DE JESUS RIVERA et al v. GE CAPITAL CORP OF PR

1
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
In re: 	:
:
WILFREDO DE JESUS RIVERA 	: 	Case No. 00-00801(GAC)
SONIA M. HERNANDEZ MELENDEZ, 	:
:
Debtors 	: 	Chapter 13
___________________________________:
:
WILFREDO DE JESUS RIVERA 	:
SONIA M. HERNANDEZ MELENDEZ, 	:
:
Plaintiffs 	:
:
v. 	: 	Adv. No. 04-00165
:
GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL CORP. 	:
OF Puerto Rico, 	:
:
Defendant 	:
___________________________________:
DECISION AND ORDER
In the present case, an evidentiary hearing was held on June
9, 2006, to determine the damages suffered by the debtors, Wilfredo
De 	Jesus 	Rivera 	(“De 	Jesus”) 	and 	Sonia 	M. 	Hernandez 	Melendez
(“Hernandez”) (collectively “debtors”), for the wilfull violation
of 	the 	discharge 	injunction 	by 	General 	Electric 	Capital 	Corp. 	of
P.R. 	(“GEC”), 	as 	per 	Decision 	and 	Order 	entered 	on 	February 	24,
2006 (Docket #31).
I. Procedural History
The debtors filed a petition under Chapter 13 on January 28,
2000. The debtors scheduled GEC as a secured creditor in the amount
of 	$35,002.00, 	with 	a 	conditional 	sales 	contract 	over 	a 	1997
Case:04-00165-BKT Doc#:61 Filed:11/20/07 Entered:11/21/07 11:52:37 Desc: Main
Document Page 1 of 16

2
Peterbuilt 	truck. 	GEC 	filed 	an 	amended 	proof 	of 	claim 	on 	May 	15,
2000, 	seeking 	the 	amount 	of 	$33,411.00. 	GEC 	did 	not 	include
interest in its claim.
The debtors’ amended plan provided for payments of $1,550.00
for thirty-six months, for a base of $55,800.00 (Docket #23, legal
case). The debtors proposed to have the trustee pay GEC’s secured
claim in full. Debtors also proposed to provide GEC with insurance
directly 	as 	of 	December 	2001. 	No 	objections 	were 	filed. 	The 	plan
was confirmed on August 4, 2000.
Prior to obtaining confirmation of their amended plan, on May
12, 	2000, 	GEC 	filed 	a 	motion 	for 	relief 	from 	the 	automatic 	stay
under 	11 	U.S.C. 	§ 	362 	(Docket 	#14A, 	legal 	case). 	Thereafter, 	the
parties filed a stipulation (Docket #28, legal case), in which the
debtors 	provided 	adequate 	protection 	for 	GEC’s 	secured 	claim 	by
maintaining 	current 	payments 	under 	the 	plan. 	The 	debtors 	were
required 	to 	maintain 	the 	collateral 	fully 	insured 	and 	in 	good
condition and to “otherwise, fully comply with debtor’s obligations
and 	responsibilities 	under 	the 	conditional 	sale 	contract.” 	The
stipulation further provided that “GEC will maintain its lien until
payment 	in 	full 	of 	the 	stipulated 	payment” 	and 	that 	“secured
creditor will be paid in full within the due date of the contract.”
The Court entered an order approving the stipulation on August 4,
2000, the same date that the debtors’ amended plan was confirmed.
On 	September 	17, 	2003, 	the 	trustee 	filed 	a 	notice 	of 	plan
completion 	(Docket 	#34, 	legal 	case). 	The 	debtors 	received 	their
Case:04-00165-BKT Doc#:61 Filed:11/20/07 Entered:11/21/07 11:52:37 Desc: Main
Document Page 2 of 16

3
discharge 	on 	December 	29, 	2003 	(Docket 	#35, 	legal 	case).
Thereafter, the trustee filed his final report and account, which
showed that GEC received $33,411.00 (Docket #39, legal case). The
trustee gave notice to creditors and parties in interest that they
had thirty days to file objections. No objections were filed.
On 	July 	13, 	2004, 	the 	debtors 	filed 	the 	present 	adversary
proceeding, seeking damages for violation of the automatic stay and
violation of the discharge injunction (Docket #1). The debtors also
seek transfer of title to the vehicle in which GEC had a security
interest. 	The 	debtors 	allege 	that 	since 	the 	discharge, 	they
approached 	GEC 	on 	several 	occasions 	to 	have 	title 	to 	the 	vehicle
transferred to the debtors and GEC refused. The debtors also state
that 	GEC 	retained 	a 	check 	destined 	to 	the 	debtors 	for 	vehicle
repairs. The debtors request damages based on these acts.
GEC filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and a request for
summary judgment, asserting that pursuant to the conditional sales
contract, the debtors still owe $3,897.27 for unpaid late charges
and 	interest 	because 	its 	lien 	survived 	the 	bankruptcy 	discharge
(Docket 	#15). 	The 	debtors 	filed 	an 	answer 	and 	a 	cross-motion 	for
summary 	judgment, 	arguing 	that 	GEC 	is 	not 	entitled 	to 	interest
outside of the plan because GEC agreed to its treatment under the
plan, by failing to object confirmation (Docket #17).
On February 24, 2006, the Court entered a Decision and Order
granting 	the 	debtor’s 	motion 	requesting 	partial 	summary 	judgment
(Docket #31). The Court further ordered that GEC had to immediately
Case:04-00165-BKT Doc#:61 Filed:11/20/07 Entered:11/21/07 11:52:37 Desc: Main
Document Page 3 of 16

4
deliver the title to the Peterbuilt truck to the debtors and that
it should immediately refund to the debtors any insurance proceeds
received, related to post discharge vehicle repairs. Finally, the
Court 	scheduled 	an 	evidentiary 	hearing 	for 	June 	9, 	2006, 	to
determine the damages suffered by debtors.
At the evidentiary hearing the parties presented the testimony
of 	De 	Jesus, 	Hernandez 	and 	the 	psychiatrist 	Dr. 	Katherine 	Sanz
(“Dr. Sanz”) for the plaintiffs. No witnesses was presented for the
defendant. 	The 	parties 	introduced 	two 	exhibits 	each. 	After 	the
evidence was presented and the documentary evidence admitted, the
Court requested memorandums of law and the matter was taken under
advisement. 	On 	August 	15, 	2006, 	GEC 	filed 	the 	memorandum 	of 	law
(Dockets 	#50 	and 	#60) 	and 	on 	October 	5, 	2006, 	the 	debtors 	filed
their memorandum of law (Docket #55).
II. Evidence and arguments presented by the parties
A. Debtors
The 	debtors 	introduced 	two 	exhibits: 	the 	certificate 	of 	the
title of the Peterbuilt truck (Exhibit 1) and a check in the amount
of $1,166.00, paid to the order of De Jesus and GE (Exhibit 2). De
Jesus 	testified 	that 	he 	has 	been 	a 	trucker 	for 	forty 	years
(Transcript 	page 	28, 	line 	11), 	that 	he 	is 	a 	partner 	of 	the
Cooperativa de Camioneros (Transcript page 37 line 16) and that he
is 	the 	owner 	of 	two 	trucks, 	the 	Peterbuilt 	1997 	and 	a 	Kensworth
2005, purchased in 2004 (Transcript page 43 line 15). De Jesus and
Case:04-00165-BKT Doc#:61 Filed:11/20/07 Entered:11/21/07 11:52:37 Desc: Main
Document Page 4 of 16

5
Hernandez 	have 	been 	married 	for 	thirty 	years 	(Transcript 	page 	89
line 1).
As to the debtors’ economic loss, De Jesus testified that he
went 	to 	GEC’s 	office 	four 	times 	to 	have 	the 	title 	transferred 	to
him free of the lien (Transcript page 49 line 8). He also testified
that 	he 	could 	not 	use 	the 	truck 	because 	the 	Public 	Service
Commission 	did 	not 	give 	him 	the 	authorization 	due 	to 	GEC’s 	lien
(Transcript 	page 	46 	line 	25 	and 	page 	74 	line 	1-3); 	that 	he 	could
not 	sell 	the 	truck 	because 	the 	title 	of 	the 	truck 	had 	GEC’s 	lien
(Transcript 	page 	86 	line 	25 	and 	page 	87 	line 	1); 	that 	he 	had 	a
potential buyer that was willing to pay $70,000.00 in the year 2004
(Transcript 	page 	53 	line 	24 	and 	page 	82 	line 	25), 	but 	that 	the
truck 	has 	depreciated 	and 	he 	believes 	the 	same 	is 	now 	worth
$45,000.00 	(Transcript 	page 	61 	lines 	13-14). 	De 	Jesus 	also
testified that he could not use the truck as a trade-in and that he
wanted 	to 	use 	the 	remainder 	of 	the 	sale’s 	price 	for 	home
improvements 	and 	his 	childrens’ 	education 	(Transcript 	page 	54,
lines 2-12).
As to the debtors’ emotional damages, De Jesus testified that
having 	the 	truck 	parked 	in 	his 	house 	made 	him 	very 	angry
(Transcript 	page 	49 	line 	4), 	he 	felt 	harassed 	when 	GEC 	did 	not
cancel 	the 	lien 	(Transcript 	page 	49 	line 	5), 	he 	felt 	that 	the
petition for bankruptcy had been in vain (Transcript page 51 lines
8-11) 	and 	that 	he 	had 	to 	take 	medication 	for 	his 	emotional
condition, involving 	Zolof, Transen and Cozar (Transcript page 57
Case:04-00165-BKT Doc#:61 Filed:11/20/07 Entered:11/21/07 11:52:37 Desc: Main
Document Page 5 of 16

6
line 	17). 	Hernandez 	also 	testified 	that 	she 	had 	found 	De 	Jesus
crying in the dark several times (Transcript page 93 lines 21-25),
that 	he 	did 	not 	want 	to 	go 	out 	(Transcript 	page 	94 	lines 	22-25),
that De Jesus’ problems affected his relationship with his children
(Transcript 	page 	96 	lines 	2-5) 	and 	that 	before 	they 	filed 	the
bankruptcy she had never seen De Jesus so worried about the debts
(Transcript page 103 line 22). She also testified that she wanted
to sell the truck to do home repairs and buy a new car (Transcript
page 	98 	lines 	5-6), 	that 	she 	thought 	that 	filing 	the 	bankruptcy
petition 	was 	not 	worth 	the 	trouble 	(Transcript 	page 	98 	lines 	16-
18), 	she 	became 	restless 	and 	sad 	because 	of 	the 	situation
(Transcript 	page 	99 	lines 	1)and 	that 	she 	felt 	se 	was 	between 	“a
wall and a sword” (Transcript page 103 line 22).
Finally, 	Dr. 	Sanz 	testified 	that 	the 	fist 	time 	the 	debtors
sought this help in October of 2002 (Transcript page 114 line 6),
that 	De 	Jesus 	went 	because 	he 	felt 	depressed 	and 	anxious
(Transcript 	page 	114 	line 	11) 	and 	that 	Hernandez 	had 	symptoms 	of
depression (Transcript page 114 line 14). Dr. Sanz testified that
De 	Jesus 	exhibited 	symptoms 	of 	depression 	such 	as 	sadness, 	no
desire to do anything, poor concentration and insomnia (Transcript
page 117 lines 15-18) and that his top concerns had to do with his
job (Transcript page 117 lines 22-23). Dr. Sanz also testified that
the original dose for his medication was 25 ml of Zolof and 2.7 of
Transen 	but, 	then 	she 	had 	to 	change 	his 	medication 	after 	2004
because his condition worsened, to 100 ml of Zolof and from 2.75ml
Case:04-00165-BKT Doc#:61 Filed:11/20/07 Entered:11/21/07 11:52:37 Desc: Main
Document Page 6 of 16

