remained willing to reaffirm the mortgage, shorn of any
linkage to the unsecured debts. Further negotiations ensued.
The credit union and the debtors reached a second accord, this
time purposing to reaffirm the secured indebtedness on its
original terms and to reaffirm the unsecured debts without
interest. Despite these changes, the debtors' lawyer remained
adamant in his refusal to endorse the arrangement.
1The reaffirmation papers were presented to the bankruptcy
court eighteen days after the court entered a general discharge.
Because this sequencing violated 11 U.S.C. § 524(c)(1), the
debtors moved to vacate the discharge for the limited purpose of
allowing consideration of the reaffirmation agreements. There
being no objection, the bankruptcy court granted the motion.
See 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(10).
-4-
Although the revised agreements lacked the imprimatur
of the debtors' counsel, the debtors filed them with the
bankruptcy court. The debtors then commenced an adversary
proceeding charging the credit union with a violation of the
automatic stay, 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(6), and seeking sanctions.
After some skirmishing (not relevant here), the bankruptcy court
concluded that the credit union's efforts to condition
reaffirmation of the mortgage debt upon the simultaneous
reaffirmation of other (unsecured) debts violated the automatic
stay in two ways. Jamo I, 253 B.R. at 127-30. First, the
credit union's insistence upon linkage constituted an
impermissibly coercive attempt to "strong-arm" the debtors into
reaffirming their separate, unsecured obligations. Id. at 127-
29. Second, the credit union had engaged in prohibited conduct
by threatening to foreclose on the debtors' home. Id. at 129-
30.
Consistent with these conclusions, the court enjoined
the credit union from (1) foreclosing on the mortgage for any
bankruptcy-related reason, (2) calling the mortgage on account
of an asserted payment default for at least one year, (3)
collecting (or attempting to collect) any attorneys' fees or
costs accruing prior to the effective date of the injunction,
(4) conditioning any reaffirmation of the mortgage debt upon the
-5-
debtors' reaffirmation of their unsecured obligations, and (5)
withholding its consent to reaffirmation of the mortgage debt on
the terms specified in the original loan documents. Id. at 130.
Effectively, then, the bankruptcy court overrode the parties'
agreement to reaffirm the unsecured debts and (as a sanction)
compelled reaffirmation of the mortgage debt on its original
terms. To cap matters, the court awarded attorneys' fees and
costs to the debtors. Id. at 130-31.
The credit union appealed, but the BAP affirmed the
judgment. Jamo II, 262 B.R. at 165-68. This further appeal
ensued.
II. THE MERITS
We traverse an analytical path that delineates the
structure of, and the relationship between, two mainstays of the
Bankruptcy Code: reaffirmation and the automatic stay. We turn
then to the question of whether the credit union transgressed
the automatic stay either by conditioning reaffirmation of the
mortgage indebtedness upon the reaffirmation of separate,
unsecured obligations, or by engaging in strong-arm tactics.
A. The Statutory Interface.
To put this case into perspective, it is necessary to
understand how the practice of reaffirmation and the operation
-6-
of the automatic stay implicate bankruptcy practice. We turn to
that task.
1. Reaffirmation. Within thirty days of filing a
bankruptcy petition, a Chapter 7 debtor must serve a statement
of intention with respect to outstanding consumer debts that are
secured by property of the bankrupt estate. 11 U.S.C. §
521(2)(A). The debtor may, of course, surrender the collateral
to the secured creditor. Id. To retain it, however, he must
(a) demonstrate the applicability of a recognized bankruptcy
exemption, (b) pay off the secured creditor in full (thereby
redeeming the collateral), or (c) reaffirm the secured debt.2
Id. The focus here is on reaffirmation.
The reaffirmation option is spelled out in 11 U.S.C.
§ 524(c). We recently explained that section 524(c) requires
reaffirmation agreements to satisfy five general criteria. Such
an agreement must
(i) be executed before the [general]
discharge has been granted;
(ii) be in consideration for a dischargeable
debt, whether or not the debtor waived
discharge of the debt;
2
The case law in this circuit indicates that these three
options are exclusive. Bank of Boston v. Burr (In re Burr), 160
F.3d 843, 847-48 (1st Cir. 1998). That view is contradicted by
other authority. E.g., McClellan Fed. Credit Union v. Parker
(In re Parker), 139 F.3d 668, 673 (9th Cir. 1998). We need not
explore that conflict today.
-7-
(iii) include clear and conspicuous
statements that the debtor may rescind the
reaffirmation agreement at any time prior to
the granting of the general discharge, or
within sixty days after the execution of the
reaffirmation agreement, whichever occurs
later, and that reaffirmation is neither
required by the Bankruptcy Code nor by
nonbankruptcy law;
(iv) be filed with the bankruptcy court; and
(v) be accompanied by an affidavit of the
debtor's attorney attesting that the debtor
was fully advised of the legal consequences
of the reaffirmation agreement, that the
debtor executed the reaffirmation agreement
knowingly and voluntarily, and that the
reaffirmation agreement would not cause the
debtor "undue [e.g., financial] hardship."
Whitehouse v. LaRoche, 277 F.3d 568, 574 (1st Cir. 2002).
There is, however, an overarching requirement. Section
524(c) makes manifest that reaffirmation requires a meeting of
the minds. The statutory text uses the word "agreement" no less
than nineteen separate times, and this pervasive emphasis can
only mean that Congress envisioned reaffirmations as consensual.
In conventional legal parlance the essence of an agreement is
the existence of mutual consent, e.g., Black's Law Dict. 67 (7th
ed. 1999); Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 3 (1981), and the
presumption is "that Congress knew and adopted the widely
accepted legal definitions of meanings associated with the
specific words enshrined in the statute," United States v.
Nason, 269 F.3d 10, 16 (1st Cir. 2001).
-8-
We conclude, therefore, that section 524(c) envisions
reaffirmation agreements as the product of fully voluntary
negotiations by all parties. Whitehouse, 277 F.3d at 575; Bell
v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. (In re Bell), 700 F.2d 1053,
1056 (6th Cir. 1983). Two things follow from this conclusion.
First, both the creditor and the debtor must consent to
reaffirmation. See In re Turner, 156 F.3d 713, 718 (7th Cir.
1998); Home Owners Funding Corp. v. Belanger (In re Belanger),
962 F.2d 345, 348 (4th Cir. 1992); see also 4 Collier on
Bankruptcy ¶ 524.04[1] (15th rev. ed. 2001) ("[T]o be an
enforceable agreement, the reaffirmation agreement must . . . be
one to which both the debtor and creditor agree."). Second,
just as a debtor is not obliged to seek reaffirmation, so too a
creditor retains the right to reject any and all reaffirmation
proposals, for whatever reason. In re Turner, 156 F.3d at 718-
19; Brown v. Pa. State Employees Credit Union (In re Brown), 851
F.2d 81, 85 (3d Cir. 1988); In re Bell, 700 F.2d at 1056.
We add a caveat. Although reaffirmation is consensual
in nature, the myriad safeguards erected by Congress reflect its
recognition that a debtor's decision to enter into a
reaffirmation agreement is likely to be fraught with
consequence. In point of fact, reaffirmation represents the
only vehicle through which an otherwise dischargeable debt can
-9-
survive the successful completion of Chapter 7 proceedings.
Moreover, once a debt is reaffirmed, the creditor can proceed to
enforce its rights as if bankruptcy had not intervened. Because
reaffirmation constitutes a debtor-invoked exception to the
tenet that underpins the bankruptcy system — the "fresh start"
principle — a reaffirming debtor must be afforded some
protection against his own (potentially) short-sighted
decisions.
Section 524(c) reflects Congress's intent to provide
this protection, thereby safeguarding debtors against unsound or
unduly pressured judgments about whether to attempt to repay
dischargeable debts. In re Duke, 79 F.3d 43, 44 (7th Cir.
