Opinion ID: 2297758
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Repossession Of The Car

Text: The following Monday, June 8, 2009, Mr. Berow's automobile was repossessed by Citizens Automobile Finance. Ms. Berow said that she or her husband notified Citizens of the bankruptcy, and the car was returned immediately, without any intervention by respondent. Indeed, Ms. Berow said that she did not advise respondent of the event until after the car had been returned. Respondent informed Bar Counsel that it was respondent's law clerk who arranged to have the car returned. On June 15, respondent, on behalf of the Berows, filed a motion for sanctions against Citizens for attempting to repossess the car in violation of the automatic stay that took effect under § 362 of the Bankruptcy Code. In her motion, respondent also claimed that the towing company had done $3,825 in damages to the car. She asked for sanctions in the amount of $9,445 in compensatory damages, $3,000 in attorneys' fees, and $10,000 in punitive damages. She claimed that she filed the motion because of the damages to the car and that, if she was not able to recover her fees from Citizens, the Berows would have to pay an additional fee of $1,500. Respondent testified that, after the motion was filed, Ms. Berow called her and advised that she and her husband had rethought things and that the damages to the vehicle existed before the car was repossessed. Respondent said that Ms. Berow instructed her to call Citizens and offer to drop the motion for sanctions if Citizens would reduce the monthly payments on the car. Whether as part of that conversation or one that followed, respondent added that Ms. Berow told her that she and her husband had decided to surrender the car to Citizens and that one of them had brought the car to her office without informing her and without leaving the keys. After somehow learning that the engine was blown, respondent concluded that the Berows purposely had attempted to deceive her. Ms. Berow told a quite different story. She said that, after informing respondent that the vehicle had significant engine problems, respondent, on August 10, 2009, recommended that they surrender the car by leaving it at her office where it would be picked up by Citizens. According to Ms. Berow, respondent told her that she (respondent) had spoken with the attorney representing Citizens and that Citizens had agreed to abandon its claim for a deficiency balance on the loan in exchange for a surrender of the car and dismissal of the motion. Ms. Berow added that respondent never, in fact, contacted Citizens and never reached an agreement concerning the deficiency balance. Instead, Citizens notified the Berows of its intent to pursue a claim against them for the balance of the loan. Faced with this conflict, that seemed to permeate the entire matter, Judge Cahill found that [r]espondent's version of the facts was not crediblethat she was not a credible witness in her own defense, that [h]er testimony was sometimes internally contradictory and confused, that her demeanor was combative and argumentative, and that [r]espondent was not truthful when she informed Ms. Berow that Citizens Automobile had agreed to abandon its claim for a deficiency balance as consideration for return of the vehicle and dismissal of the Motion for Sanctions. In contrast, Judge Cahill found that Ms. Berow's version of what happened was logical, and consistent and that her testimony generally was both clear and convincing.