IN RE: RONALD HYMAN, Debtor.
THE ABSTRACT CO., INC., et al., Defendants/Appellees. RONALD HYMAN, Plaintiff/Appellant, THE ABSTRACT CO., INC., et al., Defendants/Cross-Appellants,
RONALD HYMAN, Plaintiff/Cross-Appellee. Adversary No. 11-852 Civil Action Nos. 13-4178, 13-4309
LEGROME D. DAVIS, District Judge.
AND NOW, this 16th day of January 2014, upon consideration of Appellant Ronald Hyman's Brief (Case No.13-4178, Doc. No. 4), Appellees The Abstract Company, Inc. and Edwin P. Smith, Esquire's Brief (Case No.13-4178, Doc. No. 5), and Appellant's Supplement to Brief of Ronald Hyman (Case No.13-4178, Doc. No. 8); and upon consideration of Cross-Appellants The Abstract Company, Inc. and Edwin P. Smith, Esquire's Opening Brief (Case No. 13-4309, Doc. No. 4), Cross-Appellee Ronald Hyman's Brief in Opposition (Case No. 13-4309, Doc. No. 6), Cross-Appellants' Reply Brief (Case No. 13-4309, Doc. No. 7), and Cross-Appellants' Supplemental Brief (Case No. 13-4309, Doc. No. 9), it is hereby ORDERED that this matter is REMANDED to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The Clerk of Court shall mark Case Numbers 13-4178 and 13-4309 closed for statistical purposes.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In February 2008, Ronald Hyman initiated a lawsuit (the "Underlying Lawsuit") against The Abstract Company, Inc. ("Abstract") by filing a writ of summons with the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. (Mot. Summ. J. Hr'g Tr. 7:19-21, Sept. 26, 2012, R. Vol. II Ex. 18; see generally Pa. R. Civ. P. 1007.) Hyman did not file a complaint or take any further action in the Underlying Lawsuit until more than a year later. (Mot. Summ. J. Hr'g Tr. 8:1-2.)
Meanwhile, on April 20, 2008, Hyman filed a bankruptcy petition under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. (Id. at 7:21-22.) Abstract received notice of this filing on May 21, 2008, when Hyman filed a suggestion of bankruptcy in the Underlying Lawsuit. (Id. at 7:22-24.) On December 2, 2008, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania "granted [Hyman] a discharge under section 727 of title 11, United States Code." (Discharge of Debtor 1, Dec. 2, 2008, Bankr. Case No. 08-12791, Doc. No. 40.) As discussed in Part III, infra, a discharge under section 727 eliminates the debtor's obligation to pay most liabilities on claims that existed when the debtor filed for bankruptcy. The Bankruptcy Court's discharge order (the "Discharge Order") included form language explaining that a "discharge prohibits any attempt to collect from the debtor a debt that has been discharged." (Id. at 2.) On December 5, 2008, the Bankruptcy Court closed Hyman's bankruptcy case. (Mot. Summ. J. Hr'g Tr. 7:25-8:1.)
Shortly after the bankruptcy proceedings were closed, Abstract filed a praecipe and rule upon Hyman to file a complaint in the Underlying Lawsuit or suffer a judgment of non pros. (Id. at. 8:1-2; see generally Pa. R. Civ. P. 1659.) On January 22, 2009, Hyman filed a complaint in the Underlying Lawsuit alleging that Abstract had engaged in real estate fraud. (Mot. Summ. J. Hr'g Tr. 8:2; Bankr. Ct.'s Order Den. Debtor's Mot. Recons. 2 n.2, R. Vol. I Ex. 2.) Abstract filed its answer to the complaint on February 4, 2009. (Mot. Summ. J. Hr'g Tr. 8:3-4.) Hyman then voluntarily dismissed the Underlying Lawsuit on February 10, 2009. (Id. at 8:4-5.)
On June 2, 2010, the Third Circuit, sitting en banc, announced a new test for when a claim arises under the Bankruptcy Code. See In re Grossman's Inc. , 607 F.3d 114 (3d Cir. 2010) (en banc). The Third Circuit did not make clear whether this new test (the "Grossman's test") would apply retroactively to discharge orders entered prior to June 2010.
On March 21, 2011, Defendant Edwin P. Smith, Esquire, filed a lawsuit on behalf of Abstract against Hyman alleging that Hyman prosecuted the Underlying Lawsuit for improper purposes. (Mot. Summ. J. Hr'g Tr. 8:5-6; Bankr. Ct.'s Order Reopening Case 4, R. Vol. I Ex. 10.) Smith filed this new lawsuit (the "Abuse Action") pursuant to the Pennsylvania statutory cause of action for the wrongful use of civil proceedings, 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8351. The amended complaint in the Abuse Action alleges that Hyman and his counsel "lacked probable cause to institute and continue the action against [Abstract]" because their "sole purpose in instituting and continuing the [Underlying Lawsuit] against [Abstract] was to attempt to extract an unwarranted settlement from [Abstract] or its insurer." (Abuse Action Am. Compl. ¶¶ 7, 9, Bankr. Case No. 11-852, Doc. No. 1-4.)