7
to 	7.50ml 	Transen 	(Transcript 	page 	118 	lines 	11-16 	and 	page 	126
lines 8-9). Dr. Sanz testified that De Jesus had symptoms such as
restlessness, 	head 	pain 	and 	chest 	pain, 	many 	worries, 	insomnia,
depressive 	symptoms 	but, 	to 	another 	degree 	(Transcript 	page 	125
lines 	22-25 	and 	page 	126 	lines 	1-3). 	Finally, 	she 	testified 	that
Hernandez 	stayed 	with 	the 	same 	prescription 	throughout 	her
treatment and that both had improved (Transcript page 116 line 21).
The debtors seek $50,000.00 in damages, attorney’s fees, costs
and punitive damages.
B. GEC
GEC introduced two exhibits: a list of cars in debtors’ name
(Exhibit 	A) 	and 	debtors’ 	“Schedule 	B” 	(Exhibit 	B). 	GEC 	argued 	at
the hearing that De Jesus bought a new truck ten days before filing
the present adversary proceeding. Therefore it contends, that the
debtors’ allegations regarding economic preclusion as to buying a
new 	truck 	are 	false 	and 	should 	be 	stricken 	from 	the 	complaint.
Secondly, GEC contends that mental and emotional damages were not
pleaded 	in 	the 	complaint 	thus, 	the 	Court 	should 	not 	admit 	the
evidence 	presented 	regarding 	debtors’ 	emotional 	damages. 	GEC
contends 	that 	the 	debtors 	could 	have 	sold 	the 	truck 	and 	paid
$3,800.00 	to 	GEC 	to 	cancel 	the 	lien 	and 	then, 	file 	the 	present
adversary 	case 	to 	recover 	the 	money. 	GEC 	argues 	that 	this 	would
have minimized the damages. GEC concludes that the debtors did not
suffer any real or economic damage and that if no economic loss is
suffered, 	then 	the 	debtors 	are 	not 	entitled 	to 	an 	award 	of
emotional damages.
Case:04-00165-BKT Doc#:61 Filed:11/20/07 Entered:11/21/07 11:52:37 Desc: Main
Document Page 7 of 16

8
III. Discussion
There 	are 	two 	matters 	pending 	before 	the 	Court, 	the 	first
matter 	is 	the 	two 	issues 	presented 	by 	GEC 	contending 	that 	the
debtors were precluded from presenting evidence regarding damages
because they were not raised in the complaint, and that debtors are
not 	entitled 	to 	emotional 	damages 	because 	they 	did 	not 	prove
economic loss. Finally, the second matter is the determination of
whether the debtors proved damages and if they are entitled to an
award.
A. The discharge injunction
The 	Chapter 	13 	discharge 	operates 	to 	discharge 	the 	debtors
from 	all 	debts 	provided 	by 	the 	plan. 	11 	U.S.C. 	§ 	1328(a). 	It
continues to operate “as an injunction against the commencement or
continuation of an action, the employment of process, or an act, to
collect, recover or offset any such debt as a personal liability of
the debtor.” 11 U.S.C. §524(a)(2). The bankruptcy court can invoke
§ 105(a) to enforce the discharge injunction of § 524(a). Bessette
v. Avco Fin. Servs., Inc., 230 F.3d 439, 445 (1st Cir. 2000). For
violation 	of 	the 	injunction, 	the 	court 	may 	award 	damages,
attorney’s fees, and where appropriate, punitive damages. Id.
In the present case, the first matter is the issue presented
by GEC contending that the debtors were precluded from presenting
evidence 	regarding 	damages 	because 	they 	were 	not 	plead 	in 	the
complaint. As per Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7008, when
a 	claim 	for 	relief 	is 	made, 	it 	shall 	contain: 	(1) 	the 	basis 	of
Case:04-00165-BKT Doc#:61 Filed:11/20/07 Entered:11/21/07 11:52:37 Desc: Main
Document Page 8 of 16