1996); 4 Collier on Bankruptcy, supra, ¶ 524.04. To cloak
debtors in this protective garb, courts generally have insisted
that reaffirmation agreements strictly comply with the
conditions enumerated in the statute. E.g., Whitehouse, 277
F.3d at 575; DuBois v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 276 F.3d 1019,
1022 (8th Cir. 2002); Bessette v. Avco Fin. Svcs., 230 F.3d 439,
444 (1st Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1048 (2001). By
like token, courts have insisted upon a showing that a
reaffirmation agreement is not the product of abusive creditor
practices. In re Duke, 79 F.3d at 44-45.
-10-
2. The Automatic Stay. The automatic stay is one of
the fundamental protections that the Bankruptcy Code affords to
debtors. As its name suggests, the stay springs into effect
upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition. Sunshine Dev., Inc.
v. FDIC, 33 F.3d 106, 113 (1st Cir. 1994). The stay effectively
suspends all collection efforts (including foreclosures), thus
giving the debtor breathing room. See Soares v. Brockton Credit
Union (In re Soares), 107 F.3d 969, 975 (1st Cir. 1997); see
also 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(6) (prohibiting "any act to collect,
assess, or recover a claim against the debtor that arose before
the commencement of the [bankruptcy proceeding]"). The
automatic stay remains in effect unless and until a federal
court either disposes of the underlying case, 11 U.S.C. §
362(c)(2), or grants relief to a particular creditor, id. §
362(d)-(f).
3. The Interplay. Congress's encouragement to
creditors and debtors alike to move expeditiously to negotiate
reaffirmation agreements is in some tension with the automatic
stay. Although Congress has explicitly excepted a handful of
actions from the purview of the stay, see id. § 362(b)(1)-(18),
this enumeration does not include the negotiation of
reaffirmation agreements. Taken to an extreme, the automatic
stay could be construed to prohibit all post-petition contact
-11-
between creditors and debtors pertaining to dischargeable debts,
including the negotiation of reaffirmation agreements. But the
Bankruptcy Code should be read as a whole, with a view toward
effectuating Congress's discerned intent. MSR Exploration, Ltd.
v. Meridian Oil, Inc., 74 F.3d 910, 914 (9th Cir. 1996). Such
a commonsense approach leads us to reject a reading of the
automatic stay provision that would effectively preclude all
post-petition negotiations anent reaffirmation. To read the
automatic stay provision that expansively would emasculate
section 524(c) and thwart Congress's evinced intent of allowing
parties to reach arm's-length reaffirmation agreements without
undue delay. As the Seventh Circuit astutely observed:
The option of reaffirming would be empty if
creditors were forbidden to engage in any
communication whatsoever with debtors who
have pre-petition obligations. If that were
the rule, it is also hard to see what
purpose the detailed rules governing
enforceability of reaffirmation agreements
contained in § 524(c) would serve.
In re Duke, 79 F.3d at 45.
To be sure, there is a fine line between hard-nosed
negotiations and predatory tactics — and if the automatic stay
is to have any bite, it must forfend against the latter. Courts
have labored long to plot this line. The most sensible rule —
and one that we endorse — is that a creditor may discuss and
negotiate terms for reaffirmation with a debtor without
-12-
violating the automatic stay as long as the creditor refrains
from coercion or harassment. Cox v. Zale Del., Inc., 239 F.3d
910, 912 (7th Cir. 2001); Pertuso v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 233
F.3d 417, 423 (6th Cir. 2000). We believe that this measured
approach gives effect to all parts of the statutory scheme,
affording all parties a reasonable opportunity to consummate
binding reaffirmation agreements while at the same time
shielding debtors from unseemly creditor practices.
Accordingly, we hold that, while the automatic stay is in
effect, a creditor may engage in post-petition negotiations
pertaining to a bankruptcy-related reaffirmation agreement so
long as the creditor does not engage in coercive or harassing
tactics.
