Opinion ID: 550367
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Whether Sanctions Were Appropriate

Text: 32 Appellant argues that even if the bankruptcy court below had authority to enter sanctions for civil contempt, the circumstances did not warrant the imposition of sanctions for contempt. We disagree. The bankruptcy court found that appellant had notice of the automatic stay before it sold appellees' car and that appellant failed to restore appellees to the status quo after it learned the sale was in violation of the automatic stay. These findings were not clearly erroneous, see Bartmann v. Maverick Tube Corp., 853 F.2d 1540, 1543 (10th Cir.1988) (an appellate court review[s] the bankruptcy court's factual findings under the clearly erroneous standard), and they adequately supported the bankruptcy court's conclusion that appellant was in civil contempt and that sanctions for its contempt were appropriate.