By order of the Bank ruptcy Appe llate Panel, the prec edential effec t of t his de c isi on is l im ite d to thec as e an d p ar tie s p ur su an t to 6th C i r
. B A P L B R 8 0 1 3 -1 (b). S

ee a l s o 6 th C i r
. B

A P L B R 8 0 1 0 -1 (c).
F ile Nam e: 07b0013n.06
BA NK RU P TC Y A P P ELLA TE P AN EL OF THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
I n re : SAI

NT TO RRA

NC E a/k/ a TOR RANCE SMI TH, Debtor.

______________________________________ SAI NT TORRANCE a/k/a

T O RR A N CE SMI TH, Pla int if f- Ap pe lla nt,

v. CI NCI NNATI GAS & E L ECTRI C COMP ANY, Def endant- Appellee

.

______________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 06-8090

Appea l from the United States B ankruptc y Court fo r t he Sou the rn

Di str ic t of

Oh io, Wes te rn

Di vis ion , at Cin c inn a ti. Ba nkruptcy Case No. 02- 16796, Adver sary Procee ding N o. 06-01025. Submit ted: Aug ust 1, 2007
Dec ided and F iled: September 26, 2007
B e fo re : L AT TA , SCO TT , a nd WHI PPL E, B ank

ru ptc y Ap pe llate Pane l Judg e s.

____________________ CO UN SEL
O N B RI E F: Andre w L . Tursca k, J r., THOMPSON HI

NE, C leveland, Ohio, for Appe llee. Torr ance Smit h, Cincinnati, Ohio, pro se.T h e B an k r u pt cy Code i s c on t ai n ed i n 11 U

. S. C. §§ 101- 1330. 1

- 2- ____________________ OP IN ION

____________________ J OSEPH M. SC OTT, JR ., Ba nkruptcy Appellate Pane l J udg e. Appe llant Saint Torranc e a/ k / a T o rr an ce S m i t h (t h e “ Ap p e l l a n t ” ) , p ro ce ed i n g pr o s e , appea ls the bankruptcy court’s or der dis m i s s i n g h i s c o mp l a i n tf o r d a m a g e s an d

i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f

a g a i n s tC i n c i n n a t i G a s & E l e c t ri c Company (the “ Appellee ”). F or the re asons that fo llow, the bankruptc y court’s or der is AF FI RMED.
I. ISSU ES ON AP P EAL
The issues befor e this panel a re: (1) whether

the bankr

uptcy court prope rly

conclude d that the debt complaine d of by the Appellant wa s a post-petit i o n d ebt, and (2) if so, whethe r the bankruptc y

court c orre ctly

ruled that a

cre ditor’s eff

ort to collect a post-petition debt i s not subject to, a nd there fore does not violate, §§ 366 and 524 of the B ankruptc y

Code. Additional issues have

1 b e e n r a is e d b y th e A p p e ll an t th a t ar e n o t p r o p e r ly b e f o r e th is p an e l, b u t th e y n o n e th e le ss will be addre ssed in the “Disc ussion” section below.

II. JU RI SDI CT ION AND STANDARD OF RE VI EW
The B ankruptc y

Appellat e P an el of the Six th Circuit (“B AP”) ha s jurisdiction to hear and decide this appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 158(b)( 1). The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio has a

uthorized appea ls to the BAP, and neither party has t imely elec ted t o have this appe al hear d by the district court. 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(b)( 6), (c )(1) . A final order of a bankruptc y court may be a pp e a le d b y

ri g ht u nd e r 2 8 U .S. C. § 15 8( a )( 1) . T he dis mis sa l of the Ap pe lla nt’ s c omp la int

is a fi na l or de r a s it

“ e nd s th e lit ig a tio n on the me ri ts a nd le ave s n oth ingfo r t

he c ourt to d o b ut e xec ute the judg ment.” Midland Asphalt Cor p. v. United States , 489 U.S. 794, 798, 109 S. C t. 1494, 1497 (1989) ( citations omitt ed). This panel re views the bankruptc y court’s f indings of f

act f or cle ar e rror

and its conclusions of law de novo

. Adell v. J ohn Richards Home

s Bldg. Co. (I

n re John Ric hards Homes Bldg. Co.) , 43 9 F .3 d 2 48 , 254 (6 th Cir . 200 6)

. “ A fin din g of fa c t is c le arl y e rr on e ou s ‘w he n a lth ou g h th e re is- 3-

evidenc e to support it, the revie wing court, on the e ntire evide nce, is lef t with the definite and f

irm conviction t hat a mistake ha s been c ommitt ed.’” Un ite d Sta te s v . M ath e ws ( In re Ma the ws) , 2 09 B .R. 2 1 8 , 2 1 9 (B

. A. P

. 6 t h C i r. 1 9 9 7 ) ( qu o t i n g An de rso n v . B esse me r Ci ty , 470 U. S. 564 , 573 , 105 S. Ct

. 1504, 1511 (1985)) . Under a de novo standard of

revie w, th e re v i ewingcourt de cides a n issue independe ntly

of, and w ithout defere nce to, the tr ial court’s de te rmination. Treinish v. Norw est Bank Mi nn ., N.A . (

In re Pe ria nd

ri) , 266 B.R. 651, 653 (B .A.P. 6th Ci r. 2001).

III . F AC TS On September

11, 2002, the Appellant filed a voluntary petition for r elief unde r cha pter 7 of the B ankruptc y

Code. Acc ording to his S chedule s filed with the petition, the Appellant owe d an

unsecur ed debt of

$4,000 to the Appellee and was the rec ord title owne r of re al prope rty located at 2521 Rack Court in Cin ci n n ati , Ohio (the “ Rack Court Proper ty ”), the primary

location of the dis pu te d u til ity

c ha rg e s. On September 13, 2002, two day s afte r t he bankruptcy petition was filed and pur suant to a fo re cl o s u re sale conduc ted prior to the f iling, US B ank filed a

petition for possession of the Rac k Court Property

with the Hamilton County Court of Common P leas (the “State Court”) . On Octobe r 23 , 2 0 0 2 , U S B an k f

il e d a mo ti o n f

o r r e li e f f r o m th e s ta

y w it h th e b an kr

u p tc y court, whic h was g rante d on November

25, 2002. During this same ti me period, on November 7, 2002, the cha

pter 7 t r u s t e e f i l e d n o t i c e o f a b an d o n m e n to f

t h e p r o p e rt y.
On Janu ary 8, 20 03 , th e Ap pe lla

nt o bta ine d a

dis c ha rg e . The or de r d isc ha

rg e d a ll discharg eable pre- petition debts owed by the Appellant, including but not limit ed to the schedule d debt owed to the A

ppellee. Despi te th e tr

u s te e ’ s a b an d o n me n t o f

th e p r o p e r

ty , th e b an kr

u p tc y c o u rt’ s li f

ti n g o f the automatic stay , and the ba nkruptcy court’s g rant of a discharg e to the Appellant, US B ank did not

rec ord the tra

nsfer in owner ship of t he R ack Court Property until May 5, 2004–almost a y ear afte r
re c e ipt of an ord e r f

ro m th e State Court

c on fi rm ingthe sa le and

or de ri ngdis tr ibutio n o f t he sa le pr oc e e ds . Dur ingthi s ti me , th e Ap pe lla nt r e sid e d at th e Ra c k Co ur t pr op e rt y and , a c c or din g to h is

ow n te sti mony , c oll e c te d r e nt f ro m th e oth e r t e na

nts

.- 4-

On Fe bruar

y 1, 2006, the Appellant initiated his complaint ag ainst the Ap p e ll e e f o r in ju nctive relief and damag es under various sections of the B ankruptc y Code. I n the complaint, as amended, t h e Ap p ell ant alleg ed that a de bt owed to the Appe llee in the amount of $5,646.46 r elating to the Ra c k Co ur

t Pr op e rt y wa s d isc ha

rg e d in his ba nk ru ptc y c a se , b ut th at the Ap pe lle e c on tin ue d to

a tte mpt c oll e c tio n o f t

he de bt.
On J ul y 2 1 , 2 0 0 6 , the bankr uptcy court e ntere d an orde r g ranting in part the Appe llee’s motion to di smiss t he Appe llant’s complaint. Remaini n g we re two cause s of ac tion: one under Ba nkruptcy C o d e § 366 and anothe r under Ba nkruptcy Code § 524. On September 19, 2006, the ba nk ru ptc y c ourt g ra nte d th e Ap pe lla

nt’ s mo tio n f

or a c on tin ua nc e and re sc he du le d th e tr ia l.
The trial wa s conducte d on October 2, 2006, and on Oc tober 3, 2006, the ba nkruptcy court enter ed an or der dismissing the c ase in it s entirety . On Octobe r 10, 2006, the Appe llant filed a motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appea l. Although the ba

nkruptcy court found that an extension of time would not accomplish the purpose for which the motion wa s filed and, f or that

re a so n, de nie d th e Ap pe lla nt’ s mo tio n, the c ourt

g ra nte d th e Ap pe lla

nt t e n d ay s f

ro m the date of

its order to file a notice of appe al. The A ppellant timely

filed a notice of appe al on October 19, 2006.
IV . D ISC USS ION The bankrup tc y

c o u rt’ s h o ld in g th a t t

h e $ 5 , 6 4 6

. 4 6 d e b t o w e d b y th e A p p e ll an t t o the Ap pe lle e a c c ru e d a ft e r t

he fi lin g of

the Ap pe lla

nt’ s b ank ru ptc y pe tit ion is a fi nd ing of fa c t tha t is to be re viewed f

or cle ar e rror
. Se e Un ite d S tat es v . M

ath e ws ( In re Ma the ws) , 209 B.R. 218, 219 (B .A.P. 6th Cir. 1997). The documentar y and testimonial e vidence provided in the rec ord on appe al clea rly establish the validity

of the bankruptcy court’s finding. Copies of t he uti lity bills provided by both pa rties indicate that at the time of the Appellant’s bankruptc y , he owed a total of over $4,000 to t he Ap pe lle e on

thr e e se pa

rate re sid e nti a l ac c ounts . M r. De nn is H ur tt, the Sup e rv iso r o f M idw e st Rece ivables for the Appellee, t estified that upon notification of t he Appellant’s bankruptc y all three

acc ounts were written off as uncollec tible by

the Appellee and we re c lose d ac co rd ing to the company ’s standar d protocol. On September 24, 2002, new post-pe tition accounts wer e cr eate d by t h e A p p e l l e e f

o r t h e t w o m e t e r s a tt h e R a c k C o u rtP r o p e rt y:- 5-

Acc t. No. 5660-0077-40- 1 2521 Rack Ct. Apt. 2 (the “ Apar tment Meter Ac count”)
Acc t. No. 3660-0077-22- 2 2521 Rack Ct. (the “ Main Meter Acc ount”)
The star ting ba lance in both new ac counts ref lected only the requirement of a secur ity deposit ($65 and $280 re spectively

) and did not include a

ny of the Appe llant’s pre- petition balance . The Appellant does not dispute that the pr esent ba lance of the Apar tment Me ter Acc ount was incurr ed po st- pe tit ion

and , in ste a d, c ha lle ng e s o nly the pr op ri e ty of the c ha rg e s in the Ma in M e te r A c c ount. The sum c urre ntly owed by the Appellant to the Appellee on the contested Main M et er Ac count consists entirely

of fully documented utility

char g es and late fe es ac crue d by the Appellant at the Ra c k Co ur

t Pr op e rt y sin c e the fi lin g of the Ap pe lla nt’ s ba nk ru ptc y pe tit ion . A ll p re -p e tit ion de bts

wer e tre ated a s discharg ed by the Appellee as require d. The ba nkruptcy court’s holding that the debt complained of

by the Appellant is a post-pe tition debt is not c lear ly err oneous. I nstead, the holding is entirely corr ect, a nd is affirme d. The Appe llant further

argues that eve n if the utility debt is deeme d to be po s t -petition indebtedness, an y a tt e mp t b y th e A p p e ll e e to c o ll e c t th e d e b t is a v io lati o n o f § 5 2 4 o f the Ba n kr u p tc y Co d e
. I n p e rti n e n t p art, § 5 2 4 ( a ) ( 2 ) p r o v id e s f o r an “ in

ju n c ti o n ag ainst the

commence ment or continuation of a n action, the e mploy

ment of proc ess, or a

n act, to collect, r ecove r or off set any such debt a s a p ersona l liabilit y of the de btor.” 11 U.S.C. § 524(a) (2). How ever , acc ording to the clea

r statutory

lang uag e of § 727( b), only “debts tha t ar o se bef

ore the date of

the order for r elief” are discharg eable , and thus only actions to collec t those pre- petition debts are enjoined by

§ 524(a) (2). Ne ie r v
. Ne ie r ( In re Ne ie r) , 45 B.R. 740, 743 (B ankr. N .D. Ohio 1985). An attempt to collect a

post-petition debt is not subject to the strictures of § 524, and thus cannot be a viol ation of it. See O akFabc o, Inc. v . Am. Standard, Inc. ( In re KewaneeBoiler Corp.) , 2 97 B .R. 72 0, 73 2 ( B ank

r. N. D. I ll. 20 03 ); Mi llsap s v. Uni ted S tat es ( In re Mi lls ap s) , 133 B.R. 547, 552 (B ank r. M. D. F la . 1 99 1) ; In re Harv ey , 88 B.R. 860, 862 (B ankr. N .D. I ll. 1988). The bankr uptcy court’s holding in this reg ard is af firmed.
Simi larly , the Appellant argues that even if the utilit y debt is de em ed t o b e post -petition ind e bte dn e ss, the te rm inatio n o f h is uti lity se rv ic e fo r fa ilure to pa y the de bt is a vio la tio n o f t he a nti

discrimination provisions of § 366 of t he Bankruptc y Code. I n pertinent pa rt, § 366(a) provides that a “utility may not alter, re fuse, or

discontinue servic e to, or discr iminate ag ainst, the t rustee or the- 6-

debtor so le ly

o nth e b a s is

. . . th a t a

d e b t o w e d

b y th e d e b to r

to s u c h u ti li ty

f o r s e r v ic e r e ndere d bef o re t h e o rder for r elief w as not paid whe n due.” 11 U .S.C. § 366(a). Onc e ag ain, the re levant statutory lang uag e is c lear that this sec tion is applicable only to de bts inc urre d “bef ore the orde r for relief ,” and theref

ore doe s not apply

to post-petition debts. S ection 366 of the Ba nkruptcy Code does

no t pr e ve nt a

uti lity fr om e xer c isi ngany

ri g hts that it

may have wi th r e g ard to a

po st- pe tit ion

de fa ult by a debtor, including but not limited to termination of service

. Henne n v. Dayton Power & Light Co. , 17 B.R. 720, 723-24 (S.D. Ohio 2005); see Begley v. Philadelphia Elec. Co. , 760 F.2d 46, 49 (3 rd Cir . 1 98 5) ; Demp v . Philadelphia Elec. Co. ( In re De mp) , 22 B.R. 331, 332 (B ankr. E.D . Pa. 19 82 ); In re Sc earce , 2005 WL 4030139 at * 1 (B ankr. S.D. Ohio August 15, 2005). To find otherwise is to provide a discharg ed debtor with complementar

y utilit y service for the r emainder of his natural life. The bankruptc y court’s holding in this reg ard is af firmed.
As for the sug g estion of other issues, the Appellant s eems to argue that the bankruptcy court
err ed in re fusing to allow him to amend hi s compl aint in order to a ssert a c laim for a violation of § 362 of the B ankru p t cy Code. But, ther e is no evidenc e in the re cord that the Appellant eve r attempted to amend his complaint to include a § 362 claim, and e ven if such a claim wer e asse rted, the pr ote c tio n o f t

he a uto ma tic sta

y do e s n ot a

pp ly to t he po st- dis c ha

rg e c oll e c tio n atte mpt s complained of

in this case. Instead, such a ctions are g overne d by the permanent i njunction of § 524, an issue prope rly pled and ruled upon by the bankruptcy court. The failure to include a claim under § 3 62 is n ot a

n is su e be fo re thi s p ane l. The Appe llant also ap p ea rs to complain that the bankr uptcy court e rre d by

not allowing

a dd iti on a l ti me for di sc ov e ry in t his ma tte r. Ho we ve r, the Ap pe lla nt f a ile d to ob

je c t to the tim e allowed f or discover

y by motion bef

ore trial, and he did not pre serve that objection at trial. In any
e ve nt, the re c or d in dic a te s th a t th e ba nk ru ptc y c ourt e xten de d th e tim e fo r d isc ov e ry a t th e re qu e st of the Appellant, and postponed the trial date at his r equest. Fur thermore , there is no evidence that the discover

y period set by

the bankr uptcy court wa s unrea sonable or that the Appellant wa s in any way prejudice d by

the discover

y proce ss. The fa ilure to pr ovide additional time for discove ry is not

an is su e pr op e rl y

be fo re thi s p ane l be c a

us e it w a s n ot p re se rv e d f or a pp e a l by the Ap pe lla

nt.
L astly , the Appellant a

rg ues that the ba

nkruptcy court err ed in failing to adequately consider evidenc e that he w as not the record tit le owner of t he R ack Court Property during the period of non-- 7-

pa y me nt. Ev e n so , the ow ne rs hip of the pr op e rt y is no t an is su e pr op e rl y

be fo re thi s p ane l be c a

us e it does not bear upon the resolution of the c laims broug ht by the Appellant. Once it was e stablished that the debt complaine d of by the Appellant wa s post-petition indebtedness, the owner ship of the pr op e rt y wa s a moo t po int . T hat is, any su bs e qu e nt co lle c tio n e ff

or ts o r b ill ingpr a c tic e s, re g ard le ss of t heir im propriety , wer e not within the province of the ba nkruptcy case . The ba

nkruptcy court’s ho ldi ngdid

no t for e c los e the Ap pe lla nt f ro m br ing inga

state c ourt

a c tio n to re so lve the ow ne rs hip iss ue . In f

a c t, t he Ap pe lla

nt i s c ur re ntl y lit ig a tin g thi s c la im i n th a t f or um. Th e pr op e r o wn e rs hip of the Rac k Court Property is not an issue befor e this panel on a ppeal.
V. CO NC LU SION
The ba nkruptcy court did not err

in finding that the deb t o we d b y t he Appe llant to the Appellee was a

post-pet i t i o n d ebt, and thus re sulted in no violation of §§ 366 or 524 of the B ank ru ptc y Cod e . T he or de r a

pp e a le d f ro m is AF F IR M ED

.