9
jurisdiction 	if 	the 	court 	does 	not 	have 	it 	already, 	(2) 	“a 	short
and 	plain 	statement 	of 	the 	claim 	showing 	that 	the 	pleader 	is
entitled 	to 	relief” 	and 	(3) 	a 	demand 	for 	judgment 	for 	the 	relief
the plaintiff seeks. 	Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7008(a). If, on the other
hand, 	the 	debtors 	were 	asking 	for 	special 	damages, 	then 	as 	per
Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7009, the debtors should have
plead them specifically.
In 	the 	instant 	case, 	economic 	loss 	is 	one 	of 	the 	special
damages that was specifically plead in the complaint (Docket #1, ¶
11-12), 	but 	emotional 	damages 	are 	general 	damages 	that 	were
generally plead in the complaint (Docket #1, ¶ 14). Moreover, for
violation 	of 	the 	discharge 	injunction, 	invoking 	§ 	105, 	the 	court
may award damages, attorney’s fees, and where appropriate, punitive
damages. Thus, GEC’s request to strike from the record the evidence
presented 	by 	the 	debtors 	regarding 	emotional 	damages 	will 	be
denied.
B. Damages
It is well settled that a debtor can recover under § 105 for
violation of specific Code provisions, including § 524. Section 105
provides 	bankruptcy 	courts 	with 	statutory 	contempt 	powers. 	In 	re
Rivera Torres, 432 F.3d 20, 27 (1st Cir. 2005)(citing Bassette v.
Avco Financial Sevices Inc., 230 F. 3d 439, 445 (1st Cir. 2000)).
This 	includes 	the 	power 	to 	sanction 	a 	party, 	which 	inherently
includes 	the 	power 	to 	award 	monetary 	relief 	to 	the 	debtor 	in 	the
form of actual and punitive damages. In re Nosek, 363 B.R. at 648
Case:04-00165-BKT Doc#:61 Filed:11/20/07 Entered:11/21/07 11:52:37 Desc: Main
Document Page 9 of 16

10
(Bankr. 	D. 	Mass. 	2007). 	In 	line 	with 	this 	interpretation 	of
statutory 	contempt 	powers, 	bankruptcy 	courts 	across 	the 	country
have awarded actual damages under § 105. See id.
1. Economic Loss
Any 	type 	of 	economic 	loss 	due 	to 	the 	violation 	of 	the
discharge injunction is awarded as part of the actual damages. In
the case of In re Johnson, 230 B.R. 466 (Bankr. D.D.C. 1999), the
court held that the trustee was entitled to the amount for which
he could have sold the car had creditor not seized it in violation
of the automatic stay.
As to the debtors’ economic loss, De Jesus testified that he
could not use the truck because the Public Service Commission did
not give him the authorization due to GEC’s lien (Transcript page
46 line 25 and page 74 line 1-3); that he could not sell the truck
because the title of the truck had GEC’s lien (Transcript page 86
line 	25 	page 	87 	line 	1); 	that 	he 	had 	a 	potential 	buyer 	that 	was
willing 	to 	pay 	$70,000.00 	in 	2004 	(Transcript 	page 	53 	line 	24,
page 	82 	line 	25), 	but 	that 	the 	truck 	has 	depreciated 	and 	he
believes 	the 	truck 	is 	now 	worth 	$45,000.00 	(Transcript 	page 	61
lines 13-14). De Jesus also testified that he could not give the
truck 	in-trade 	and 	that 	he 	wanted 	to 	use 	the 	remainder 	of 	the
value 	for 	home 	improvements 	and 	his 	kids’ 	education 	(Transcript
page 54 lines 2-12).
Defendants did not rebut any of the evidence presented by the
debtors. 	In 	the 	cross-examination, 	De 	Jesus 	was 	consistent 	with
Case:04-00165-BKT Doc#:61 Filed:11/20/07 Entered:11/21/07 11:52:37 Desc: Main
Document Page 10 of 16

