Court Opinion

ID: 9687794
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:48:59.424545+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:31.872163
License: Public Domain

OLLASON, Bankruptcy Judge,
concurring:
I agree that First Card’s complaint was substantially justified on the facts of this ease so as not to warrant the debtor’s award of attorney’s fees. Generally, however, it appears the litigation expenses of banks to determine the credit card debt nondischargeable outweigh their expenditures to discover or pursue warnings of default which would preclude an extension of credit in the first place. This tactic, of course, increases the debtor’s legal expenses and compromises judicial economy. In awarding attorney’s fees for the prevailing debtor, judges should be equally concerned with the chilling of the bank’s interest in pursuing a fraudulent debt- or in bankruptcy as with the bank’s indifference to a debtor’s financial situation at the time it solicits or extends the credit. See In re McDaniel, 202 B.R. 74, 79 (Bankr.N.D.Tex.1996) (financially strapped debtor was victim of “commercial entrapment” when bank enticed him to consolidate bills and to purchase holiday gifts with low interest rate).