Citizens Bank of Maryland v. Strumpf
United States Supreme Court
516 U.S. 16 (1995)

- Written by Denise McGimsey, JD
Facts
On January 25, 1991, the date on which he filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition, Strumpf (defendant) held a checking account with Citizens Bank of Maryland (Citizens) (plaintiff) and was in default to Citizens on a $5,068.75 loan. Strumpf’s petition triggered an automatic stay of certain creditor activity, including any setoff of prebankruptcy debt. In October 1991, Citizens placed an administrative hold on Strumpf’s account, blocking any withdrawals that would reduce the balance to less than Strumpf’s debt to Citizens. Five days later, Citizens moved the bankruptcy court for relief from the automatic stay so that the bank could debit Strumpf’s account to offset the loan debt. Strumpf responded with a motion to hold Citizens in contempt on the grounds that its administrative hold violated the automatic stay. The bankruptcy court considered Strumpf’s motion first, ruling in his favor that the hold was a setoff prohibited by the stay. The court sanctioned Citizens. Several weeks later, the court considered and granted Citizens’ motion for relief from the stay. By that point, however, Strumpf had drained the account. The district court reversed the bankruptcy court’s determination that Citizens violated the stay. The court of appeals then reversed the district court. Citizens petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Scalia, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.