In re Woodside

4 Citing cases

  1. In re Valle

    456 B.R. 228 (Bankr. D. Md. 2011)

    Was this the continuation of the prosecution of the parking violations, and therefore a continuation of the criminal process, or, as described in Williams v. Motley, 925 F.2d 741, 744-45 (CA4 1991), a service fee to defer administrative costs? The court finds that this action fits into the former category. There is authority for the proposition that collection of criminal fines is subject to the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) found in cases such as Woodside v. County of Williamson, Ill., 161 B.R. 969, 970 (B.C. S.D. Ill. 1994), where the court held that a fine imposed against the debtor at the time of bankruptcy is a money judgment and, in seeking to collect this judgment, Williamson County violated the stay provision of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(2) that forbids the enforcement against the debtor of a judgment obtained before the commencement of the case. See also In re Landstrom Distribs., Inc., 55 B.R. 390, 392 (BC C.D. Cal. 1985) ("This court is of the view that Congress would not have used the all-inclusive language quoted above if it had intended the collection of criminal fines to continue notwithstanding the automatic stay.").

  2. In re Valle

    456 B.R. 228 (Bankr. D. Md. 2011)

    The court finds that this action fits into the former category. There is authority for the proposition that collection of criminal fines is subject to the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) found in cases such as Woodside v. County of Williamson, Ill., 161 B.R. 969, 970 (B.C.S.D.Ill.1994), where the court held that a fine imposed against the debtor at the time of bankruptcy is a money judgment and, in seeking to collect this judgment, Williamson County violated the stay provision of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(2) that forbids the enforcement against the debtor of a judgment obtained before the commencement of the case. See also In re Landstrom Distribs., Inc., 55 B.R. 390, 392 (BC C.D. Cal.1985) (“This court is of the view that Congress would not have used the all-inclusive language quoted above if it had intended the collection of criminal fines to continue notwithstanding the automatic stay.”).

  3. Valle v. Montgomery County

    Case No. 10-27198PM (Bankr. D. Md. Jun. 16, 2011)

    The court finds that this action fits into the former category. There is authority for the proposition that collection of criminal fines is subject to the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) found in cases such as Woodside v. County of Williamson, Ill., 161 B.R. 969, 970 (B.C. S.D. Ill. 1994), where the court held that a fine imposed against the debtor at the time of bankruptcy is a money judgment and, in seeking to collect this judgment, Williamson County violated the stay provision of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(2) that forbids the enforcement against the debtor of a judgment obtained before the commencement of the case. See also In re Landstrom Distribs., Inc., 55 B.R. 390, 392 (BC C.D. Cal. 1985) ("This court is of the view that Congress would not have used the all-inclusive language quoted above if it had intended the collection of criminal fines to continue notwithstanding the automatic stay.").

  4. In re Howes

    246 B.R. 280 (Bankr. W.D. Ky. 2000)   Cited 10 times
    Holding that once the bankruptcy discharge was entered, a permanent injunction replaced the automatic stay and prevented any creditors from collecting on the discharged debt

    1983); In re Martin, 162 B.R. 710, 715 (Bankr.C.D.Ill.1993); In re Woodside, 161 B.R. 969, 970 (Bankr.S.D.Ill.1994); In re Walker, 151 B.R. 1006, 1008 (Bankr.E.D.Ark.1993). Once a discharge is entered, "the permanent injunction of § 524 replaces the automatic stay of § 362 and prevents creditors from ever collecting a discharged debt."