WPCIV q6<gzq:>4saGK`ݘ7 HH$!LmOLx-;oֿLąY=}Gsk[KK0{E2|`4]AήB~8,Sŋ02@'+G:g4 47wQZԱ+b&d&1SH #0 ;v78AI(F}F[ɖ~ O$Ŭ\J{إ}4PHU |[I.f^I6Wj$!oqcmW X5?/xD%4X:5$ DgEJʸ M9$:ABXֱeFC&J ɅBuKxSlҾ/v(n# % 0D 0( U:? 0y UN? UF ^ w 4   m N UB! Ec e N 0eNJL-N?NANCU8EU>}G  0D 0K 0U( 0} B` 0} 0B 0 0 0m 0 0 0b 0' 0 0 0X 0 0! 0;" 0" 0]# 0$ 0$ 0% 0G& 0& 0' 0!( 0( 0=) 0) 0* 0>k+ 0+ 0, 0- 0e. 0G/ 0)0 0 1 01 022 02 0:3 0Y3 0_X4 0 4 05C7 A?? 0BFD D-H B*H D/$I 0SIYK D/xM 0M 06uN 0N 0:O 0^O 0<KP 1eP 0NPU6:QU*pQQ 1u7U 72U 0cUbAVHP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 5e,,,,0X(#$  0  ($<6X9`("Courier NewTT(d:2P$ !  =W4Xdd=      0  vr Z6Times New Roman RegularQ 9Z+.Courier New Regular)!5 g5.fr3|xU<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi Lipez CyrMolleurprepetitionPrattsArrudalienholder B.R.BankriSeaburyPshipKanebBessette AvcoServsValente I]freassuming JamoWhitehouseLaRochedischargeablenonbankruptcyPlattsCornejoarguendopossessoryButnerGrothLamphereFeldmeierSilberkrausaffd GMACA, B,Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 54#*&2Quick A.  .0 a, b, c,Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 ##Xd#<Q 9Z+ Courier New \  `&Times New RomanLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  ( $ Figure  1  *+ (_2623  ..*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /    d*8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKg<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard Kg<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/Kg<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/    P$=F0Xdd=      2    _=F0XXdXd=Subsection524(c)requiresthatreaffirmationagreements  Ѐ8  (i)0`   0 ` ` beexecutedbeforethe[general]dischargehas \ beengranted;2  8  (ii)0   beinconsiderationforadischargeabledebt, X whetherornotthedebtorwaiveddischargeof . thedebt;   8  (iii)0   includeclearandconspicuousstatementsthat   thedebtormayrescindthereaffirmation `  agreementatanytimepriortothegrantingof 6   thegeneraldischarge,orwithinsixtydays  \  aftertheexecutionofthereaffirmation  2  agreement,whicheveroccurslater,andthat   reaffirmationisneitherrequiredbythe   BankruptcyCodenorbynonbankruptcylaw;d   8  (iv)0   befiledwiththebankruptcycourt;and:   8  (v)0`   0 ` ` beaccompaniedbyanaffidavitofthedebtor's `  attorneyattestingthatthedebtorwasfully 6 advisedofthelegalconsequencesofthe   reaffirmationagreement,thatthedebtor  executedthereaffirmationagreementknowingly h andvoluntarily,andthatthereaffirmation > agreementwouldnotcausethedebtor undue d [e.g.,financial]hardship.:  11U.S.C.524(c);seeJamo,283F.3dat399.#$Y I&mage <=8C HKKKK  P$=F0Xdd=      3    _=F0XXdXd=Althoughweneednotaddresstheissue,thedistrictcourt  notedthat,eventhoughthePrattsvehiclehadbecomeessentially  inoperableandworthlessby1999,subsection348(f)(1)permanently \ fixeditsredemptionvalueat$2620.73!itsassessedvalueduring 2  theirchapter13case!thusmaking521(a)(2)redemption  economicallyinfeasibleforthePratts.<:zBottom of 7[(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?h%2A`Arial?  S\  `&Times New RomanS7Y(X75+ ` hp x 5   < P$=F0Xdd=      4    _=F0XXdXd=Somecourtsinterpretsubsection521(a)(2)torequirethat  thedebtorsurrenderpossessionofthecollateraltothetrustee,  andnottothesecuredcreditor.SeeInreClaflin,249B.R.840, \ 848n.6(BAP1stCir.2000).Butcf.Jamo,283F.3dat397( The 2 debtormay,ofcourse,surrenderthecollateraltothesecured X creditor.).Inthiscase,weneednotaddresstheissue,asthe . recordcontainsnoevidencethatthePrattsconcealedthevehicle   fromestaterepresentatives,northatthelatterhadanyinterest   inadministeringtheproperty.Consequently,weassume,arguendo, `  thattherehasbeenanabandonment.)