Taggart v. Lorenzen
Taggart v. Lorenzen, 587 U.S. 554 (2019)
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Decided
- 2019-06-03
- Docket
- 18-489
What happened
After Mr. Taggart's debts were discharged, creditors pursued him for attorney's fees. The lower courts said creditors acting in good faith could not be held in contempt.
What the court decided
The Supreme Court rejected the good-faith standard and held a court may hold a creditor in civil contempt for violating a discharge order when there is no fair ground of doubt that the order barred the conduct. It sent the case back.
In the court's words
“no fair ground of doubt as to whether the order barred the creditor’s conduct”
Why it may matter to you
A discharge is a court order. A creditor that keeps collecting a clearly discharged debt can face sanctions.
Why it might not apply
The standard is objective and not easy; genuinely unclear situations may not qualify.
Most useful when
- A creditor tried to collect a debt after it was discharged in bankruptcy
How to cite it
The full citation for the first time you mention it, a short form for later, and a sample sentence you can adapt.
Taggart v. Lorenzen, 587 U.S. 554 (2019)Short formTaggart, 587 U.S. 554Draft — check it with free legal aid before you file or say it in court.
In Taggart v. Lorenzen, 587 U.S. 554 (2019), the court held that a creditor may be held in civil contempt for violating a bankruptcy discharge order when there is no fair ground of doubt that the order barred its conduct. Here, [say in one sentence what happened in your case]
Ask Techy about this case
Techy explains the case in plain words, why it may matter to you, its limits, and how to prepare. It only uses this case record.
Related cases
- Homeowner lostBinding
City of Chicago v. Fulton
592 U.S. 154 · Decided 2021
Chicago impounded cars for unpaid fines. After the owners filed Chapter 13, the city kept the cars, and the owners said that violated the automatic stay.
Read the case - Homeowner wonBinding in federal court
Young v. Repine (In re Repine)
536 F.3d 512 · Decided 2008
After Mr. Repine filed bankruptcy, a lawyer kept pursuing collection against him in state court. The bankruptcy court found a willful stay violation and awarded damages and fees.
Read the case - Homeowner wonBinding
Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich, L.P.A.
559 U.S. 573 · Decided 2010
A law firm filed a foreclosure against Ms. Jerman and sent a notice saying she had to dispute the debt in writing. She sued, and the firm said its mistake was an honest legal error.
Read the case