B. The Attempt at Linkage.
This brings us to the question of linkage: whether a
creditor's attempt to condition reaffirmation of a secured debt
upon reaffirmation of separate, unsecured debts crosses the line
and should be deemed coercive as a matter of law. Both the
bankruptcy court, Jamo I, 253 B.R. at 127-29, and the BAP, Jamo
II, 262 B.R. at 165-66, answered that question affirmatively.
For purposes of our review, "we focus on the bankruptcy court's
decision, scrutinize that court's findings of fact for clear
error, and afford de novo review to its conclusions of law,"
-13-
without according any special deference to the BAP's
pronouncements. Brandt v. Repco Printers & Litho., Inc. (In re
Healthco Int'l, Inc.), 132 F.3d 104, 107 (1st Cir. 1997).
There are two different ways in which a debtor might
prevail on the linkage issue. The first is if a per se rule
applies, that is, if any and all efforts by creditors to
construct such a tie are deemed inherently coercive (and,
therefore, violative of the automatic stay). The second is
fact-specific; even if an "all or nothing" negotiating posture
is not per se coercive, a creditor still might violate the
automatic stay by articulating or acting upon that policy in an
inappropriate manner during the course of negotiations. We
examine both alternatives.
1. The Per Se Rule. Both lower courts took the
position that a creditor's refusal to reaffirm a secured debt
unless the debtor simultaneously agrees to reaffirm additional,
unsecured debts constitutes a per se violation of the automatic
stay. Jamo II, 262 B.R. at 165-66; Jamo I, 253 B.R. at 127-29.
This is an abstract legal proposition, and, as such, engenders
de novo review. 229 Main St. Ltd. P'ship v. Mass. Dep't of
Envtl. Prot. (In re 229 Main St. Ltd. P'Ship), 262 F.3d 1, 3
(1st Cir. 2001); In re Soares, 107 F.3d at 973.
-14-
To some extent, we write on a pristine page: no
federal court of appeals has spoken to the issue. There is,
however, a smattering of apposite case law. The bankruptcy
courts that have addressed the question mostly reject a per se
rule. See, e.g., In re Brady, 171 B.R. 635, 639-40 (Bankr. N.D.
Ind. 1994); In re Briggs, 143 B.R. 438, 460 (Bankr. E.D. Mich.
1992); Schmidt v. Am. Fletcher Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. (In re
Schmidt), 64 B.R. 226, 228-29 (Bankr. S.D. Ind. 1986); but see
Green v. Nat'l Cash Register Co. CI Corp. Sys. (In re Green), 15
B.R. 75, 78 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1981) (holding that such an
attempt at linkage is inherently coercive and, therefore,
violates the automatic stay).
We too reject a per se rule. When an individual debtor
voluntarily files for bankruptcy, he usually has the option of
proceeding under either Chapter 7 or Chapter 13. Unlike Chapter
7, Chapter 13 contains a "cram down" provision, 11 U.S.C. §
1325(a)(5)(B), which permits a debtor to retain the collateral
underlying a secured obligation without the creditor's approval.
Bank of Boston v. Burr (In re Burr), 160 F.3d 843, 848 (1st Cir.
1998). Even if a debtor belatedly decides that "cramming down"
is in his best interest, a decision to file under Chapter 7
ordinarily is not irrevocable. The Bankruptcy Code, with only
a few exceptions, see 11 U.S.C. § 706(a), allows a debtor who
-15-
initially has filed for Chapter 7 relief to jump midstream to
Chapter 13.
Conversely, a debtor who persists in traveling the
Chapter 7 route knows that reaffirmation depends entirely on his
ability to come to terms with the secured creditor. He also
knows (or, at least, has every reason to expect) that the
creditor may drive a hard bargain. Hence, a debtor must bear
some degree of responsibility for choosing to proceed under
Chapter 7.
