UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

__________________________________ 

 ) 

In re: ) CASE NO. 20-10135-RAM 

 ) CHAPTER 13 

SCOTT DEUTSCH, ) 

 ) 

 ) 

 Debtor. ) 

 ) 

 ) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

CONTEMPT BUT LIMITING SCOPE OF 

PERMISSIBLE RELIEF IN CRIMINAL CONTEMPT CASE 

 

 The Court conducted a hearing on January 23, 2020, on Debtor’s 

Verified Emergency Motion to Hold Creditor, Jeffrey Charlow and 

Creditor’s Counsel Natalie Guerra-Valdes, Esq., in Contempt of Court 

for Intentional Violation of the Automatic Stay, to Enforce the 

Automatic Stay, and for Attorney’s Fees and Other Sanctions (the 

“Motion for Contempt”) [DE# 9]. The Motion for Contempt seeks relief 

Robert A. Mark, Judge

United States Bankruptcy Court

_____________________________________________________________________________

ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on January 28, 2020.

Case 20-10135-RAM Doc 18 Filed 01/29/20 Page 1 of 4
2 

against Jeffrey Charlow and his counsel, Natalie Guerra-Valdes, Esq. 

(collectively, the “Respondents”), for proceeding with a criminal 

case pending against the Debtor in Broward County, Florida, Case No. 

18-003514-CT-10-A (the “Criminal Contempt Case”). The Criminal 

Contempt Case was initiated by an order entered by Judge Robert W. 

Lee in a civil case also pending against the Debtor in Broward 

County, Florida, Case No. 16-00012 COCE (53) (the “Civil Case”). 

The order was entered based upon the Debtor’s willful failure to 

obey court orders entered in the Civil Case. 

 The Debtor argues that the Respondents violated the automatic 

stay by proceeding with a postpetition hearing in the Criminal 

Contempt Case on a motion to compel the Debtor to post a cash bail 

bond instead of a surety bond. The Respondents argue that Judge Lee 

determined that the Criminal Contempt Case could proceed and argue 

further that Judge Lee was correct based on 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(1). 

That section excepts from the automatic stay “the commencement or 

continuation of a criminal action or proceeding against the debtor.” 

 The Court has considered the record, including the Motion for 

Contempt, Respondents’ response [DE# 14] and orders entered in the 

Criminal Contempt Case that were attached to the response. The 

Court has also considered the arguments of counsel presented at the 

January 23rd hearing and reviewed applicable law. 

Case 20-10135-RAM Doc 18 Filed 01/29/20 Page 2 of 4
3 

Discussion 

 This Court agrees with decisions holding that criminal contempt 

proceedings fall within the § 362(b)(1) exception if the criminal 

contempt order that was entered, or is being sought, is intended to 

uphold or vindicate the court’s authority or dignity. See, e.g., 

In re Burgess, 503 B.R. 154, 156 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2014). Thus, 

generally speaking, the continuation of the Criminal Contempt Case 

is not a violation of the automatic stay. 

 Proceeding with the motion to compel a cash bond after the 

bankruptcy was filed arguably could have been a stay violation if 

the court had granted the motion and ordered the Debtor incarcerated 

unless he posted a cash bond that required him to use property of 

his bankruptcy estate. That did not happen. Debtor’s counsel 

presented argument against the motion to compel, and Judge Lee denied 

the motion. 

 Going forward, the Criminal Contempt Case may continue and 

there will be no violation of the automatic stay if Judge Lee imposes 

a fine or sentences the Debtor to jail based upon his prepetition 

conduct. There are two limitations. First, Judge Lee may not 

sentence the Debtor to jail with an Order that purges the sentence 

if the Debtor pays a fine and payment will necessarily come from 

property of the estate. Imposing a fine on the Debtor for his past 

conduct will not violate the stay if the fine is a postpetition debt 

Case 20-10135-RAM Doc 18 Filed 01/29/20 Page 3 of 4
4 

that may be paid in the Debtor’s chapter 13 plan rather than a fine 

immediately payable as a condition for not being incarcerated. 

 Second, Judge Lee cannot threaten jail unless the Debtor 

produces documents or appears for deposition because any inquiry 

into the Debtor’s financial condition must now be done in the 

bankruptcy case. 

 Therefore, it is - 

ORDERED as follows: 

 1. The Motion for Contempt is denied. 

 2. Subject to the limitations in this Order, the state court 

may proceed with the Criminal Contempt Case and may fine or 

incarcerate the debtor if it finds him in criminal contempt. 

### 

COPIES TO: 

Timothy S. Kingcade, Esq. 

Natalie Guerra-Valdes, Esq. 

Nancy K. Neidich, Trustee 

Case 20-10135-RAM Doc 18 Filed 01/29/20 Page 4 of 4