11
his previous testimony. He testified that he felt that although he
could sell the truck by paying the lien, he did not do it because
he 	thought 	that 	it 	was 	unfair 	(Transcript 	page 	87 	line 	9). 	He
testified 	that 	he 	bought 	another 	truck 	that 	cost 	him 	$120,00.00
but, that he has to pay interest and the payment is taken from his
payroll (Transcript page 69 lines 4 and 7-8).
The 	Court 	believes 	that 	the 	debtors 	suffered 	economic 	loss
due to GEC’s refusal to eliminate the lien from the title of the
truck. 	The 	Court 	also 	believes 	that 	the 	debtor 	mitigated 	the
damages by buying another truck so he could go back to work. Thus,
his loss is calculated in the following manner: approximate value
of the truck in 2004 ($70,000.00) minus the approximate value of
the truck in 2006 ($45,000.00) equals the equity lost by debtors
($25,000.00). 	Therefore, 	the 	Court 	will 	award 	the 	debtors 	the
amount of $25,000.00 as actual damages for their economic loss.
2. Emotional distress damages
In the case of In re Rivera Torres, 432 F.3d at 27 (1st Cir.
2005), the First Circuit Court of Appeals took a temporal approach
to 	emotional 	distress 	damages 	and 	held 	that 	“sovereign 	immunity
bars 	awards 	for 	emotional 	distress 	damages 	against 	the 	federal
government under § 105(a) for any willful violation of § 524.” 432
F.3d 	at 	27. 	But, 	in 	general, 	bankruptcy 	courts 	have 	treated
emotional distress damages as coming under the purview of actual
damages recoverable under § 105. See e.g., In re Curtis, 322 B.R.
470, 486 (Bankr. D.Mass. 2005) (awarding “compensatory damages” for
Case:04-00165-BKT Doc#:61 Filed:11/20/07 Entered:11/21/07 11:52:37 Desc: Main
Document Page 11 of 16

12
stress, weight loss, vomiting, and depression); In re Barry, 330
B.R. 	28, 	38 	(Bankr. 	D.Mass. 	2005) 	(awarding 	“emotional 	distress
damages” 	for 	violation 	of 	discharge 	injunction). 	See 	also 	In 	re
Manzanares, 345 B.R. 773 (Bankr. S.D.Fla. 2006); In re Meyers, 344
B.R. 	61 	(Bankr. 	E.D.Pa. 	2006); 	In 	re 	Feldmeier, 	335 	B.R. 	807
(Bankr. D.Or. 2005).
As to the debtors’ emotional damages, De Jesus testified that
having 	the 	truck 	parked 	at 	his 	house 	made 	him 	very 	angry
(Transcript page 49 line 4), he felt harassed when GEC would not
cancel 	the 	lien 	(Transcript 	page 	49 	line 	5), 	he 	felt 	that 	the
petition for bankruptcy had been in vain (Transcript page 51 lines
8-11) 	and 	that 	he 	had 	to 	take 	medication 	for 	his 	emotional
condition, 	including 	increased 	doses 	of 	Zolof, 	Transen 	and 	Cozar
(Transcript page 57 line 17). Hernandez also testified that she had
found De Jesus crying in the dark several times 	(Transcript page
93 lines 21-25), that he did not want to go out (Transcript page
94 lines 22-25), that his problems affected his relationship with
his children (Transcript page 96 lines 2-5) and that before they
filed the bankruptcy she had never seen De Jesus so worried about
the debts (Transcript page 103 line 22). She also testified that
she wanted to sell the truck to do home repairs and buy a new car
(Transcript page 98 lines 5-6), that she thought that filing the
bankruptcy petition was not worth the trouble (Transcript page 98
lines 16-18), she felt restless and sad because of the situation
(Transcript page 99 lines 1)and that she felt between “a wall and
Case:04-00165-BKT Doc#:61 Filed:11/20/07 Entered:11/21/07 11:52:37 Desc: Main
Document Page 12 of 16

13
a sword” (Transcript page 103 line 22).
Finally, 	Dr. 	Sanz 	testified 	that 	the 	fist 	time 	the 	debtors
went 	to 	seek 	help 	was 	on 	October 	2002 	(Transcript 	page 	114 	line
6), 	that 	De 	Jesus 	went 	because 	he 	felt 	depressed 	and 	anxious
(Transcript page 114 line 11) and that Hernandez went because she
had symptoms of depression (Transcript page 114 line 14). Dr. Sanz
testified that De Jesus exhibited symptoms of depression, such as
sadness, no desire to do anything, poor concentration and insomnia
(Transcript page 117 lines 15-18) and that his principal concerns
had to do with his job (Transcript page 117 lines 22-23). Dr. Sanz
also testified that the original dose for his medication was 25 ml
of 	Zolof 	and 	2.7 	ml 	of 	Transen 	but, 	then 	she 	had 	to 	change 	his
medication after 2004 because his condition worsened, to 100 ml of
Zolof 	and 	from 	2.75 	ml 	to 	7.50 	ml 	Transen 	(Transcript 	page 	118
lines 	11-16 	and 	page 	126 	lines 	8-9). 	Dr. 	Sanz 	testified 	that 	he
had symptoms such as restlessness, head pain and chest pain, many
worries, 	insomnia, 	depressive 	symptoms 	but, 	to 	another 	degree
(Transcript page 125 lines 22-25 and page 126 lines 1-3). Finally,
she 	testified 	that 	Hernandez 	stayed 	with 	the 	same 	prescription
throughout 	her 	treatment 	and 	that 	both 	had 	improved 	(Transcript
page 116 line 21).
Defendants did not rebut any of the evidence presented by the
debtors 	regarding 	emotional 	damages. 	The 	Court 	believes 	that 	De
Jesus 	and 	Hernandez 	did 	in 	fact 	undergo 	emotional 	distress 	and
suffering as a direct result of GEC’s violation of the discharge
injunction. 	Thus, 	the 	Court 	will 	award 	De 	Jesus 	the 	amount 	of
Case:04-00165-BKT Doc#:61 Filed:11/20/07 Entered:11/21/07 11:52:37 Desc: Main
Document Page 13 of 16

14
$8,000.00 as actual damages for his mental/emotional distress and
suffering 	and 	award 	Hernandez 	the 	amount 	of 	$5,000.00 	as 	actual
damages 	for 	her 	mental/emotional 	distress 	and 	suffering 	plus,
attorney’s fees and costs.
3. Punitive Damages
In the case of In re Heghmann, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
for the First Circuit, held that punitive damages usually require
more 	than 	a 	mere 	willful 	violation 	of 	the 	automatic 	stay. 	The
Court 	will 	equate 	a 	violation 	of 	the 	automatic 	stay 	with 	a
violation 	of 	the 	discharge 	injunction 	for 	the 	purpose 	of
considering 	punitive 	damages. 	The 	Bankruptcy 	Appellate 	Panel
outlined some factors to take into consideration, including: (1)
the nature of the creditor's conduct; (2) the creditor's ability
to 	pay 	damages; 	(3) 	the 	motive 	of 	the 	creditor; 	and 	(4) 	any
provocation by the debtor. In re Heghmann, 316 B.R. 395, 405 (1st
Cir. B.A.P. 2004). The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel also explained
that courts often have limited the imposition of punitive damages
to cases where there is “‘egregious, intentional misconduct.’” In
re 	Heghmann, 	316 	B.R. 	at 	405 	(citing 	Lovett 	v. 	Honeywell, 	Inc.,
930 F.2d 625, 628 (8th Cir. 1991)).
At the evidentiary hearing, the Court was surprised to find
that 	GEC 	failed 	to 	transfer 	the 	title 	of 	the 	truck 	(Transcript
page 	145 	lines 	20-24), 	as 	per 	the 	Court’s 	order 	of 	February 	24,
2006 	(Docket 	#31). 	In 	the 	present 	case, 	a 	violation 	of 	the
discharge injunction occurred. When examining it, the Court finds
that GEC’s violation was “egregious, intentional misconduct.” In
Case:04-00165-BKT Doc#:61 Filed:11/20/07 Entered:11/21/07 11:52:37 Desc: Main
Document Page 14 of 16