!dxdx&0 d dZ)1dxd<:zTop of For7^(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?h%2A`Arial?  S\  `&Times New RomanS7Y(X75+ ` hp x 5    P$=F0Xdd=      5    _=F0XXdXd=GMACcouldhavearrangedforadequateprotectionofits  interests:forexample,byenteringintoacontractualagreement  withthePrattsthatitwouldreleasethelieninreturnfortheir \  promisetoarrangetohavethevehiclejunked.Z)2dxd0KS.SampleKg<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKg<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  /0123456 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(O$<6X9`(Courier New%2A`Arial  P$=F0Xdd=      1    =F0XXdXd=_Section105(a)provides:  8  Thecourtmayissueanyorder,process,orjudgmentthat \ isnecessaryorappropriatetocarryouttheprovisions 2 ofthistitle.Noprovisionofthistitleprovidingfor X theraisingofanissuebyapartyininterestshallbe . construedtoprecludethecourtfrom,suasponte,taking   anyactionormakinganydeterminationnecessaryor   appropriatetoenforceorimplementcourtordersor `  rules,ortopreventanabuseofprocess.6     11U.S.C.105(a).3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)ji)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  - - !  _TRXܐ3'X3' Letter3'Letter3'LetterT ? * !Xz=XXXXXz=     :=F0XXdd=UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals  FortheFirstCircuit )XF0X)  A') ` dE<` A   No.XF0XXXF0Ԁ052453   @ppINRECARLTONDANAPRATTANDCHRISTINEANNPRATT, K  @HH'Debtors  G  #XF0XXXF0y#@<< 򀀀       `     h     @xx!CARLTONDANAPRATT, y  @%Appellant, %u  @tt)v. ! @  GENERALMOTORSACCEPTANCECORPORATION, } @&Appellee. )y    `     h     @<< 򀀀 O @ APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT  @FORTHEDISTRICTOFMAINE -} @$ $ [Hon. GeneCarter,SeniorU.S.DistrictJudge] ) @<< 򀀀  @'Before 1   @ Lipez,CircuitJudge, !-" @ Cyr,SeniorCircuitJudge, #$ @ andHoward,CircuitJudge. 5% & @<< 򀀀 &1"(     JamesF.Molleur,forappellant. (#*   F.BruceSleeper,withwhomJensen,Baird,Gardner&Henry, c)$+ wasonbriefforappellee. 9*%, @<< 򀀀 +_&- @"September1,2006 , (/ @<< 򀀀  -(0? : 8F0XXdd8   *!m   ` CYR,SeniorCircuitJudge. XF0XXXF0CarltonandChristinePratt,  chapter7debtors,appealthedistrictcourtjudgmentwhich x affirmedabankruptcycourtrulingthatGeneralMotorsAcceptance $t Corporation(GMAC)didnotviolatethechapter7discharge   injunctionbydecliningtodischargeitslienonthedebtors' |  automobileuntiltheypaidtheremainingbalancedueontheir ( x  prepetitioncarloan.Wenowreverseandremandforfurther $  proceedings.   @* I ,|  @%BACKGROUND  D    ` In1994,CarltonPrattboughtanewChevroletCavalier   andfinancedthepurchasethroughGMAC,whichacquiredalienon h thevehicle.Fouryearslater,thePrattsfiledachapter13 d petition,andestimatedthecurrentvalueofthevehicleat$4900.  ThebankruptcycourtallowedtheGMACproofofsecuredclaimfor l theoutstandingloanbalance(includinginterest)at$3,291.35,and h GMACsubsequentlyreceived$1,083.62indistributionsduringthe   courseofthechapter13proceeding. p!"    ` In1999,thePrattsconvertedtheirchapter13caseto #l$ chapter7,bywhichtimethebalancedueontheGMACsecuredclaim $ & approximated$2620.PursuanttoBankruptcyCode521(a)(2)(A), t&!