Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

In re: Case No. 19-26594-EPK

GLORIA JEAN OUSLEY BELLAMY, Chapter 13

Debtor.

______________________________________/

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY MAKE CENTS INC. d/b/a MAXLEND 

SHOULD NOT BE HELD IN CONTEMPT OF COURT AND SANCTIONED

FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH

ORDER AWARDING ACTUAL AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES 

This matter came before the Court upon the Debtor’s Ex-Parte Motion for Order to 

Show Cause Why Make Cents Inc. d/b/a MaxLend Should Not Be Held in Contempt of Court 

for Failing to Comply with Order Awarding Actual and Punitive Damages Against Make 

Cents Inc. d/b/a MaxLend [ECF No. 53] (the “Motion”) filed by Gloria Jean Ousley Bellamy, 

the Debtor in this chapter 13 case. 

On February 18, 2020, the Debtor filed the Debtor’s Amended Motion for the 

Imposition of Sanctions and an Award of Damages, Punitive Damages, Attorneys’ Fees and 

Costs Against Make Cents Inc. d/b/a MaxLend [ECF No. 29] (the “First Motion for 

Erik P. Kimball, Judge

United States Bankruptcy Court

_____________________________________________________________________________

ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on April 23, 2020.

Case 19-26594-EPK Doc 56 Filed 04/23/20 Page 1 of 5
Page 2 of 5

Damages”). The Debtor duly served the First Motion for Damages and related notice of 

hearing by Federal Express and by United States mail on Make Cents, Inc. d/b/a/ MaxLend 

(“MaxLend”) [ECF Nos. 29 and 33]. MaxLend did not file a response to the Motion, nor did 

MaxLend appear at the hearing. 

After carefully reviewing the First Motion for Damages and considering the

arguments presented at the hearing, the Court found that MaxLend willfully violated the 

automatic stay imposed under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) by twice attempting to take funds from the 

Debtor’s bank account via electronic transfer (once successfully) and by telephoning the 

Debtor on a nearly daily basis, in an effort to collect a pre-bankruptcy obligation, all after 

obtaining both constructive and actual notice of the Debtor’s bankruptcy case. Order 

Awarding Actual and Punitive Damages Against Make Cents Inc. d/b/a MaxLend [ECF No. 

35] (the “First Order Awarding Damages”). The Court also found that MaxLend continued 

these collection actions even after it was pointed out that its collection attempts were in 

violation of the automatic stay and that it could be held liable for actual and punitive 

damages under 11 U.S.C. § 362(k).

As a result of MaxLend’s actions in knowing violation of the automatic stay, the 

Debtor was required to retain counsel. Counsel charged the Debtor fees and expenses in 

connection with the First Motion for Damages in the aggregate amount of $2,281.70, which 

the Court found reasonable under the circumstances. MaxLend actually took the sum of 

$263.98 from the Debtor’s bank account in violation of the automatic stay. The Debtor 

suffered additional damages in the amount of $30.00, which she was required to pay to her 

bank to stop payment when MaxLend attempted to take funds out of her account a second 

time. The Court ordered MaxLend to pay to the Debtor actual damages in the aggregate sum 

of $2,575.68, which included legal fees and costs, funds taken from her account, and fees she 

was required to pay to her bank.

Case 19-26594-EPK Doc 56 Filed 04/23/20 Page 2 of 5
Page 3 of 5

Because MaxLend continued to intentionally violate the automatic stay even after it 

was advised, by duly filed motion served on it, that its actions were in violation of the stay 

and that it could be held liable for actual and punitive damages, the Court found that punitive 

damages were appropriate. The Debtor requested punitive damages in the amount of 

$5,000.00, which the Court found to be reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances. 

Said amount was approximately twice the total actual damages sustained by the Debtor as 

a result of MaxLend’s intentional and knowing violation of the automatic stay and thus was

well within the range of punitive damages historically found appropriate by the United States 

Supreme Court. See In re WVF Acquisition, LLC, 420 B.R. 902, 915 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2009)

(citing BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 580-83 (1996)). In sum, the Court ordered 

MaxLend to pay $7,575.68 to counsel for the debtor, for the benefit of the Debtor, by April 15, 

2020. The First Order Awarding Damages was duly served on MaxLend by United States 

mail. ECF No. 38. 

On March 18, 2020, the Debtor filed the Debtor’s Second Motion for the Imposition of 

Sanctions and an Award of Damages, Punitive Damages, Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Against 

Make Cents Inc. d/b/a MaxLend [ECF No. 39] (the “Second Motion for Damages”), which 

was duly served on MaxLend by United States mail. The notice of hearing for the Second 

Motion for Damages was also duly served on MaxLend by United States mail. ECF No. 41. 

The Debtor filed the Supplement to Debtor’s Second Motion for the Imposition of Sanctions 

and an Award of Damages, Punitive Damages, Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Against Make Cents 

Inc. d/b/a MaxLend [ECF No. 45] (the “Supplement”), which was duly served on MaxLend 

by facsimile. The Supplement noted further violations of the automatic stay by MaxLend.

MaxLend did not file a response to the Second Motion for Damages and did not appear at the 

hearing.

Case 19-26594-EPK Doc 56 Filed 04/23/20 Page 3 of 5
Page 4 of 5

After carefully reviewing the Second Motion for Damages and the Supplement and 

considering the arguments presented at the hearing, the Court found that, despite its prior 

entry of the First Order Awarding Damages, MaxLend continued to willfully violate the 

automatic stay imposed under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) by continuing to call the Debtor on the 

telephone on a nearly daily basis, in an effort to collect a pre-bankruptcy obligation. Order 

Awarding Additional Actual and Punitive Damages Against Make Cents Inc. d/b/a MaxLend

[ECF No. 50] (the “Second Order Awarding Damages”). The Debtor had to retain counsel 

once again, and counsel charged the Debtor fees and expenses in connection with the Second 

Motion for Damages in the aggregate amount of $1,161.95, which the Court found to be 

reasonable under the circumstances. The Court ordered MaxLend to pay to the Debtor actual 

damages in the aggregate sum of $1,161.95.

Because MaxLend continued to intentionally violate the automatic stay even after the 

service of the First Order Awarding Damages and a duly filed motion served on it stating 

that its actions were in violation of the automatic stay, the Court found that punitive 

damages were appropriate. The Debtor requested $2,400.00 in punitive damages, which the 

Court found to be reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances. See In re WVF 

Acquisition, LLC, 420 B.R. at 915 (citing BMW of N. Am. Inc., 517 U.S. at 580-83). In sum, 

the Court ordered MaxLend to pay $3,561.95 to counsel for the Debtor, for the benefit of the 

Debtor, by May 9, 2020. The Second Order Awarding Damages was duly served on MaxLend 

by facsimile. ECF No. 51.

In the Motion now before the Court [ECF No. 53], the Debtor informed the Court that 

MaxLend did not pay $7,575.68 by the April 15, 2020 deadline. In light of the foregoing, the 

Court ORDERS and ADJUDGES that:

1. The Motion [ECF No. 53] is GRANTED to the extent provided herein.

Case 19-26594-EPK Doc 56 Filed 04/23/20 Page 4 of 5
Page 5 of 5

2. A duly authorized corporate representative of MaxLend and counsel representing 

MaxLend shall both appear for hearing before the Honorable Erik P. Kimball on May 14, 

2020 at 10:00 a.m. to show cause why MaxLend should not be held in contempt and 

sanctioned. Potential sanctions may include a monetary sanction in the form of a daily 

sanction not to exceed $5,000 per day. The hearing will be by telephone only. The parties 

are instructed to consult with the Court’s website, https://www.flsb.uscourts.gov, to ascertain 

how to appear by telephone.

3. If MaxLend fails to appear at the hearing, both through a duly authorized corporate 

representative and counsel, the Court may order that Richard Mayer, the current chief 

operating officer named in the Motion [ECF No. 53], be apprehended by the United States 

Marshal Service and brought, in person, to a hearing before the Court.

###

Copies to: 

Mark S. Roher, Esq.

Mark S. Roher, Esq. shall serve a copy of this order on all parties in interest and file a 

certificate of service with the Court.

Case 19-26594-EPK Doc 56 Filed 04/23/20 Page 5 of 5