What is the question presented in Taggart v. Lorenzen?

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 is Taggart v. Lorenzen 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. 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.

No. 18-489October Term 2018Decided Jun 3, 2019

Docket 18-489October Term 2018 (2018–2019)

Taggart v. Lorenzen

The case clarified the rules for when creditors can be penalized for collecting after a bankruptcy discharge.

Case status

Current stage: Decided
Latest event: Decision released Jun 3, 2019

Case Accepted

Arguments

Decision ReleasedJun 3, 2019

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. 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.
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.
Case path: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit / Decision released Jun 3, 2019
Area: Decided Supreme Court case

Briefing

What it's about

Taggart v. Lorenzen asked when a creditor can face court punishment for trying to collect a debt after a bankruptcy discharge wiped it out. On June 3, 2019, the Supreme Court decided how a creditor's claimed good-faith belief fits into that question.

Impact

This matters to people leaving bankruptcy and to creditors trying to collect money. For example, a business seeking attorney's fees after a discharge needs to know when that effort could trigger penalties.

What's next

The Supreme Court has finished this docket action. Any further proceedings would happen in lower courts using the Supreme Court's answer in future bankruptcy disputes.

What was the main fight in Taggart v. Lorenzen?

The case asked whether a creditor avoids court punishment for collecting a discharged debt if it honestly believed the bankruptcy order did not apply.

Who is affected by this decision in real life?

People who completed bankruptcy and the creditors they once owed are affected. A business seeking fees after discharge must know when collection efforts risk penalties.

What happens next after the Supreme Court's decision?

The Supreme Court is done with this docket. Any remaining action would be in lower courts applying the Court's answer to this dispute.

Decision

Decision recordJun 3, 2019

What the Court decided

The case clarified the rules for when creditors can be penalized for collecting after a bankruptcy discharge.

Impact

This matters to people leaving bankruptcy and to creditors trying to collect money. For example, a business seeking attorney's fees after a discharge needs to know when that effort could trigger penalties.

Not official Court text.

Opinion documents

opinion

Documents

Opinions

opinion

Key filings

Questions Presented

Petition

View full docket on supremecourt.gov

Grounding

Grounding: Primary materials plus reporting.
Note: Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.
Checked: Jul 2, 2026
Method: Methodology

Primary materials10

Context reporting3