The procedural framework for civil contempt motions in bankruptcy court, used principally to enforce the automatic stay and the discharge injunction.
Rule 9014 governs a motion for an order of contempt made by the United States trustee or a party in interest. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9020.
Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9020 is, on its face, a brief incorporation rule: it provides that a motion for an order of contempt is governed by Rule 9014, the general rule for contested matters. The substantive contempt power and the standards for its exercise come from elsewhere - principally 11 U.S.C. Section 105(a), Section 362(k) for stay violations, and the federal court's inherent civil-contempt power for enforcement of orders of the court (including the discharge injunction under Section 524).
The 2001 amendment to Rule 9020 simplified the prior version, which had separately addressed direct and indirect contempt. The current rule channels all contempt motions through the contested-matter framework of Rule 9014.
The most common contempt motion in bankruptcy court is a debtor's motion against a creditor who continues collection activity on a discharged debt in violation of the discharge injunction under Section 524(a). The discharge injunction operates as an order of the court; a creditor who continues collection after the discharge violates the injunction and is exposed to contempt sanctions.
In Taggart v. Lorenzen, 587 U.S. 554 (2019), the Supreme Court held that a court may impose civil contempt sanctions for a discharge-injunction violation only where there is "no fair ground of doubt" as to whether the creditor's conduct violated the discharge order. The standard is objective: a creditor with a reasonable, good-faith belief that its conduct did not violate the discharge - even if that belief is ultimately incorrect - is not subject to contempt. Conversely, an unreasonable interpretation of the discharge is not insulated by the creditor's subjective good faith.
For violations of the automatic stay, the principal remedial vehicle is 11 U.S.C. Section 362(k)(1), which provides that an individual injured by a willful violation of the stay shall recover actual damages, including costs and attorney's fees, and in appropriate circumstances may recover punitive damages. Section 362(k)(1) is a statutory cause of action, distinct from the contempt power but procedurally pursued in many districts as a motion under Rule 9020 or as a contested matter under Rule 9014.
The "willful" standard for Section 362(k) is well-developed: the creditor need not specifically intend to violate the stay; it is sufficient that the creditor knew of the bankruptcy filing and acted intentionally in a manner that violated the stay. The willful standard is generally easier for a debtor to satisfy than the Taggart objectively-unreasonable standard for discharge-injunction contempt.
Section 105(a) of the Code provides that a bankruptcy court "may issue any order, process, or judgment that is necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this title." Federal circuits are split on whether Section 105(a) provides an independent grant of civil-contempt authority or whether the contempt authority derives from the bankruptcy court's status as a unit of the district court. In practice, the difference matters less than the underlying procedural requirements - notice, opportunity to be heard, and a finding of contemptuous conduct on the record.
Because Rule 9020 incorporates Rule 9014, contempt motions follow the standard contested-matter procedure:
The procedural protections are necessary because civil contempt sanctions can include monetary damages, attorney's fees, and (in extreme cases) coercive sanctions designed to compel compliance.
Civil contempt sanctions in bankruptcy court typically include:
The Supreme Court has emphasized that civil contempt sanctions must be either compensatory (compensating the injured party for actual loss) or coercive (designed to bring about compliance). Punitive sanctions in civil contempt have been subject to constitutional and statutory limitations.
A creditor sends a post-discharge collection letter to a debtor whose debt was discharged in a Chapter 7 case. The debtor's counsel sends a cease-and-desist letter with a copy of the discharge order. The collection continues. The debtor files a Rule 9020 motion for contempt alleging violation of the discharge injunction under Section 524(a), citing the Taggart standard. The court holds a hearing and, if the violation is established, awards actual damages, attorney's fees, and (where appropriate) coercive or punitive sanctions.
A secured creditor repossesses a vehicle after receiving notice of the debtor's Chapter 13 filing. The debtor files a motion under Section 362(k)(1) for willful stay violation. The court holds an evidentiary hearing, determines that the repossession was willful, and orders return of the vehicle plus actual damages, attorney's fees, and (in appropriate circumstances) punitive damages.
Rule 9020 is the procedural gateway to the substantive contempt remedies that enforce the structural protections of the bankruptcy system - the automatic stay during the case and the discharge injunction afterward. The rule's brevity belies its importance: without an enforceable contempt remedy, the stay and discharge would be paper protections.
The Taggart objectively-unreasonable standard has narrowed the path to discharge-injunction contempt sanctions in some respects, requiring debtors to show that the creditor lacked any reasonable basis for its interpretation of the discharge. The standard rewards creditors who consult counsel, document their reasoning, and pause collection in cases of genuine uncertainty.
Section 362(k) and Rule 9020 contempt are overlapping but distinct. A debtor pursuing a stay-violation remedy has the option of proceeding under Section 362(k)(1) (statutory cause of action, willful standard, mandatory actual damages and fees) or Rule 9020 (contempt motion, judicial-discretion sanctions). Many practitioners proceed under both theories in a single motion.
This page provides general information about Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9020 and the related contempt authority of the bankruptcy court. It does not constitute legal advice. Contempt motions in any specific case should be evaluated by qualified counsel against the controlling circuit law and applicable local rules.