Perhaps more important, the Bankruptcy Code does not
outlaw linkage as an element of reaffirmation negotiations. The
absence of such a prohibition makes sense, for a secured
creditor's insistence on linkage does not force a debtor to
reaffirm unsecured obligations. As we have explained,
reaffirmation agreements are consensual, and a debtor always has
the option of walking away from an unattractive proposal.3
Of course, a debtor whose home is at stake is in an
unenviable position. But a Chapter 7 discharge is not a walk in
the park; it is "a benefit that comes with certain costs." In
re Burr, 160 F.3d at 848. Consequently, a Chapter 7 debtor is
3In point of fact, a debtor is the only party empowered to
seek the bankruptcy court's approval of a reaffirmation
agreement. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 4008; see also Whitehouse, 277
F.3d at 571 n.1; 4 Collier on Bankruptcy, supra, ¶ 524.04.
-16-
not inoculated against the necessity for making hard choices.
If the debtor surrenders his home, he is entitled to erase all
his debts (secured and unsecured) and start afresh. If,
however, his paramount interest is in keeping his home and he
cannot redeem the collateral, he must come to terms with the
mortgagee. Bankruptcy, as life itself, is a series of
tradeoffs.
The debtors argue for a per se rule on policy grounds,
but we doubt the prophylactic effects of such a rule.
Creditors, as a class, have a highly developed instinct for
self-protection, and, as the amici point out, such a rule could
open Pandora's jar and produce a distinctly unfavorable climate
for debtors. Creditors might become more reluctant to extend
both secured and unsecured loans to a particular debtor, or
might insist upon cross-collateralization clauses in all loans,
or might categorically decide that foreclosure is a more
judicious option than reaffirmation negotiations restricted to
a single secured debt. Then, too, a creditor intent on
negotiating for a "linked" reaffirmation arrangement simply
could petition for relief from the automatic stay and refuse to
negotiate until such relief had been obtained. This would not
only delay the Chapter 7 proceedings, but also increase the
ultimate cost of reaffirmation to the debtor. For these
-17-
reasons, we find the debtors' policy-based arguments lacking in
force.
That ends this inquiry. Based on the foregoing
analysis, we reject the proposition that a creditor's decision
to withhold reaffirmation of a secured debt unless the debtor
agrees to reaffirm other, unsecured debts amounts to a per se
violation of the automatic stay.
2. The Credit Union's Conduct. Even if a creditor's
attempt to condition reaffirmation of a secured debt upon
reaffirmation of other, unsecured obligations does not
constitute a per se violation of the automatic stay, the
question remains whether the creditor's conduct in a particular
instance amounts to a violation of the automatic stay. While we
review the bankruptcy court's findings of fact for clear error,
Boroff v. Tully (In re Tully), 818 F.2d 106, 108 (1st Cir.
1987), we afford plenary review to the question of whether the
evidence is legally sufficient to support particular findings.
Here, the bankruptcy court calumnized the credit union for
improperly bringing "leverage" to bear on the debtors'
reaffirmation decision and, relatedly, for menacing the debtors
with threats of foreclosure. Jamo I, 253 B.R. at 129-30. To
the extent that these are findings that the credit union engaged
-18-
in impermissibly coercive conduct, they lack adequate record
support. We explain briefly.
The bankruptcy court's condemnation of the credit union
for using its leverage manifests a fundamental misunderstanding
of a creditor's rights vis-à-vis a debtor. In and of itself,
the act of filing a bankruptcy petition negates the original
pre-bankruptcy bargain between debtor and creditor. In re Burr,
160 F.3d at 848 (explaining that Chapter 7 debtors have no right
"to maintain with their secured creditors advantageous
arrangements in place prior to filing"). Thus, subject only to
the constraints imposed by section 524(c) or by other provisions
of the Bankruptcy Code, the parties to a secured obligation are
free to strike a new bargain.
