The case law provides for the recovery by the debtor of actual damages, including costs and attorney fees, as well as punitive damages for willful violations of the stay. See In re Bloom, 875 F.2d 224 (9th Cir. 1989); In re Atlantic Business Community Corp., 901 F.2d 325 (3rd Cir. 1990); In re Barney's Boats of Chicago, Inc., 616 F.2d 164 (5th Cir. 1980); In re La Tempa, 58 B.R. 538 (Bankr.W.D.Va. 1986); In re AM Internat'l, Inc., 53 B.R. 744 (Bankr.M.D.Tenn. 1985).
A violation of the automatic stay will not support a finding of contempt and/or damages and fees, in all cases. In re Aponte, 82 B.R. 738 (Bankr.E.D.Pa. 1988); In re Whitt, 79 B.R. 611 (Bankr.E.D.Pa. 1987); In re Wagner, 74 B.R. 898 (Bankr.E.D.Pa. 1987); In re La Tempa, 58 B.R. 538 (Bankr.W.D.Va. 1986); In re Mack, 46 B.R. 652 (Bankr.E.D.Pa. 1985). Sanctions for contempt are inappropriate under the Bankruptcy Code where a mere technical violation of the stay has occurred or where the litigant has acted in good faith.
See, e.g., In re Advent Corp., 24 B.R. 612, 614 (1st Cir. BAP 1982); LaTempa v. Long (In re LaTempa), 58 B.R. 538, 540 (Bankr.W.D.Va. 1986). The chief benefit to a creditor of lack of notice of the automatic stay is that it provides a defense to a claim under section 362(h) for damages, including punitive damages, and for costs and attorneys fees.
See, e.g., In re Advent Corp., 24 B.R. 612, 614 (1st Cir. BAP 1982); LaTempa v. Long (In re LaTempa), 58 B.R. 538, 540 (Bankr.W.D.Va.1986). The chief benefit to a creditor of lack of notice of the automatic stay is that it provides a defense to a claim under section 362(h) for damages, including punitive damages, and for costs and attorneys fees.