Order Determining That Modern Rent to Own Violated the Automatic Stay and Awarding Damages Under 11 U.S.C. § 362(K). The Court ordered sanctions against a Creditor for violating the automatic stay, and granted nominal damages of $1 and punitive damages of $5,000 to Debtor. Pro se Debtor had filed a chapter 7 bankruptcy petition and listed certain lease-purchase agreements between herself and Creditor. The Bankruptcy Noticing Center served a notice on Creditor on September 5, 2025. Shortly thereafter, Debtor began receiving three to five phone calls per day, as well as text messages, from Creditor. These messages attempted to recover on Debtor’s prepetition debt, or repossess the personal property which secured it. Debtor missed opportunities to work as a result of her full voicemail. On October 31, Debtor explained to Creditor’s representative that she had filed bankruptcy, but the representative responded that he was instructed to continuously call anyone whose account was not current, regardless of a bankruptcy filing. As directed by the representative, Debtor emailed and called the Creditor to inform them of her bankruptcy proceeding. The manager of the store likewise indicated that he had received notice of the proceeding, but had been told the stay did not apply. The Court found that this behavior constituted a willful violation of the automatic stay, as Creditor had knowledge of the bankruptcy. Furthermore, the Court found this behavior justified damages under 11 U.S.C. § 362(k)(1). Debtor alleged injuries from the violation of the automatic stay, such as costs to file and serve the motion, missed work opportunities, and mental anguish; however, she failed to introduce evidence sufficient to quantify compensatory damages. As a result, the Court awarded $1 in nominal damages. The Court also awarded punitive damages because Creditor acted in reckless disregard of the stay, about which it had been notified multiple times. Further, Creditor’s constant phone calls and texts harassed Debtor. In determining the amount of punitive damages, the Court did not use the nominal damages as a guidepost because they were not representative of Debtor’s actual damages nor sufficient to deter Creditor and others. Instead, the Court determined a moderate damage award was necessary and reached $5,000 by doubling the amount that Debtor owed on the underlying contractual obligations.