So viewed, the bankruptcy court's condemnation of the
credit union's use of leverage amounts to a variation of its per
se rule — a rule that we already have rejected. See supra Part
II(B)(1). A reaffirmation negotiation — like any other
negotiation — contemplates give and take between the
participants. The fact that one party has a superior bargaining
position does not warrant a court in placing a thumb on the
scales. See In re Burr, 160 F.3d at 848 (recognizing that an
oversecured creditor may attempt to use its "superior bargaining
power" to obtain creditor-favorable terms in negotiating
-19-
reaffirmation agreements without violating the automatic stay);
see also In re Briggs, 143 B.R. at 454 (declaring that it would
be "absurd" to interpret the Bankruptcy Code as prohibiting a
secured creditor from using its leverage in negotiating a
reaffirmation agreement).
That leaves the so-called threats of foreclosure. In
theory, threats of foreclosure or repossession might justify a
finding that a secured creditor has violated the automatic stay.
See In re Duke, 79 F.3d at 44-45; see also In re Brown, 851 F.2d
at 86 (noting that the automatic stay continues to preclude
creditor communications that "threat[en] immediate action by
creditors, such as a foreclosure or a lawsuit"). The facts of
this case, however, do not support such a finding.
The bankruptcy court focused on written, rather than
oral, communications. In corresponding with the debtors (or,
more precisely, with the debtors' counsel), the credit union
sent a total of nine separate reaffirmation-related letters. In
those letters, it referred three times to foreclosure. The
question, then, is whether these references, read favorably to
the bankruptcy court's finding, plausibly can be deemed
coercive. We think not.
The first mention of foreclosure came in a response to
the debtors' initial request for reaffirmation of the mortgage
-20-
indebtedness. After outlining the credit union's "all or
nothing" policy, its lawyer asked the debtors' counsel to
ascertain whether the debtors "will be discharging all their
obligations," and if so, whether "they would be amenable to a
deed in lieu of foreclosure."
The second foreclosure reference transpired after the
bankruptcy court rejected the initial reaffirmation proposal.
At that point, the debtors' attorney declared that his clients
were willing to reaffirm the mortgage indebtedness (but no other
obligations) and vowed "to fully litigate any foreclosure
action" instituted by the credit union. Responding to this vow,
the credit union's counsel wrote that:
[I]t was the Credit Union's desire that the
Parties could have arrived at a mutually
agreeable resolution. As foreclosing was
not on the Credit Union's agenda, it would
be premature to extensively respond to your
assertions . . . . Should the Credit Union
eventually foreclose, however, the terms of
the Jamos' note and mortgage are that the
Jamos are liable for the Credit Union's
costs and fees of enforcing the obligation,
and therefore, should the Credit Union
prevail, the amount due increases rapidly as
a result of all this litigation. Of course,
the Jamos are not personally exposed to this
liability, but such sums are secured by the
mortgage.
The third reference came in a letter to the debtors
that limned the terms of the second reaffirmation proposal. In
that epistle, the credit union's lawyer expressed his belief
-21-
that the contemplated overall reduction in payments would
"eliminat[e] the risks of future litigation, including
foreclosure."
These references were unarguably benign. The first
letter merely inquired whether the debtors, if they decided to
discharge all their debts (including the mortgage indebtedness),
would be willing to deliver a deed to the credit union in lieu
of foreclosure. The next letter was nothing more than a
temperate response to statements made by the debtors' counsel.
Far from hanging the Damoclean sword of foreclosure over the
debtors' heads, the credit union accurately delineated the
debtors' foreclosure-related liability and made clear that
foreclosure "was not on [its] agenda." The final reference to
foreclosure was likewise innocuous; in context, it cannot
reasonably be deemed tantamount to a threat.
To say more on this point would be supererogatory.
Because the credit union's passing references to foreclosure
cannot reasonably be construed as threatening "immediate action"
against the debtors, In re Brown, 851 F.2d at 86, those
references were not impermissibly coercive. Accordingly, the
credit union did not violate the automatic stay.
III. THE REMEDY
-22-
The question of remedy remains. Although the
bankruptcy court erred in finding a violation of the automatic
stay, its disapproval of the linked reaffirmation agreements is
supportable on an independent ground. The critical datum is
that the debtors' attorney, believing that reaffirmation on the
agreed terms was not in the debtors' best interest, refused to
approve the arrangement. Absent counsel's approbation, no valid
reaffirmation could occur.4 11 U.S.C. § 524(c)(3); Whitehouse,
277 F.3d at 575 (explaining that a represented debtor must
strictly comport with section 524(c) criteria to effect a valid
reaffirmation).
