[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 20-11641

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 2:19-cv-00073-LGW

Bkcy. No. 2:19-bkc-20244-AJK

In re: MARVIN B. SMITH, III, 

 SHARON H. SMITH, 

 Debtors.

__________________________________________________________________

MARVIN B. SMITH, III, 

SHARON H. SMITH, 

 Plaintiffs-Appellants,

HSBC BANK USA, 

HSBC BANK USA, N.A., 

HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, 

as Trustee for the Holders of BCAP LLC Trust 

2006-AA2, 

PATRICK J. BURKE, 

Pres./CEO of HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 

USCA11 Case: 20-11641 Date Filed: 03/18/2021 Page: 1 of 8
2

GEREMY GREGORY,

Agent for Balch & Bingham LLP, et al., 

 Defendants-Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Georgia

________________________

(March 18, 2021)

Before JILL PRYOR, LUCK, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Marvin and Sharon Smith, proceeding pro se,

1 appeal the district court’s 

order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying the Smiths’ motion to enforce

a bankruptcy discharge injunction and to hold in contempt certain parties involved 

in the foreclosure proceedings on the Smiths’ home. The Smiths sought a 

contempt order against (1) HSBC Bank USA, HSBC Bank USA, N.A., and HSBC 

Bank USA, National Association as Trustee for the Holders of BCAP LLC Trust 

2006-AA2 (collectively “HSBC”); (2) an HSBC corporate officer; and (3) several 

1 We construe liberally pro se pleadings. See Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 

1263 (11th Cir. 1998). 

USCA11 Case: 20-11641 Date Filed: 03/18/2021 Page: 2 of 8
3

lawyers, law firms, a realtor, and a realty company. No reversible error has been 

shown; we affirm.

I. Background

Briefly stated, the Smiths seek to challenge the foreclosure and 

dispossessory proceedings on their home in St. Simons Island, Georgia (the 

“Property”). Given the complicated and lengthy procedural history underlying this 

appeal, we will summarize the facts and proceedings only as necessary to provide 

context for our decision.2

In 2007, the Smiths filed for bankruptcy seeking to discharge over $ 2 

million in mortgage debt on the Property. On their bankruptcy petition, the Smiths 

listed Countrywide Home Loans (“Countrywide”) as holding two secured claims 

against the Property. 

In 2008, Countrywide -- as servicing agent for HSBC -- moved for relief 

from the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). The bankruptcy court denied 

the motion but entered a Consent Order modifying the automatic stay to allow the 

bankruptcy trustee to market the Property for sale. If the Property remained unsold

2 A more thorough description of the underlying factual and procedural history is set forth in the 

district court’s decision. See Smith v. HSBC Bank, N.A., 616 B.R. 438 (S.D. Ga. 2020). 

USCA11 Case: 20-11641 Date Filed: 03/18/2021 Page: 3 of 8
4

as of 4 May 2009, the automatic stay would terminate without further hearing or 

order and foreclosure proceedings could commence. 

In July 2009, the bankruptcy court denied the Smiths’ motion to vacate the 

Consent Order and stated that foreclosure on the Property could proceed. The 

district court affirmed; we dismissed the Smiths’ appeal as frivolous. 

In April 2012, the bankruptcy trustee abandoned the bankruptcy estate’s 

interest in the Property. In January 2013, the bankruptcy trustee objected to a 

proof of claim filed earlier by Countrywide (“Claim No. 10”) on grounds that the 

mortgage loan on the Property was “secured by property either abandoned or not 

administered by the Trustee and, therefore, [Countrywide] should look to its 

collateral for satisfaction of the debt.” The bankruptcy court sustained the 

objection and disallowed Claim No. 10.

HSBC foreclosed on the Property in May 2015. On 1 June 2016, the 

bankruptcy court entered an order discharging the Smiths’ debt under Chapter 7. 

The Smiths were evicted from the Property in August 2017. 

In August 2018, the Smiths filed the motion at issue in this appeal: a motion 

titled “Emergency Motion to Enforce Discharge Injunction and Motion for 

Issuance of an Order to Respondents to Show Cause why they should not be Held 

in Contempt” (“Contempt Motion”). The Smiths contended that -- by enforcing 

USCA11 Case: 20-11641 Date Filed: 03/18/2021 Page: 4 of 8
5

the lien and foreclosing on the Property -- HSBC and the lawyers, law firms, and 

realtors involved in the foreclosure proceedings violated the bankruptcy court’s 

discharge injunction under 11 U.S.C. § 524 and the bankruptcy court’s order 

disallowing Claim No. 10. 

The bankruptcy court denied the Contempt Motion. The bankruptcy court 

concluded that the Chapter 7 discharge had no effect on the lien on the Property 

and, thus, the foreclosure proceedings “had nothing to do with the Smiths or their 

discharge.” The bankruptcy court also found no violation of the order disallowing 

Claim No. 10. The district court affirmed. 

II. Discussion3

We review de novo legal conclusions of both the bankruptcy court and the 

district court. See Finova Cap. Corp. v. Larson Pharmacy, Inc. (In re Optical 

Techs., Inc.), 425 F.3d 1294, 1299-1300 (11th Cir. 2005). We review for clear 

error the bankruptcy court’s factual findings. See id. at 1300. 

3 In their appellate brief, the Smiths reiterate arguments they have raised in other related civil 

actions about HSBC’s alleged violations of the automatic stay. Because these arguments were 

not raised below in connection with the Smiths’ Contempt Motion, the arguments are not 

properly before us in this appeal.

USCA11 Case: 20-11641 Date Filed: 03/18/2021 Page: 5 of 8
6

A. Discharge Injunction

A Chapter 7 discharge “operates as an injunction against the commencement 

or continuation of an action, the employment of process, or an act, to collect, 

recover or offset any such debt as a personal liability of the debtor.” 11 U.S.C. 

§ 524(a)(2). The Supreme Court has said that -- while a Chapter 7 discharge 

extinguishes the personal liability of the debtor -- it does not extinguish a creditor’s 

right to foreclose on a valid mortgage on the debtor’s property. See Johnson v. 

Home State Bank, 501 U.S. 78, 83 (1991). Instead, “a creditor’s right to foreclose 

on the mortgage survives or passes through the bankruptcy.” Id. 

Under the Bankruptcy Code, the Smiths’ Chapter 7 discharge had no impact 

on the validity or enforceability of HSBC’s lien against the Property. HSBC thus 

retained the right to foreclose. The bankruptcy court concluded correctly that the 

complained-of acts taken by HSBC and others to foreclose, evict, or to sell the 

Property constituted no violation of the Smiths’ Chapter 7 discharge injunction. 

USCA11 Case: 20-11641 Date Filed: 03/18/2021 Page: 6 of 8
7

B. Disallowance of Claim No. 10

The bankruptcy court also concluded correctly that the validity of HSBC’s

lien against the Property was unaffected by the disallowance of Claim No. 10. The 

record demonstrates that the bankruptcy trustee sought to disallow Claim No. 10 

because the trustee had earlier abandoned the Property and the Property was thus 

no longer part of the bankruptcy estate. Never did the bankruptcy trustee challenge 

the validity or enforceability of the lien on the Property. To the contrary, the 

bankruptcy trustee said expressly that HSBC “should look to its collateral for 

satisfaction of the debt.” By sustaining the trustee’s objection and disallowing 

Claim No. 10, the bankruptcy court disallowed only HSBC’s claim to an interest in 

the bankruptcy estate. The bankruptcy court made no merits determination about

the validity or enforceability of HSBC’s lien on the Property. 

We reject the Smiths’ contention that the disallowance of a claim under the 

circumstances presented in this case operates to void automatically an otherwise 

valid lien under 11 U.S.C. § 506(d). We cannot conclude that the bankruptcy court 

erred in finding no violation of the disallowance order.

USCA11 Case: 20-11641 Date Filed: 03/18/2021 Page: 7 of 8
8

C. Constitutional Due Process

On appeal, the Smiths contend they were denied their due process rights 

when the bankruptcy court ruled on their Contempt Motion without an evidentiary 

hearing. This argument is without merit. Generally speaking, due process rights 

are attributed to the party against whom contempt sanctions are sought. See 

Mercer v. Mitchell, 908 F.2d 763, 766-67 (11th Cir. 1990). We have found no 

binding precedent requiring these same due process protections for the party 

seeking the issuance of a contempt order. 

The Smiths also contend that adverse rulings by the bankruptcy court and 

the district court denied the Smiths their due process right to object to the real party 

in interest. We reject these conclusory arguments. That Plaintiffs are dissatisfied 

with the outcome of the proceedings establishes no constitutional violation.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 20-11641 Date Filed: 03/18/2021 Page: 8 of 8