On April 5, 2011, Hyman filed a motion to reopen his bankruptcy proceedings so that he could "file an adversary proceeding seeking [the Bankruptcy] Court's citation of [civil] contempt and for sanctions against [Abstract and Smith]." (Mot. Re-Open Bankr. Proceeding ¶ 7, R. Vol. I Ex. 6.) Hyman argued that civil contempt sanctions were warranted because Abstract and Smith (collectively, "Defendants") had violated the Discharge Order by attempting to hold Hyman liable for initiating the Underlying Lawsuit. Hyman explained that the Discharge Order prohibited Defendants from attempting to collect on this debt because Hyman had initiated the Underlying Lawsuit before filing for bankruptcy. (Id. at ¶ 2.) Defendants argued in opposition that they did not violate the Discharge Order because they did not hold a claim against Hyman when Hyman filed for bankruptcy protection. (Defs.' Mem. Opp. Mot. Re-Open Bankr. Proceedings 6, R. Vol. I Ex. 8.)
The Bankruptcy Court reopened the proceedings on November 17, 2011. (Bankr. Ct.'s Order Reopening Case 7.) The Court explained in its order reopening the case that it was doing so because, under the Grossman's test, Defendants "had a pre-petition claim in Hyman's Chapter 7 Case." (Id.) The Bankruptcy Court relied on Wright v. Owens Corning , 450 B.R. 541 (W.D. Pa. 2011), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 679 F.3d 101 (3d Cir. 2012), for the proposition that, "[a]lthough the Third Circuit's decision in Grossman's was not issued until June 2, 2010 and [Hyman]'s Chapter 7 case was closed on December 5, 2008, the test which the Third Circuit adopted in Grossman's for determining when a claim arises applies retroactively" to the claims asserted by Defendants in the Abuse Action. (Bankr. Ct.'s Order Reopening Case 7 n.6.)
On May 18, 2012, the Third Circuit reversed the Western District of Pennsylvania's holding in Wright. See Wright v. Owens Corning , 679 F.3d 101, 109 (3d Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S.Ct. 1239 (2013). There is no indication in the record that either party brought this fact to the Bankruptcy Court's attention.
A few weeks later, in July 2012, Hyman and Defendants both moved for summary judgment on the question of whether Defendants violated the Discharge Order by pursuing the Abuse Action. (Hyman's Mot. Summ. J., R. Vol. I Ex. 14; Defs.' Mot. Summ. J., R. Vol. I Ex. 15.) On September 26, 2012, the Bankruptcy Court granted Hyman's motion and denied Defendants' motion. (Bankr. Ct.'s Order Granting Pl.'s Mot. Summ. J. & Denying Defs.' Mot. Summ. J., R. Vol. II Ex. 17.) The Bankruptcy Court explained that Hyman was entitled to summary judgment on his civil contempt claim because Defendants "violate[d] the discharge injunction" when they "commenced an action post-petition to collect a debt" arising from a "pre-petition claim." (Mot. Summ. J. Hr'g Tr. 14:9-14.) The Bankruptcy Court then held a series of hearings on damages that culminated in an award of $5, 972.70 for Hyman. (Bankr. Ct.'s Order Awarding Sanctions, R. Vol. I Ex. 4; Bankr. Ct.'s Order Den. Debtor's Mot. Recons., R. Vol. I Ex. 2.) This award compensated Hyman for his damages and his attorneys' costs; the Bankruptcy Court awarded no attorneys' fees.
Hyman and Defendants both appealed to this Court. Hyman alleges that the "Bankruptcy Court err[ed] in refusing to award reasonable attorney's fees to [Hyman] for [Hyman]'s counsel." (Hyman's Br. 7, Case No. 13-4178, Doc. No. 4.) Defendants argue, among other things, that "the Bankruptcy Court erred when it granted summary judgment in favor of debtor and denied summary judgment in favor of defendants" because "[t]he bankruptcy court's determination that [Defendants'] wrongful use of civil proceedings claim against Hyman arose pre-petition is... fundamentally unfair and denies Abstract due process." (Defs.' Br. 1, 18, Case No. 13-4309, Doc. No. 4.)
By Order dated October 31, 2013, this Court directed both parties to file a supplemental brief addressing the Third Circuit's ruling in Wright v. Owens Corning. (Order, Oct. 31, 2013, Case No. 13-4178, Doc. No. 6; Order, Oct. 31, 2013, Case No. 13-4309, Doc. No. 8.) The parties have ...