The purpose of this article is to discuss important recent jurisprudential developments concerning the restraining order. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit made the following comments regarding the importance of the injunction to discharge in a Chapter 7 consumer case:
It is well established that discharge is the foundation upon which all other parts of the Bankruptcy Code rest. We constated that “[b]Bankruptcy allows honest but unfortunate debtors to reorganize their financial affairs and get a fresh start. This is accomplished through the statutory discharge of pre-existing debts. In re DeTrano, 326 F.3d 319, 322 (2d Cir. 2003) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). We have previously described the “fresh start” provided by the discharge as “the central purpose of the bankruptcy code” as shaped by Congress, enabling debtors to obtain “a fresh start in life and a free field discharged by the existence of old debts”. In re Bogdanovitch, 292 F.3d 104, 107 (2nd Cir. 2002). The “fresh start” is only possible if the injunction to discharge drafted by Congress and issued by the bankruptcy court is fully taken into account by the creditors and prevents their subsequent collection efforts. Violations of the injunction damage the foundations upon which the debtor’s fresh start rests.
Anderson vs. Credit One Bank, NA, 884 F.3d 382, 389 (2nd Cir. 2018) cert. den., 139 S.Ct. 144 (2018).