Opinion ID: 2364343
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Harm to the Bransfords

Text: ¶ 36 Ms. Ferguson contests the hearing officer's finding that the Bransfords suffered harm as a result of her ex parte appearance. The hearing officer found that Ferguson's ex parte appearance caused increased legal expense and delay due to the transfer of proceedings to bankruptcy court and the entry of an order finding the Bransfords in contempt of court. DP at 26. ¶ 37 It is undisputed that these harms occurred. The record contains a copy of the order signed by the judge finding the Bransfords in contempt of court as well as a copy of the notice of the Fergusons' bankruptcy filed on May 5, 2005 at 3:30 p.m. Bankruptcy attorney Mary Schmitt testified that [j]ust the event of filing bankruptcy can result in higher costs to the creditor, including increased legal fees. 1 VTP at 196. ¶ 38 However, Ferguson claims that this harm was not caused by the ex parte hearing because she did not intend to be heard ex parte that day and sought a hearing for the purpose of avoiding foreclosure rather than filing bankruptcy. The record contains conflicting evidence regarding Ferguson's intentions and purposes in appearing ex parte. However, Ferguson's argument is not quite on point. Regardless of her intent, the ex parte hearing resulted in an order finding the Bransfords in contempt and granting possession of the house to the Fergusons, enabling them to bring the house into their bankruptcy filing. Moreover, the hearing officer was entitled to find portions of witness testimony regarding intentions not credible and to infer that Ferguson did intend the ex parte hearing to facilitate possession prior to bankruptcy due to the timing of the bankruptcy. Thus, the finding of harm caused by the ex parte hearing is supported by substantial evidence.