Taggart v. Lorenzen
In brief
The Supreme Court wiped out the lower court’s judgment (vacated it) and sent the case back (remanded it), leaving the final contempt decision unresolved.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 9-0 · June 3, 2019 · Opinion by Justice Breyer
- What it’s about
- This case asked when a creditor can be punished for violating a bankruptcy discharge order by trying to collect a debt that was wiped out in bankruptcy.
- Who it affects
- The Court said a creditor’s good-faith belief does not automatically block civil contempt.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
Bradley Taggart argued that the creditors should be held in contempt for seeking attorney’s fees after his discharge, while the lower court had ruled that a creditor’s good-faith belief that the discharge did not apply prevented contempt.
Federal bankruptcy law limits efforts to collect debts that a bankruptcy discharge order has wiped out.
Question presented
Whether, under the Bankruptcy Code, a creditor's good-faith belief that the discharge injunction does not apply precludes a finding of civil contempt.
What the Court decided
Holding
A court may hold a creditor in civil contempt for violating a discharge order if there is no fair ground of doubt as to whether the order barred the creditor’s conduct. 888 F. 3d 438, vacated and remanded.
- Result
- Vacated
The vote
What's next
The lower court will reconsider the dispute under the Supreme Court’s no-fair-doubt standard. The final decision on contempt remains unresolved.
Why it matters
Contempt may apply when there is no fair ground of doubt (no reasonable uncertainty) that a bankruptcy discharge order (an order wiping out covered debts) barred the conduct, but the final outcome for Taggart remains unresolved.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
New analysis added
Opinion added: opinion
Show 2 moreShow fewer
Brief added: Petition
Brief added: Questions Presented
More questions
- What was the dispute in Taggart v. Lorenzen?
- Bradley Taggart argued that creditors should face civil contempt for seeking attorney’s fees after bankruptcy wiped out his debt.
- What did the Supreme Court decide?
- It said a creditor may face civil contempt when there is no fair ground of doubt that the discharge order barred the conduct.
- Did the Supreme Court decide whether Taggart’s creditors were in contempt?
- No. It wiped out the lower court’s judgment (vacated it) and sent the case back (remanded it), leaving that question unresolved.
- What happens next in Taggart v. Lorenzen?
- The lower court will reconsider the dispute under the Supreme Court’s no-fair-doubt standard and resolve the contempt question.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.