The bankruptcy court's granting of injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees, and costs against the credit union is less
easily defended. We review a bankruptcy court's imposition of
sanctions for abuse of discretion. Schwartz v. Kujawa (In re
Kujawa), 270 F.3d 578, 581 (8th Cir. 2001). Here, however, both
the injunctive relief and the assessment of fees and costs rest
4 There is an interesting question as to whether section 524
requires bankruptcy court approval of a reaffirmation agreement
if the debtor's counsel has approved it. See Rein v. Providian
Fin. Corp., 270 F.3d 895, 901 n.9 (9th Cir. 2001) (discussing
this point); see also BankBoston, N.A. v. Nanton, 239 B.R. 419,
423-25 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1999) (asserting that the bankruptcy
court retains the authority to approve or disapprove
reaffirmation agreements involving a represented debtor,
notwithstanding approval by the debtor's counsel). We have no
occasion to reach that question here.
-23-
squarely on the court's erroneous determination that the credit
union violated the automatic stay. Thus, these aspects of the
court's order cannot endure. See Sunshine Dev., 33 F.3d at 117
(dissolving injunction that erroneously restrained FDIC from
exercising its lawful powers); see also In re Grand Jury
Subpoena, 138 F.3d 442, 444 (1st Cir. 1998) (explaining that "a
court that predicates a discretionary ruling on an erroneous
view of the law inevitably abuses its discretion").
In an attempt to keep the remedial order intact, the
debtors rely upon 11 U.S.C. § 105(a). Their reliance is
mislaid.
Section 105(a) — a statute that empowers bankruptcy courts to
"issue any order, process, or judgment that is necessary or
appropriate" to effectuate the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code
— supplies a source of authority for the bankruptcy court's
imposition of sanctions in an appropriate case. See Bessette,
230 F.3d at 445; Hardy v. United States ex rel. IRS (In re
Hardy), 97 F.3d 1384, 1389-90 (11th Cir. 1996). But section
105(a) does not provide bankruptcy courts with a roving writ,
much less a free hand. The authority bestowed thereunder may be
invoked only if, and to the extent that, the equitable remedy
dispensed by the court is necessary to preserve an identifiable
right conferred elsewhere in the Bankruptcy Code. See Norwest
-24-
Bank Worthington v. Ahlers, 485 U.S. 197, 206 (1988) (explaining
that a bankruptcy court's equitable powers "can only be
exercised within the confines of the Bankruptcy Code"); Noonan
v. Sec'y of HHS (In re Ludlow Hosp. Soc'y, Inc.), 124 F.3d 22,
27 (1st Cir. 1997) (similar).
The relief ordered below falls short of this benchmark.
The bankruptcy court's order was designed to implement the
reaffirmation option limned in section 524(c). As said, see
supra Part II(B), the order failed in this endeavor: forced to
operate without much precedential guidance, the court
misapprehended the interplay between section 524(c) and section
362(a), mischaracterized lawful conduct as impermissibly
coercive, and issued a flawed order. Absent any antecedent
violation either of the automatic stay or of some other
independent provision of the Bankruptcy Code, the bankruptcy
court lacked the power, section 105(a) notwithstanding, to
modify the proposed reaffirmation arrangement, compel the credit
union to enter into a judicially-crafted reaffirmation
agreement, or award monetary sanctions in the form of attorneys'
fees and costs.
IV. CONCLUSION
We need go no further. We neither underestimate the
difficulty of the question presented nor disparage the lower
-25-
courts' thoughtful attempts to resolve it. In the end, however,
we see the matter differently. Consequently, we reverse the
decision of the BAP and remand the case to that tribunal with
directions to vacate the bankruptcy court's judgment and to
remand the matter to the bankruptcy court for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed.
-26-