Bankr. No.:
98-10118
Adv. No.:
98-1015
Chapter:
7
Date of Decision:
December 4, 1998
Issue:
Whether Debtors were entitled to actual damages or punitive damages arising from Defendant's violation of the automatic stay?
Ruling:
Evidence showed Defendant-water softening company violated the automatic stay when it continued a small claims action post-petition and when its principal confronted one debtor at his place of employment. However, Debtors did not establish any actual damages from these violations. Further, Debtors were not entitled to punitive damages because no egregious conduct on Defendant's part was established.
Full Bankruptcy Court Decision:
