DEBT COLLECTOR UNIFUND CCR PARTNERS (buyer/assignee of charged-off credit card debt)
SANCTIONED FOR BRINGING SUIT TO COLLECT DEBT DISCHARGED IN BANKRUPTCY

Unifund CCR Partners v. Villa
(Tex.App.- San Antonio, Sep. 17,. 2008)(op on en banc rehearing by Stone)
AFFIRMED: Opinion by Justice Stone
Before Chief Justice López, Justices Stone, Angelini, Marion, Speedlin, Simmons and Hilbig
04-07-00465-CV  Unifund CCR Partners v. Javier Villa
Appeal from 111th District Court of Webb County

DISSENTING OPINION:
Dissenting Opinion by Justice Marion  
Before Chief Justice López, Justices Stone, Angelini, Marion, Speedlin, Simmons and Hilbig
04-07-00465-CV  Unifund CCR Partners v. Javier Villa--Appeal from 111th District Court of Webb County

DISSENTING OPINION:
Dissenting Opinion by Justice Simmons  
Before Chief Justice López, Justices Stone, Angelini, Marion, Speedlin, Simmons and Hilbig
04-07-00465-CV        Unifund CCR Partners v. Javier Villa
Appeal from 111th District Court of Webb County

Opinion by:    Catherine Stone, Justice

Dissenting opinion by: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Dissenting opinion by : Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Sitting:           Alma L. López, Chief Justice
                  Catherine Stone, Justice
                  Karen Angelini, Justice
                  Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
                  Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice
                  Rebecca Simmons, Justice
                  Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Delivered and Filed:   September 17, 2008

MOTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC GRANTED; AFFIRMED
      
In light of the standard of review applicable to our review of the amount of sanctions awarded by a trial court,
a majority of the court grants appellee’s motion for rehearing en banc. The panel’s opinions and judgment
dated May 21, 2008 are withdrawn, and this opinion and judgment are substituted.
      
Unifund CCR Partners appeals the trial court’s final judgment and order imposing sanctions against it,
asserting the trial court: (1) lacked jurisdiction to award the sanctions; and (2) abused its discretion in
imposing sanctions and in determining the amount of sanctions to be imposed. We affirm the trial court’s
judgment.

Background
      
On January 17, 2005, Unifund sent Javier Villa a letter stating that it had purchased account number
4266830001324319 (the “Account”) from Bank One NA which had charged off the Account on April 30, 2003.
Unifund demanded payment in the amount of $18,338.49. On June 20, 2005, Villa and his wife filed a
bankruptcy petition, listing Bank One NA as a creditor in relation to the Account. Villa and his wife were
granted a discharge by the bankruptcy court on December 9, 2005. On April 3, 2006, Unifund sent Villa a
second letter demanding payment. Villa’s credit report reflected that Unifund received a copy of Villa’s credit
report in response to an inquiry by Unifund on May 17, 2006. The credit report clearly stated that Villa had
been discharged in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding in December of 2005.
      
On August 14, 2006, Unifund filed a lawsuit against Villa seeking to collect the balance allegedly owing on the
Account in the amount of $18,685.09. On August 21, 2006, Villa answered and filed a motion seeking
sanctions against Unifund and its attorney pursuant to Chapter 10 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies
Code (“Code”). On August 28, 2006, Unifund filed a motion to dismiss the underlying proceeding “for the
reason that the case has been settled.” On September 6, 2006, the trial court signed an order of dismissal.
On December 4, 2006, the trial court held a hearing on Villa’s motion for sanctions. After allowing additional
briefing, the trial court granted Villa’s motion. Unifund was ordered to pay $18,685.00 for Villa’s
inconvenience and harassment, and $2,871.00, for reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees in presenting
the motion for sanctions and defending Unifund’s pleading.

Jurisdiction
      
In its fifth issue, Unifund contends that the trial court’s plenary power had expired when the sanctions order
was issued because the trial court had signed a dismissal order on September 6, 2006. However, as the trial
court noted in its final judgment, the dismissal had no effect on Villa’s pending motion for sanctions. Tex. R.
Civ. P. 162. Unifund’s fifth issue is overruled.
      
In its first issue, Unifund contends that “Texas state courts do not have jurisdiction to enforce federal
bankruptcy court discharge orders.” The trial court in this case, however, was not attempting to enforce a
bankruptcy court’s order. Instead, the trial court imposed sanctions pursuant to Chapter 10 of the Code on
the basis that Unifund had brought the underlying proceeding for improper purposes.

Although Unifund cites several federal court cases as support for its contention that Villa was required to
seek relief in the bankruptcy court, the cases cited by Unifund relate to lawsuits in which a debtor has filed a
claim against a creditor. See, e.g., Yaghobi v. Robinson, 145 Fed. Appx. 697, 2005 WL 1800632, at *1 (2nd
Cir. Aug. 1, 2005) (debtor sued creditor for violation of bankruptcy discharge injunction); Walls v. Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A., 276 F.3d 502, 504 (9th Cir. 2002) (class action claim brought by debtor); MSR Exploration,
Ltd. v. Meridian Oil, Inc., 74 F.3d 910, 912 (9th Cir. 1996) (debtor sued creditor for malicious prosecution);
Jones v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 2006 WL 266102, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 31, 2006) (debtor sued creditor
for violations of debt collection statutes); but see Fuqua v. Graber, 158 S.W.3d 635, 646-47 (Tex. App.—
Corpus Christi 2005, pet. granted) (holding state court had jurisdiction to consider debtor’s lawsuit for
malicious prosecution arising from creditor’s actions in bankruptcy court).

In this case, Unifund, the creditor, sued Villa, and Villa sought sanctions as permitted by Chapter 10. Unifund
has not cited any case that would preclude Villa from seeking sanctions pursuant to Chapter 10 in this
context, and we have found none. Accordingly, Unifund’s first issue is overruled.

Imposition of Sanctions

In its second and third issues, Unifund contends that the trial court erred in imposing sanctions because: (1)
Unifund had a legitimate dispute with regard to whether the debt was owed; and (2) there was insufficient
evidence that Unifund had actual knowledge of the bankruptcy discharge when it filed the underlying lawsuit.
Footnote A trial court’s award of sanctions is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Loeffler v.
Lytle Ind. Sch. Dist., 211 S.W.3d 331, 347 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2006, pet. denied). The determination of
whether sanctions constitute an abuse of discretion requires an examination of the entire record. Id. A trial
court abuses its discretion in imposing sanctions if the order is based on an erroneous view of the law or a
clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence. Id. at 347-48. Thus, an appellate court will view the conflicting
evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling and will draw all reasonable inferences in favor
of the trial court’s judgment. Id. at 348.
      
With regard to whether Unifund had actual knowledge of the bankruptcy discharge, the trial court considered
the credit report which: (1) clearly referenced the December 2005 Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge; and (2)
revealed that Unifund had received a copy of the credit report in response to its inquiry on May 17, 2006.
Although Unifund’s attorney argued that the notation on the credit report was not sufficient to establish
Unifund’s actual knowledge of the bankruptcy discharge, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to
the trial court’s ruling and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the trial court’s judgment. See id.
Because the trial court’s findings are not based on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, the trial
court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Unifund had actual knowledge of the bankruptcy
discharge when it filed the underlying lawsuit. See id. at 347-48.
      
Unifund contends it had a legitimate dispute as to whether the debt had been discharged since Villa listed
Bank One NA as the creditor in the bankruptcy petition instead of Unifund. The trial court rejected this
argument, finding that Unifund had failed to: (1) contact Villa’s bankruptcy attorney, whose name was listed
on the credit report, to make further inquiry; or (2) consult with a bankruptcy attorney to get advice on the
effects of the bankruptcy discharge. The case law addressing the effectiveness of the discharge even
though Bank One NA was the creditor listed instead of Unifund was readily obtainable, and Unifund did not
assert or attempt to argue that any of the exceptions to a discharge were applicable. See In re Musgraves,
129 B.R. 119, 121 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 1991) (noting that scheduling or not scheduling a creditor has no
impact on whether the creditor’s claim is discharged under the Bankruptcy Code and noting various
exceptions to discharge). Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Unifund’s
purported dispute about the discharge of the debt was not “formed after reasonable inquiry” or “warranted by
existing law or a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law or the
establishment of new law.” Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 10.001 (Vernon 2002).

Amount of Sanctions
      
In its fourth issue, Unifund contends that the amount of the sanction was excessive. Unifund does not
challenge the portion of the trial court’s order awarding $2,871.00 in sanctions to encompass the reasonable
expenses and attorney’s fees incurred by Villa in presenting the motion for sanctions and defending Unifund’
s pleading. Instead, Unifund contends that imposing the additional sanction of $18,685.00 is excessive and
unjust.
      
The amount of a sanction awarded by a trial court is limited by the trial court’s duty to exercise sound
discretion. Low v. Henry, 221 S.W.3d 609, 619 (Tex. 2007). A trial court abuses its discretion when it acts
without reference to any guiding rules or principles, not when it simply exercises that discretion in a different
manner than reviewing appellate courts might. Id. at 619-20. Section 10.002(c) of the Code permits a trial
court to award the prevailing party all costs for inconvenience, harassment, and out-of-pocket expenses
incurred or caused by the subject litigation. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 10.002(c) (Vernon 2002). A
sanction must be limited to “what is sufficient to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by
others similarly situated.” Id. at § 10.004(b). In Low, the Texas Supreme Court adopted factors to be
considered by a trial court in assessing a sanction. Footnote 221 S.W.3d at 620 & n. 5. Two of the guiding
rules and principles governing the trial court in exercising its discretion in considering these factors are: (1) a
sanction should be sufficient to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly
situated; and (2) the trial court is not required to address all of the factors that can be considered. Tex. Civ.
Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 10.004(b) (Vernon 2002); Low, 221 S.W.3d at 620.
      
In this case, Unifund initially demanded payment in the amount of $18,338.49 from Villa in January of 2005. In
June of 2005, Villa and his wife went through a bankruptcy proceeding and received a discharge, believing
that their debts had been discharged. In April of 2006, Unifund sent a second demand for payment of a debt
that Villa and his wife thought had been discharged. Then, despite having actual knowledge that Villa had
been discharged, Unifund sued Villa seeking to collect $18,685.09.
      
The trial court found that Unifund failed to conduct a reasonable inquiry and failed to exercise “due diligence”
before filing the underlying lawsuit. The trial court further found that Unifund brought the claim in “bad faith”
because “the real purpose of the lawsuit was to harass Villa, to intimidate him, and to coerce him into paying
a debt that, by operation of federal bankruptcy law, he was not responsible for.” The trial court was informed
that Unifund had over a billion dollars in assets and routinely buys bad debts from banks and credit card
companies and tries to collect them. Footnote Evidence was presented that Unifund had eighty-four
operating cases in Webb County alone. Footnote The trial court also heard evidence that Villa and his wife
were worried when they received Unifund’s letter because the letter indicated that they owed the debt despite
the discharge. Villa’s wife testified that she could not sleep and she yelled at Villa because she thought he
had not sent in all the paperwork. In view of all of the factors the trial court was permitted to consider, and
given that Unifund had actual knowledge of the discharge when it decided to use the judicial system in its
efforts to collect a discharged debt, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion based on
the record presented. Accordingly, Unifund’s fourth issue is overruled.
      
Both of the dissenting opinions narrowly read the trial court’s order as being exclusively based on section
10.002(c) of the Code and conclude the award is excessive. The trial court’s six page order, however, is
much broader than this narrow reading. The trial court’s order details Unifund’s failures to conduct a
reasonable inquiry before filing suit. The trial court then details Unifund’s violations of section 10.001(1) of
the Code. The trial court’s order then concludes, “Therefore, this Court imposes the following sanctions on
Hull’s client, UNIFUND. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 10.004(a).” Accordingly, the trial court clearly
states that it is imposing the sanctions under section 10.004(a) of the Code. Moreover, although the trial
court states that the monetary award shall encompass Villa’s costs for inconvenience and harassment, the
use of the phrase “shall encompass” should not be narrowly read as an indication that the award is limited to
those costs because the order concludes, “This court finds that the foregoing sanctions are limited to what is
sufficient to deter repetition of the sanctioned conduct practiced in this suit by Unifund CCR Partners.”
Footnote Although we recognize the trial court also uses the phrase “shall encompass” in awarding a dollar
amount to encompass Villa’s reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees, we believe the use of the phrase was
not intended to narrow the basis for the trial court’s sanctions award given the trial court’s explicit reference
to section 10.004(a) and its implicit reference to section 10.004(b).
      
One of the dissenting opinions also charges that the only sanctions available under Chapter 10 are those
listed in section 10.004(c). The dissenting opinion quotes a Houston case as support for its charge, asserting
that “[a] trial court should not stray from the list of sanctions set forth in the statute.” Sterling v. Alexander, 99
S.W.3d 793, 798 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. denied). The dissenting opinion’s reliance on
this decision appears to be misplaced.
      
Section 10.004(a) of the Code states that a trial court may impose a sanction upon determining that a person
has signed a pleading or motion in violation of section 10.001. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 10.004(a)
(Vernon 2002). This is the section the trial court references in its order as the basis for imposing sanctions.
Section 10.004(b) of the Code states that the sanction must be limited to what is sufficient to deter repetition
of the conduct. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 10.004(b) (Vernon 2002). This is the section the trial
court references in its order by stating that the sanctions are so limited. Section 10.004(c) of the Code then
provides that a sanction may include any of three listed sanctions. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §
10.004(c) (Vernon 2002). The Code Construction Act clearly states that the term “includes” is a term “of
enlargement and not of limitation or exclusive enumeration, and use of the [term] does not create a
presumption that components not expressed are excluded.” Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 311.005(13) (Vernon
2005); see also Brown v. Villegas, 202 S.W.3d 803, 805-06 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2006, no pet.) (noting
use of term “include” is expansive). Therefore, the sanctions listed in section 10.004(c) are not exclusive and
would not preclude the trial court from imposing a monetary sanction that would include, in part, a party’s
costs for inconvenience and harassment. Footnote
      
Finally, one of the dissenting opinions criticizes the majority for misconstruing Low, asserting, “Low was a
penalty case under section 10.004(c)(2), and the factors identified by the Low court are those to be
considered with assessing ‘penalties’ under Chapter 10, not costs, out-of-pocket expenses, and attorneys’
fees, all of which are quantifiable based on evidence.” We disagree. Low lists the factors a trial court should
consider in imposing sanctions under Chapter 10, not exclusively in imposing a penalty under section 10.004
(c)(2). This is evident in the Low court’s citation to Justice Gonzalez’s concurring opinion in TransAmerican
Natural Gas Corp. v. Powell, 811 S.W.2d 913, 920-21 (Tex. 1991) (Gonzalez, J., concurring), in which Justice
Gonzalez was suggesting factors that are appropriate for a trial court to consider in imposing or denying
sanctions under Rule 215 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. See also Hemphill v. Hummell, No. 13-05-
00515-CV, 2008 WL 2930194, at *6-7 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi July 31, 2008, no pet. h.) (applying Low
factors to sanction awarded under Rule 13). Although Low may have been a case analyzing whether the trial
court abused its discretion in the amount of the section 10.004(c)(2) penalty the trial court imposed as a
sanction, the factors listed in Low for consideration are applicable to a trial court’s decision to impose any
Chapter 10 sanction.

Conclusion
      
The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

Catherine Stone, Justice