15
analyzing 	the 	factors 	considered 	by 	other 	courts 	in 	imposing
punitive damages, the Court finds that the elements are present in
this 	case. 	The 	Court 	finds 	that 	GEC’ 	actions 	were 	egregious
because 	it 	is 	a 	sophisticated 	creditor 	and 	the 	violation 	was
committed because GEC was trying to collect $3,800.00 in interest
that 	had 	not 	been 	requested 	in 	the 	bankruptcy. 	To 	the 	contrary,
GEC 	stipulated 	as 	to 	treatment 	of 	its 	debt. 	The 	unpaid 	interest
was clearly discharged. Likewise, the Court concludes that GEC’s
determination to litigate this matter and its blatant refusal to
cancel the lien after being ordered to do so, further demonstrates
obstinacy, 	lack 	of 	legitimate 	motive 	and 	provocation 	of 	the
debtors. 	The 	Court 	also 	concludes 	that 	the 	creditor, 	as 	a
commercial 	lending 	institution, 	has 	the 	ability 	to 	pay 	damages.
The Court will award the sum of $15,000.00 in punitive damages.
IV. CONCLUSION
The debtors have proven that they suffered economic loss and
emotional 	damages 	due 	to 	GEC’s 	violation 	of 	the 	discharge
injunction 	by 	not 	canceling 	the 	lien 	on 	the 	Peterbuilt 	truck,
which had been paid in full through the debtors’ plan. The Court
also concludes that GEC’s conduct entitles the debtors to punitive
damages. 	The 	debtors 	will 	also 	be 	awarded 	attorney’s 	fees 	and
costs.
ORDER
It 	is 	ORDERED 	and 	ADJUDGED 	that 	General 	Electric 	Corp. 	is
liable 	to 	the 	debtors 	for 	economic 	loss 	in 	the 	amount 	of
$25,000.00. Also, GEC will pay De Jesus emotional suffering in the
Case:04-00165-BKT Doc#:61 Filed:11/20/07 Entered:11/21/07 11:52:37 Desc: Main
Document Page 15 of 16

16
amount 	of 	$8,000.00 	and 	Hernandez 	emotional 	suffering 	in 	the
amount of $5,000.00, punitive damages in the amount of $15,000.00,
plus 	attorney’s 	fees 	and 	costs. 	The 	plaintiff 	shall 	submit 	an
itemized 	statement 	of 	fees 	and 	costs 	in 	twenty 	(20) 	days. 	The
defendants 	are 	granted 	fifteen 	(15) 	days 	thereafter 	to 	file 	an
objection.
SO ORDERED.
San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 20th day of November 2007.
/s Gerardo A. Carlo-Altieri
_____________________________
GERARDO A. CARLO-ALTIERI
Chief, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
Case:04-00165-BKT Doc#:61 Filed:11/20/07 Entered:11/21/07 11:52:37 Desc: Main
Document Page 16 of 16