18 B 11700

14 B 34232
Chapter 7 trustee objected to creditor’s proof of claim, asking the court to reclassify it from secured to unsecured and to reduce the amount.  Held: (1) an objection to claim was the proper procedural posture to resolve the matter; (2) due to the debtor’s delays, a state court citation proceeding did not expire prepetition, thus the creditor had a citation lien on the petition date; (3) nevertheless, the creditor waived its secured claim by its actions in the bankruptcy case; and (4) since the creditor was a landlord whose claim resulted from lease termination, 11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(6) capped its claim.

08bk10095
Upon the vacation, in part, and remand by the District Court of this court’s order granting a motion seeking enforcement of this court’s confirmation order and damages arising from the alleged violation committed by the debtors’ prepetition surety, filed by successor to the purchaser of assets in the above-captioned bankruptcy cases, the District Court having confirmed that this court’s determination that the surety violated the injunction and release set forth in the court’s confirmation order and the debtors’ plan, but remanding for a determination of whether damages are appropriate under the standard set forth by the Supreme Court in the since determined Taggart v. Lorenzen, 139 S. Ct. 1795 (2019), held: The evidence presented by the parties and undisturbed on appeal demonstrates that the surety’s actions were “persistent violations” and “persistent contumacy” of this court’s orders, shifting the burden to the surety to demonstrate that the surety’s belief that its pursuit of the purchaser was lawful is objectively reasonable. The surety has failed to demonstrate such. A finding of civil contempt is appropriate under Taggart and that the previously awarded actual damages for reduced property value, legal costs, consulting costs and project management costs remain supported. The motion remains GRANTED and this decision concludes the issues on remand.