The only issues were whether the letters were attempts to collect the discharged debt, and, if so, whether they were sufficiently coercive or harassing, to constitute a violation of the discharge injunction. Marix argued that the letters were intended to do nothing more than provide information to the debtors (boy scouts’ honor), an intention made clear by the disclaimer. However, the bankruptcy court found no reason for Marix to provide information to the debtors, who were no longer personally obligated on the note and held no interest in the house. “Marix can point to no language in the Code that permits a party that has no contractual or IN REM relationship to a discharged debtor to send letters asserting such a relationship. Furthermore, while the presence of disclaimer language has operated to mitigate a finding of harassment or coercion in previous cases, it does not do so here. Marix had no reason whatsoever to send these letters to the Collins. In light of the Collins’ discharge, and the actual notice Marix admits of having of it, purposeless letters relating to past debts and obligations constitute harassment proscribed by the discharge injunction,” the court said.

Lawrence Bautista Yang is a graduate of Georgetown University Law Center and has been in law practice for thirty years. He specializes in bankruptcy, business and civil litigation and has handled more than five thousand successful bankruptcy cases in California. He speaks Mandarin and Fujien and looks forward to discussing your case with you personally. Please call (626) 284-1142 for an appointment at 1000 S Fremont Ave Bldg A-1 Suite 1125 Unit 58 Alhambra, CA 91803.