IN RE BURCH
In re, Clay Daniel Burch, Chapter 7, Debtor.Clay Daniel Burch, Plaintiff,v.Bank of America, N.A., Defendant.

C/A No. 09-07802-DD, Adv. Pro. No. 11-80030-DD.
United States Bankruptcy Court, D. South Carolina.

July 27, 2011


ORDER GRANTING DEFAULT JUDGMENT

DAVID R. DUNCAN, Bankruptcy Judge.

This matter is before the Court on a Motion for Default Judgment ("Motion") filed by Clay Daniel Burch ("Plaintiff") on May 10, 2011. Bank of America ("Defendant") was served at numerous addresses; however, it did not file a response to Plaintiff's Motion. A hearing was held on Plaintiff's Motion on July 21, 2011. Defendant did not appear at the hearing.1 Following the hearing, the Court took the matter under advisement for further consideration. The Court now makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 52, made applicable to this matter by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7052.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Plaintiff filed for chapter 7 relief on October 20, 2009. At the time of filing, Plaintiff had interests in three pieces of real property, including a 100 percent interest in real property located in Sunrise, Florida. At the time of filing, the tax assessed value of the Florida property was $240,500. The property was subject to two mortgages: a first mortgage with Defendant in the amount of $411,000.00, and a second mortgage with Green Tree Servicing in the amount of $80,939.00. Plaintiff surrendered the Florida property in his chapter 7 bankruptcy case. Plaintiff's chapter 7 case proceeded in the usual course, and Plaintiff received his discharge on February 1, 2010. It is not clear from the record what steps, if any, Defendant has taken to foreclose its security interest.
aintiff listed Defendant as a creditor in his bankruptcy case, and Defendant was served with notice of the bankruptcy. However, Defendant continued to send correspondence to Plaintiff requesting payment and offering oppotunities for a loan modification. On February 5, 2010, Plaintiff's bankruptcy counsel sent Defendant a cease and desist letter, explaining that Plaintiff had received a discharge in his chapter 7 bankruptcy case and that Defendant's attempts to collect payment from Plaintiff were a violation of the automatic stay and the discharge order. This letter proved ineffective, as Defendant continued to contact Plaintiff, in the form of both written correspondence and telephone contact. When attempting to reach Plaintiff by telephone, in addition to calling Plaintiff, Defendant repeatedly called Plaintiff's parents. Additionally, when making calls to Plaintiff or his parents, Defendant used "spoofing" to make Plaintiff's cell phone number appear on his parent's caller id and to make Plaintiff's parents' phone number appear on his caller id. Plaintiff's parents repeatedly informed Defendant of Plaintiff's chapter 7 case.

to read the rest of the case link to: