## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 07

- 3954 I N THE M A T T E ROF : S TEF ANIE K I M K UE HN, D ebto r-A pp ellee

. A PP E A L OF : C ARDINAL S T R I T CH U NIVER S ITY, I NC .

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the Western Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 07 -cv-003 68 -bb c

—Barb ara B. C rab b , Chief Ju dge

.
A RG UE D M AY 28, 2008

— D ECI DE D A PRI L 16, 2009

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, Chi ef Judg e, a nd R IPPLE a nd W OO D , C ircu it Judges . E A S T E RB R OO K, Chi e

f Judg e . T h is c as e p re se n ts a si n gle qu estion: Doe s a un iversity vi olate the B an krup tcy C od e’s autom ati c st ay ordi schar ge i nj uncti on byr efu sing to pr o vi d e a tr an sc r i pt be ca us e pr e- pet i ti o n de btr emai ns un pa i d? S te f an i e Kim K ue hn, a n a r t te ache r, e nr o l l ed i n a tw o- yea r m ast er ’ s degr ee prog ra m atCardi nal S tr i tch2 N o. 07

- 3954 U ni ver si ty. S he to ok advantage of the U ni ver si ty’ s pay- asy o u- g o pl anb utstop ped pay i ngmidwaythr o ug h the fi rs t y ear . The U ni ver si ty nonethel ess al l owed herto tak e e xam s, r ecei ve gr ades, and s ign up f ornew cl ass es. She com p le t e d a llof th e w ork requ ired for a m aster’s deg r ee , whi ch th e Uni ve r si ty awar ded. But wh en K uehn a s k e d fo r a t r a ns c r i pt

— th e p ro ofnece ssa ryto r ecei ve an i ncre ase i n sal ar y fro m herscho oldi str i ct

— the Unive rs i ty r efus ed be ca us e sh e o wed mor e th an$ 6, 00 0 i n tui ti o n. U nw i l l i ng to pay her debt t o the Unive rs i ty

— eve n th ough the i ncre ase i n her sal ar y w oul d c ove r the w h ole tu iti on in les s th an tw o years, an d she cou ld h ave borro w ed aga i nst that incre ase

— and unabl e to o bt ain a tr anscr i pt w i thout paym ent, Ku ehn fi l ed a b ankr up tcy p etition l isti n g t he U niversity as a cred itor. ( K ue hn ’s l a wy e r ha d a dv i s e d he r tha t the Uni v e r s i t y wo ul d have to p ro vid e h er a tr an sc rip t if sh e filed for b an kr u p tc y.) W hi l e the c a s e wa s p e nd i ngKu e hna g a i n r e qu e s t e d a t r a ns c r i pt, a nd the Uni v e r s i t y a g a i n re fus e d t o p r o v i de one. A fterthe bankr up tcy cour t is sued an orderdi schar gi ng her debt to the U ni ver si ty, 11 U
. S. C. §727, K ue h n yet aga i n ask ed f or a tr anscr i pt and a s bef or e agr eed to p ay the tra nscri pt fee, bu t not the tui ti on. A gai n the U ni ver si ty re fused. Ku ehn cont ends that the pr e- disc harg e r efusal v i o l a t e d the Ba nk r up t c y Co de ’ s a ut o mat i c s t a y, 1 1 U. S
. C. §3 62 ( a) , a nd the l at er one the di sc ha r g e i nj unc ti o n, 11 U
. S. C. §524 ( a) , bec ause the r efusal s were acts to c olle c t h er u n p aid d eb t. B an kr u p tc y Ju d ge M ar tin or dered the U niv er si ty to provi de a t ra nscri pt and pay da mag e s a nd a t torne y s ’ fe e s . T he di s t r i c tc o ur ta ffi r med

. 20 07 U .S. D ist . L EXIS88 19 1 (W .D . W is. N ov . 30, 20 07 ). I tN o. 07

- 3954 3 f o l l o we d In reM e r ch ant, 958 F.2d 738 , 741 (6th C ir. 1992), th e only appell ate deci si on o n the subj ect

—b ut, a l a s , an unreas oned one

. Se cti on 3 62( a) ( 6) pro hibi ts pre- peti ti on cr edi tor s fro m ta kin g “ an y a c t t o c olle c t, as se ss , or rec ov er a c laim aga i nst the debtor that ar ose bef or e [ the fi l i ng of a bankru p tc y p et itio n ]” u n til th e b an kr u p tc y p ro c ee d in g is cl ose d or d i sm i sse d. Se cti on 5 24( a) ( 2) “o perat es as an i nj uncti on a gai nst
. . . an act, to co l l ect
. . . [ disc harg ed debt] as a p er so na l l i ab i l i tyo fthe de bt o r ”. Othe r s ubs ec ti o ns prohibi t using l eg alpro cess to co l l ect, enf or ci ng a prepeti ti on j ud gm ent, orexer ci si ng co ntro l o verthe proper ty o fthe de bt o r . S ee § § 36 2( a) ( 1) –( 3) , 5 24 ( a) ( 1) –(3 )
. Kuehn ar gues that the Unive rs i ty vi ol ate d these sect i ons w hen i t r efused to pro du ce he r tr anscr i pt. Accordi ng to he r, b ec au se a t r an sc r i pt ha s no i ntri ns i c va l ue t o the U ni ver si ty, a re fusalto pro vi de one m u st b e a n act to c olle c t. T h e U n ive rs ity co n c e d es th at its p olic y is d e s i g n ed to ind u c e s tu d en ts to p ay th eir tu itio n, bu t it m aint ains tha t an“ ac t to c o l l ec t” f o r th e pur po se o fthe Bankruptcy C od e is l i m i ted to a posi ti ve ste p, such a s r epo ss es singa c ar . A pas si ve f ai l ur e to do whatthe deb to r de si r es i s no t a n “a ct, ” the U ni ve r si tys ubmi ts
. The U n ive rs ity tre at s t h e t ra n sc ri p t a s a p ro d u c t t h at it is not obl i ged to sel l to som eone w i th w hom i t no lo nger w ants to do busi ness. I fKu ehn had att em pted to pu rchas e a tr anscr i pt on cre dit, and the U ni ve rs i ty, havi ng be en bur ned once, prove d unw i l l i ng to m ake ano therl oan, thi s w oul d be an ea sy ca se . Sec tio n s 3 62 (a) a n d 5 2 4(a )(2) ap p ly on ly4 N o. 07

- 3954

w hen a cre dit oract s t o colle cta pre- peti ti on o r disc harg ed deb t. A lthough the f ai l ure to re pay a debt f acto rs i nto a cre ditsco re , the use o fa cred it score i s f or w ar d-l oo ki ng. Pote nti alcr edi tor s co nsi der c re d itw or thi ness to eval uate the w i sdom of future tr ansact i ons, not to col l ect u n p aid deb ts
. Any o th ere nt i tydecidi ngwhethe r t o e xt en d cr edi t woul d c o ns i derKuehn’ s f ai l ur e to pa y, a nd the U ni ver si ty m ay do the sam e. O th e r s e c t i o ns o ft h e B a n k r u p t c y C o d e s e to u ts o me circum stan ces in w hich cred itors m ay not cons ider a d eb to r’s p rior ba n kr u p tc y filin g. Se e 1 1 U .S.C . §36 6 (u tiliti es m ay not re fu se serv i ces i fthe debtorpro vi des a de qu a t e a s s ur a nc e o f pa y men t wi thin 2 0 da y s ) ; 1 1 U. S
. C. § 5 2 5 ( a n t i

- d i s c r i mi n a t i o n p r o v i s i o na p p l i c a b l e t o e mp loyers and govern m en t ent it ies). O th erw ise, how ever, yeste rd ay’s fai lure to pa y i s a p rop er bas is for tom orrow ’s re fusalto exte nd cr edi t. The Fa i r Credi t Repor ti ng Act perm i ts bankr up tcy fi l i ngs t o ap p ea r on co nsum er re port s f or10 ye ar s fro m the date o fd isc h ar ge. S ee 15 U.S. C. § 16 81 c. I t f o l l o ws tha t wi th i n 1 0 y ea r s f r o m the date o f d i schar ge a pro specti ve cre dit orm ay consi der disc harg ed debts i n deter m i ni ng cr edi tw or thi ness. Bu t Kue h n i s w i l l i n gt o p a y i n a d v a n c e f o r a t r a n s c r i pt ofhergr ades, and the U ni ver si ty’ s o nl y r eas on f or bal ki ng i s t o i nd uce herto pay f orthe educati on

— yetthat debt has been disc harg ed. The U ni ver si ty conte nd s that i t doe s no t hav e a co ntrac tu alo bl i gat i on t o provi de a tr an scr i pt and that, witho ut an obl i gat i on, a passi ve re fus a l t o de a l c a nn o t b e a n a c t t o c o l l e c t
. I t r e l i es on Cit ize ns Bank o

f M aryl and v. St r um pf , 516 U
. S. 16 (1995),N o. 07

- 3954 5

w hi ch i t s ays es tabl i shes that re fu sa l to dealcannotbe an “a ct t o col l ect”
. St r um pf hel d that a bank did n ot viol at e th e au to m at i c st ayb y pl ac i nga ho l d o n a checking ac count whil e a sking the bank rup tc y c ourtto l i ft th e st ay, s o tha t th e ba nkc o ul d s eto ffthe acco unt’s bal anc e agai nst a n obl i gat i on the debto r owed to th e b an k. The Courtco ncl ud ed that a ho l d desi gned to m ai ntai n the sta tu s quo w hi l e the bank ruptcy cour t co nsi ders the r equest does n ot v i ol ate §3 62. S ee 51 6 U .S. at 2 1. T h is d oe s n otim p ly t h at th e b an k c ou ld ke ep th e a c c ou n t b loc ke d n o m at te r w h at h a p p e n e d in th e ban krup tcy, or even after a d ischa rg e . T he Cou rt concl ude d tha tthe b a nk ’ s de l a y wa s n o ta n a c tt o c o l l ect because i t ha d a r ight und erst ate l aw , a ri ght pr ese rv ed bythe Ba nk r upt cyCo de, to s eto ffthe c he ck i ng - ac co unt b ala n c e a ga in st th e d e b t t o t h e b an k. T h at righ t w ou ld be undercut i fthe autom ati c st ay perm i tte d the debto r to d rain th e ch ecking accou ntw hile the ban k’s han d s w ere tied. Bu t m one y ow ed to a u n iv e r s ity ca nn ot be set off aga i nst a tr anscr i pt ofgr ades

— th e t w o i tem s a re not o f s i mi l a r c ha r a c t e r, se e Bost on & M ai neCorp. v. C hic ago P a cific C o rp . , 7 8 5 F
. 2 d 5 6 2 ( 7 th Ci r . 1 9 86)

— an d th e U n i v e r s i t y ’ s r e fu s a l i s n o td e s i g n e d t o a ff o r d t i me f o r j udi ci alde ci si o n. The dis tr i ct c ou rtappli ed w hat s eve ra l co urts have d ubbed a “ coe rci ve effects ” t est : a cre dit oract s t o col l ect a debt i fi t a cts orf ai l s to ac t, i n a c oer ci ve m anner, with th e s o le p urp ose of col lecting th at d ebt. Th is “test” can ’t b e fo u n d in t h e C od e, an d sit u at ion s t o w h ich it appli es w i l l be ra re , b ec au se m ostact s o r f ai l ures to act have m ult i ple purposes , such a s m i ni m i zi ng r i sk base d on6 N o. 07

- 3954

cr edi two r th i ne ss . A r at i o na l c r edi to r do es i ts el fno favor s byr efus i ngt o e ng ag e i n fut ur e tr an sa ct i o ns w hen the debtorwill p ay cash. S ee In reKm ar tCorp. , 35 9 F
. 3 d 8 6 6 , 8 7 3 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 4 )
. I fth e c r e d i t o r h a s c o mpeti tor s, the debtor w i l l deal w i th them and the cr edi tor l o se s pr o fi t. I fthe c r edi to rha s m ar k etpo wer i n the go od s o r se rv ice s b ei n g s o l d , i t w ill m ax im ize its p ro fit by set ti ng a m onopol y pr i ce forfuture tr ansa c tio ns, not by trying to collec t a deb t. Pu rsu ing bygon es is a su re w ay to re du ce future profi ts. I fthe U ni ver si ty i s no t obl i gat ed to pro vi de K uehn a t ra nscri pt , i ts bestco urse ofact i on i s t o sel l the tr anscr i pt f oras m uch m oneyas possibl e. That a m ount i s unre l ate d toKuehn’s unpaid debt. A t o ra l arg u m en t w e a sk ed th e U n ive r s ity if it c ou ld ch arge K ue hn a l arge su m ( say , 2 5 % o f th e salary increas e she stan d s to receive fr om h er em p loyer) f or a tran script
. I t replied that i t cou ld n ot. T ha t an sw er un d erm i nes i ts p os iti on that i t has no obl i gat i on t o provi de a tr anscr i pt to Ku ehn. A pro vi der o fgo ods and se rv i ces us ua ll y i s free to c ha rge w ha tever th e m arket w il l bear. W e co ul d not find a ny l aws o r r egul at i o ns l i m i tingthe pri c e o fc o l l e g e t r a ns c r i pt s . S o wh y do e s the Uni v e rs i ty thi nk tha t the fee f ora tr anscr i pt m ust be nom i nal, l i m i ted t o the c o s t s o fp r i nt i nga nd c e r t i fy i ngthe g r a de s ? P e r ha ps th e a n sw er is th at p ro vid in g a tra n sc rip t is an im p licit part oft h e educati onalco ntra ct, co ver ed by the fee f or th e co ur se ho ur s, a nd tha t Kuehnthe refore ha s a co nt r a c to r p r o pe r t y r i g htf o r wh i c h s he h a s a l re ady p a i d. ( W el l, she hasn’ t pai d, but hero bl i gat i on t o do so has be endi sc ha r g ed, s o it c om es t o the s ame thi ng . ) The U ni ver si ty cannot charg e K uehn extr a i fthe fee f ori nstr uc-N o. 07

- 3954 7 ti on co ver s t ra nscri pts to o. Then the U ni ver si ty’ s r efu sal to c erti fy a tr anscr i pt ofKu ehn’s gr ades would be an a ct to col l ect the dis charg ed debt a nd would vi ol ate bo th the autom ati c sta y and the disc harg e i nj uncti on . See In reUAL Corp. , 412 F.3d 775 , 778 (7th C ir. 2005). W el l, then, does Ku ehn have a proper ty i nter estbec ause a ce r ti fied tran sc r i pt i s par t o fthe pa ck ag e o fg o o ds an d se r vi ce s th ata c o l l eg e o ffer s i n e xc ha ng e f o r tuiti o n? Pro pertyi nter est s a re cr eat ed and defi ned by s tat e l aw u n les s a fed er al l a w r eq u ire s a d iffer en t re su lt. B utn er v. U nited Sta tes , 4 40 U. S
. 4 8, 5 5 ( 19 79 )
. Nothi ngi n the B an kr u p tc y C od e c re at es or a lte rs p ro p er ty r i g h ts in g r a de s o r the r i g htt o r e c e i v e a t r a ns cri pt. Othe r fe der all aw address es pri vacyco ncer ns but n ot pro perty i nter est s. S ee 20 U
. S. C. §123 2g ( Fam i l y Educati onal Rights a nd Pri vacyA ct)
. W hat r em ai n ar e sta te sta tutes and com m on l aw . S ee Boa r d of Rege n t s v . Ro th , 4 08 U
. S. 564, 577 (1972). O n l y o n e f e d e r a l c o u r to fa p p e a l s ( a n d n o s t a t e s u p r e me cour t) has consi dered wh ethera curr ent o r f orm er st u d en t ha s a p ro p er ty rig h t to re c eiv e a t r an sc rip t. Juras v . A m an C olle cti on Service, Inc. , 829 F.2d 739 ( 9th Cir. 1987 ) , con c l ud ed that M ontana’ s s tatutor y defi ni ti on o f pr o per tydo es no t g i ve s tu den ts property r i g ht s i n t r an sc r i pts
. M o nt an a defi ne s pr o per tyo wner sh i p a s “the ri ght o fo ne o r m or e perso ns to poss ess and use [ a thi ng] to the e xc l us i o n o fo th er s”
. M o nt
. Co de §7 0- 1- 10 1. The co ur t co nc l ude d tha t be ca us e a uni ve r si tyc r eates, mai ntai ns , and poss ess es the g ra de re cor d to the e xcl usi on o f othe rs i t i s the o w ner ofthe offi ci altr anscr i pt. The ni nth8 N o. 07

- 3954

c irc u it’s co n c lu sio n is qu es tio n ab le. U n ive rs itie s in M ontana ar e l i m i ted bybo th st ate and federa l l aw i n wha tthe y c a n do wi th a s t ud e nt ’ s g r a de s . Mo nt
. Co de §20- 25- 515 say s that a uni ver si ty “shal l r el eas e a stude nt ’ s ac ade m i c r ec o r d .

. . whenr eque st ed bythe student”. This sounds l i ke a r ule thatthe student has a pr o per tyi nt er es t i n the i nf o r m at i o n, e ve n tho ug h the schoo l al so m ay use the d at a. ( Shar ed proper ty ri ghts ar e co m m on. Both l andlo rd and te nant have pro perty i nter e s t s i n the pr e mi s e s . Or think o f l a nd s ubj e c tto a n e a s e m en t fo r tr an sit .) B u t, righ t o r w ro n g, Juras is unhe l pful

— C ar d in al St rit c h U n ive rs ity is loc at ed in W i sco nsi n, wh os e l aw does notdefi ne pro pertyr i ghts i n the sam e way as M ontana. W iscons in cou rts ha ve n ot con side red w h eth er a student has a co ntra ct or p ro pertyr i ght t o re cei ve a t ra nscri pt. N o W isconsi n sta tute i s o n poi nt. U nd er W i sco nsi n com m on l aw , pro pertyrights m ay ar i se f ro m custo m and usage

. S ee D e l apl ai ne v. Chic ago & N
. W
. Ry. , 42 W is. 214 (W is. 1877) (ri p arian w ater rights); Ke ogh v. D aniel l , 12 W is. 163 (W is. 1860) (m ovab le fixtu res). U niversi ti es have consi ste ntl y pr ovi ded tr anscr i pts ato r ar ound cost

. A tr anscr i pt curr en tly sets students b ack $4 at CardinalS tr i tch Un i ver si ty, $3 atH ar var d U n ive rsi ty, and nothi ng atthe U ni ver si ty ofChica go i fdel i vered el ectr oni cal l y ( othe rwis e $ 12). F ees ato theruni ver si ti es are s im ilar. W e cou ld n ot fi nd any ca se in any cou rt w h ere a uni ver si ty had asse rt ed that i t co uld char ge a s t u d e n tmo r e t ha n c o s tf o r a t r a n s c r i p t, a n d , a s f a r a s we ca n t el l, no uni ve r si tyha s ev ert r i ed to pr o fi t byc ha r g i ng a fee based on th e trans cript ’s e ff e ct on a stud en t’sN o. 07

- 3954 9 fu tu re inc om e. T h is c u st om is sim ila r to th os e in D ela pla ine a nd Keogh

. Tha t W i sc o ns i n h as no t pr ev i o us l y r ec o g ni ze d a r i g ht to re cei ve a t ra nscri pt does not affect our anal ysi s. S i nce col l ege s don’ t t re at re gi str ar s’ o ffi ces as p rofi t ce nter s, the questi on has not ar i sen. W hat w e need to kn ow is h o w t h e Su p re m e C ou rtof W isc on sin w ou ld h an d le it if it w er e t o c om e u p . A n d w e th in k it like ly

— it is im p os sib le to s aymo re

— that the s tat e j ud i ci ar y would deem the s tudents and co l l ege s t o be j oi nt o w ners o fthe data re fl ecting g ra des , because thati s ho w the educati onal c o nt r a c ti s r o ut i ne l y u nd e r s t o o d. A l o ng st an di ngc us to m o r pr actice do es no t pr ev en t change. Fo r exam ple, a i rl i nes use d to car rycheck ed ba g g ag e wi th o uta fee . Butno body, i nc l udi ngthe Suprem e Cour t o fW i scon sin, would concl ud e that U ni ted A i rl i nes i s depri vi ng pass enger s o ft h eir pro perty w hen i t no w cha rg es forcheck ed bag s. The co st ofcheck i ng ba gga ge is deter m i ned by c ontr actual ri ghts that can be al tered bythe parti es. Cardi nal S tr i tch Uni ve r si tyc o ul d a nno unc e to fut ur e stude nt s th att r an sc r ipt fe es woul d r efl ec t th e va l ue o fthe e duca ti o n. But th e Uni ve r si tydi d n ot saya ny s uchthi ngt o Kuehn w h en sh e e n ro lled , or ev en w h en sh e g ra d u at ed , an d it can’ t chang e the te rm s o fa contr act afterthe f act

— eve n w hen thos e t er m s a re i m pli ed ra therthan express . K uehn’s proper ty ri ght m i ght be l i m i ted to hergr ades, an i ntangibl e r i gh t si m i l arto the ri ght in a nam e o r l i kenes s, se e H irsc h v. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. , 90 W i s. 2d 37 9, 2 80 N
. W
. 2d 1 29 ( W i s. 1 97 9) , a nd no t i nc l ude a r i g ht10 N o. 07

- 3954 to r ec ei ve a t r an sc r i pt fro m the Uni ve r si tyc er ti fy i ng thos e gr ades. Bu t the custo m of unive rs i ti es has been to p ro vid e c er tifie d tra n sc rip ts , an d for go od rea so n . In ta n gibl e g ra des ar e worthl ess witho ut p ro of. K uehn’s schoo l dist ri ct incre ase s co m pensati on o nl y a fteri t rec eives a c er tifie d tra n sc rip t. O th er em p loy er s h av e s im ilar p olici es . I n H irsc h the W i sc o ns i n S upr eme Co ur t r el i ed o n the pr o pe r t y r i g hti n a f o o tb a l l p l a y e r ’ s n i c k na me t o c o nc l ud e that the tor t ofm i sappropri ati on was ava i l abl e a t co m m on l aw . I t r eas oned that the tor t was nece ssa ryto gi ve value to th e p ro p er ty righ t. Id. at 383. S ee al so B aker v. Lib bie, 21 0 M ass . 59 9, 97N
. E. 109 ( M as s. 19 12 ) ( a l ett erwri terhas a rig h t t o re c eiv e c op ies of a let te r ow n ed b y a n ot h er in or der to gi ve val ue to the w ri ter ’ s co m m on- l aw pro perty i nt er es t i n the c o nt en ts of th e l et te r )
. Tha t r ea so ni ng a pp l i e s e qu a l l y h e r e . A r i g htt o r e c e i v e a ce r t i fi e d c o py o fa t r an sc r i pt i s es se nt i alt o a mean i ng fulpr o per tyr i g ht i n gr ades. That a student has a ri ght to a co py ofthe tr anscr i pt does not lea ve educati onali nsti tuti ons w i thout the m eans to col l ec t tui ti on. The U ni ver si ty i s unabl e t o col l ect Kuehn ’ s tu i ti o n o nl y b ec au se i t was c ar el es s. W he n Kue hn f ai l ed to pay herm ounti ng bi l l s the U ni ver si ty coul d have re fused to l et her enro l l in n ew cl ass es. I t co uld have re fused to l et her tak e e xam s. I t co uld have r efu sed to aw ar d a degr ee. O r th e Un i ver si ty coul d have r equi re d K uehn to bor ro w fro m a thi rd p arty to pay f orhereducati on. S tudent l oans ar e no t di schar geabl e unl ess a debtor ca n s ho w undue ha r d sh ip, s ee 1 1 U. S
. C. § 52 3( a) ( 8) , a nd i ti s u nl i k e l y tha tKu e hnc o ul d h a v e s ho wn un du e h a r dsh i p. S he was g ainful l y e m pl o y ed, a nd he r de btt o theN o. 07

- 3954 11 Un i v e r s i t y w a s s u b s t a n t i a l l y l e s s th a n th e e x t r a i n c o me the m ast er ’ s degr ee aff or ded

. Pre sum abl y the U niv er si ty wi l l pr o te ct i ts el fi n o ne o r mor e o fthe se way s i n the future. G ivin g w eig h t t o c u st om th at a m ou n ts to an im p licit term o fthe educati onalco ntra ct, and f ol l owing the r easo ni ngi n H irsc h , we c on cl ud e that Kuehn has a s tat e- l aw r i g htt o r ec ei ve a c er ti fi ed co py o fher tr an sc r i pt. The U n ive rs ity ’s re fu sa l to h on or th at righ t u n t i l K u eh n p aid he r b ac k tu i ti on was an a ct t o col l ect a debt and ther eby vi o l at ed th e au to m at i c st aya nd di sc ha r g e i nj unc ti o n. A FFI RMED

4- 16- 09