Eleventh Circuit Follows Ninth Circuit in Awarding Appellate Fees for Automatic Stay Violation

by Robins Kaplan LLP

By its recent decision in In re Horne, 876 F.3d 1076 (11th Cir. 2017), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit broadened the scope of attorney’s fees that are recoverable pursuant to section 362(k) of the Bankruptcy Code.  In doing so, the Eleventh Circuit adopted the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation of fee awards under section 362(k) in In re Schwartz-Tallard, 803 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2015).

The Eleventh Circuit’s decision highlights the need for attorneys representing both debtors and creditors to be aware of the broad application of section 362(k)(1), and the possibility that violations of the “automatic stay” may result in awards of substantial attorney’s fees for responding to, and stopping, any stay violation of the “automatic stay” and, additionally, for related proceedings such as appeals.

The Hornes filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2011.  The filing of the Hornes’ bankruptcy triggered an automatic stay of any litigation against them pursuant to section 362(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code.  Despite the automatic stay, however, Mary Mantiply, an attorney, filed a civil action on behalf of her clients against Mr. Horne in Alabama state court.  After being informed of the automatic stay by the Hornes, Ms. Mantiply repeatedly refused to voluntarily dismiss the action she had filed.

The Hornes filed a motion in the bankruptcy court seeking damages for Ms. Mantiply’s violation of the automatic stay.  The bankruptcy court awarded the Hornes $81,714.31 in damages, of which $41,714.31 were attorney’s fees.  Ms. Mantiply appealed that decision to the district court, which affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision and awarded the Hornes an additional $34,551.28 in attorney’s fees incurred in the appeal of the damages award.

Ms. Mantiply then filed motions in the bankruptcy court and district court seeking the bankruptcy judge’s recusal.  After the bankruptcy court denied the motion for recusal, Ms. Mantiply appealed that decision to the district court, which affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision.

Ms. Mantiply then appealed the district court’s affirmance of her denied recusal motion.  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of the recusal motion and remanded the case to district court to determine whether the Hornes were entitled to the attorney’s fees incurred in defending the appeal.  On remand, the district court found that the Hornes were entitled to an additional $14,918.60 in attorney’s fees.

Meanwhile, Ms. Mantiply petitioned for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court to review the Eleventh Circuit’s decision affirming the denial of her recusal motion.  The Supreme Court denied the petition.

The Hornes then filed motions with the Eleventh Circuit for attorney’s fees incurred in defending against Ms. Mantiply’s appeal to the Eleventh Circuit as well as her petition for certiorari.  The Eleventh Circuit sua sponte transferred those motions to the district court to determine whether the Hornes were entitled to their requested attorney’s fees and, if so, whether the fees were reasonable.  The district court held that the Hornes were entitled to the fees requested, and that the fees requested were reasonable.

Ms. Mantiply appealed the district court’s decision to the Eleventh Circuit.

The Decision
The principal issue addressed by the Eleventh Circuit was whether the Hornes were entitled to appellate fees as a matter of law under section 362(k)(1).  While it was undisputed that Ms. Mantiply willfully violated the automatic stay, Ms. Mantiply argued that section 362(k)(1) is limited to recovery of fees in ending a violation of the automatic stay, and not those incurred in pursuing a damages award or in related appellate proceedings.

Ms. Mantiply based her argument on the Supreme Court’s decision in Baker Botts L.L.P. v. ASARCO LLC, 576 U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 2158 (2015), wherein the Supreme Court, in warning other courts not to depart from the American Rule that each side must pay its own attorney’s fees, held that attorney’s fees incurred in defending an award of fees under section 330(a)(1) are not incurred in a service benefitting a bankruptcy estate, and thus fall outside Section 330(a)(1).  Ms. Mantiply argued that, based on ASARCO, courts must read section 362(k) narrowly against the background of the presumption of the American Rule and allow attorney’s fees only when they are incurred in ending the stay violation, and not for any related proceedings.

The Eleventh Circuit rejected Ms. Mantiply’s argument.  The Eleventh Circuit, relying on the Ninth Circuit decision in In re Schwartz-Tallard, 803 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2015), held that the “American Rule” applies only in the absence of explicit statutory authority to shift fees.  The Eleventh Circuit held that section 362(k)(l) specifically shifted fees to the party that violates the stay, reasoning that “nothing in [section 362(k)(1)] suggests that Congress intended to cleave litigation-related fees into two categories, one recoverable by the debtor and one not.”  Id. at 1081.  Instead, the Eleventh Circuit held that phrase “including costs and attorney’s fees” in section 362(k)(1) contains no limitation on the remedy for which the fees were incurred.  Accordingly, neither ASARCO or the “American Rule” did not apply to section 362(k)(1).

Based on the above, the Eleventh Circuit held that section 362(k)(1) permits recovery of attorney’s fees incurred, not just in stopping the stay violation, but in prosecuting a damages action and defending a damages judgment on appeal. The court noted that this result makes sense in context of bankruptcy litigation, because “rather than draining limited funds in the bankruptcy estate and jeopardizing creditors’ recoveries, the party wrongfully violating the automatic stay and causing the resulting damage awards is the one required to shoulder these fees.”

Practical Considerations:
Combined with the Ninth Circuit’s decision in In re Schwartz-Tallard, 803 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2015), the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in In re Horne decision represents a growing trend of courts interpreting attorney’s fees under section 362(k)(1) broadly.  Attorneys representing both debtors and creditors should be aware of the broad interpretation of section 362(k)(1), and the possibility that violations of the automatic stay will include awards of attorney’s fees for stopping the stay violation, and also for related proceedings such as prosecuting a damages action and defending a damages judgment on appeal.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Robins Kaplan LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Robins Kaplan LLP

Robins Kaplan LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.