( thePrattsgavenoticethattheyintendedto surrenderthe  (p#* vehicle,viz.,bycedingpossessioninlieuofreaffirmingtheir )%, prepetitionloanobligationtoGMAC.Thebankruptcycourtgranted x+&. theGMACmotionforrelieffromtheautomaticstayinorderto  allowGMACtorealizeonitslien.GMACnotifiedthePrattsin \ writingoftheirrighttocurethedefault.Afterconcludingthat X theexpenseofrepossessionwouldoutstripthevalueofitssecured   claim,GMACfolloweditscustomarypracticeofwritingoffthe `  remainingloanbalance.ThePrattsretainedpossessionofthe  \  vehicle.ThebankruptcycourtgrantedthePrattsachapter7   discharge,whichreleasedthemfromtheiroutstandingpersonal d  indebtednessforthebalancedueontheGMACcarloan. `     ` BySeptember1999,thePrattsrealizedthattheCavalier   wasinoperable,henceessentiallyworthless,andthattheywould h havetodisposeofit.Beforetheycould"junk"thecar,however, d salvagedealerswererequiredbyMainelawtoobtainareleaseof  theGMAClien.Duringthenextfewmonths,thePrattsrepeatedly l contactedGMACandrequestedthatiteitherrepossessthecaror h releasethelien.GMACrefusedtoreleaseitslienunlessand  untiltheoutstandingloanbalancewaspaidinfull. p     ` ThebankruptcycourtallowedthePrattsmotiontoreopen !l" theirchapter7casetopermitthemtofiletheinstantadversary "$ proceedingagainstGMAC,whichallegesthatGMACsrefusaleither t$& torepossessthevehicleortoreleasethelien,absentfull  &p!( paymentofthedischargedloanbalance,violatedthechapter7 '#* dischargeinjunctionprescribedbyBankruptcyCode524(a)(2). x)$, Cf.,e.g.,Arrudav.Sears,Roebuck&Co.,310F.3d13,21(1st $+t&. Cir.2002)( Evenaftertheterminationofabankruptcycase,a  dischargeddebtorwhowishestoredeempropertypursuanttosection \ 722,butwhobelievesthatthetermsproposedbythelienholderare X unfair,canaskthebankruptcycourttoreopenthebankruptcycase   andadjudicatethematter.). `     ` Induecourse,thecourtenteredjudgmentforGMAC.In  \  rePratt,324B.R.1(Bankr.D.Me.2005).Thecourtheldthat   (i)GMACsinremrightunderMainelawtoenforceitslienagainst d  thevehiclesurvivedintactthechapter7dischargeofthePratts `  unsecuredpersonalliabilityontheloan;(ii)byMainestatute,a   securedcreditorhasanunqualifiedrighttorefusetoreleaseits h lienuntiltheloanbalanceispaidinfull;(iii)theGMACrefusal d toreleaseitsliendidnotcoercethePrattstorepaytheir  dischargedpersonalliabilityonthecarloan,butsimplyinvoked l itslegitimateinremremediesasaccordedunderMainelaw;and h (iv)thesituationwasnomorecoercivethanhadGMACofferedthe  Prattsareaffirmationagreementwherebytheycouldconsentto p  repayboththesecuredandunsecuredportionsoftheloan !l" indebtedness.Seeid.at89.Followinganunsuccessful "$ intermediateappealtothedistrictcourt,thePrattsinitiatedthe t$& instantappeal.  &p!(  $+t&.    ` @tt) II  @%DISCUSSION x A.0  ThePutativeViolationoftheChapter7DischargeInjunction @(#(#    ` ThePrattsreiterateonappealthatGMACviolatedthe  X chapter7dischargeinjunctionbecauseitsrefusaleitherto   repossessthevehicleortoreleaseitslieneffectivelycoerced `   themtorepaythedischargedpersonalliabilityontheircarloan.  \  TheyinsistthattheGMACdecisioneffectivelynegatedtheirright   to surrenderthevehiclepursuanttoBankruptcyCode524(a)(2). d     ` Followinganintermediateappealtothedistrictcourt, ` wedirectlyreviewthebankruptcycourtdecision,conductingde   novoreviewofitslegalconclusions,andclearerrorreviewofits h findingsoffact.SeeInreNewSeaburyCo.Ltd.Pship,450F.3d d 24,33(1stCir.2006).     ` A[bankruptcy]discharge...operatesasaninjunction l againstthecommencementorcontinuationofanaction,the h employmentofprocess,oranact,tocollect,recoveroroffsetany   suchdebtasapersonalliabilityofthedebtor,whetherornot p!" dischargeofsuchdebtiswaived.11U.S.C.524(a)(2);Fleet #l$ MortgageGroup,Inc.v.Kaneb,196F.3d265,267n.4(1stCir. $ & 1999). [A]bankruptcycourtisauthorizedtoinvoke105to t&!( enforcethedischargeinjunctionimposedby524andorderdamages  (p#*  fortheappellantinthiscaseifthemeritssorequire.Bessette )%, v.AvcoFin.Servs.,Inc.,230F.3d439,445(1stCir.2000).i #  1            ` Althoughtheunsecuredportionofasecuredcreditors \ claimmaybedischargedinachapter7or13case,itslieninthe X collateralnormallysurvivesthebankruptcyproceedingandthe   discharge,andisenforceableinaccordancewithstatelaw.SeeIn `  reValente,360F.3d256,259n.1(1stCir.2004);Arruda,310F.3d  \  at21.TheBankruptcyCodenonethelesscontainsseveralprovisions   whichcontemplatelienavoidanceand/ormodification.Forexample, d  BankruptcyCode521(a)(2)prescribesseveralremediesforthe `  debtorwhodesirestobefreedfromaprepetitionlien:   8  8`    [I]fanindividualdebtor'sscheduleof h assetsandliabilitiesincludesdebtswhich > aresecuredbypropertyoftheestate!d` x` x 8      8  8`   (A)withinthirtydaysafterthedateofthe  filingofapetitionunderchapter7ofthis  titleoronorbeforethedateofthemeeting l ofcreditors,whicheverisearlier,orwithin B suchadditionaltimeasthecourt,forcause, h withinsuchperiodfixes,thedebtorshall > filewiththeclerkastatementofhis  intentionwithrespecttotheretentionor  surrenderofsuchpropertyand,ifapplicable, p  specifyingthatsuchpropertyisclaimedas F ! exempt,thatthedebtorintendstoredeemsuch  property,orthatthedebtorintendsto  reaffirmdebtssecuredbysuchproperty;\` x` x 8      8  8`   (B)within30daysafterthefirstdateset X forthemeetingofcreditorsundersection . 341(a),orwithinsuchadditionaltimeasthe   court,forcause,withinsuch30dayperiod   fixes,thedebtorshallperformhisintention `  withrespecttosuchproperty,asspecifiedby 6   subparagraph(A)ofthisparagraph;and \ ` x` x 8  8`   (C)nothinginsubparagraphs(A)and(B)of   thisparagraphshallalterthedebtor'sorthe   trustee'srightswithregardtosuchproperty d  underthistitle,exceptasprovidedin :  section362(h).` ` x` x >.11U.S.C.521(a)(2).      ` Subsection521(a)(2)thuscontemplatesthreedistinct h debtorprerogatives:reaffirmation,redemption,orsurrender.See d BankofBostonv.Burr(InreBurr),160F.3d843,84748(1stCir.  1998)(holdingthatreaffirmation,redemption,orsurrenderarethe l exclusivedebtorremediescontemplatedby521(a)(2)).Wherethe h debtorwishestoretainthecollateral,hemayeither reaffirm  hisagreementtorepaytheprepetitiondebtunderrenegotiated p  termsacceptabletothesecuredcreditor,or redeemthe !l" collateralbypayingitscurrentfairmarketvaluetothesecured "$ creditor.DuetotheimportanceoftheCodes freshstart t$& policy,however,reaffirmationagreementsaresubjectedtovery  &p!( stringentcontrolstoensurethatdebtorsareneithercoercednor '#* harassedbysecuredcreditorsintoreassumingdebtswhichwould x)$, otherwisebeentitledtodischarge.SeeInreJamo,283F.3d392, $+t&. 398(1stCir.2002);Whitehousev.LaRoche,277F.3d568,574(1st  Cir.2002)#XF0XXXF0 #Xz=XXXF0.#XF0XXXz=;#T #  2      ׀Likewise,theCodecontainsprovisionswhichfixthe \ amountatwhichthedebtorwillbeentitledtoredeemthe @ collateralunilaterally,whichinsomecircumstancesmaynot  < reflectitscurrentfairmarketvalueatredemption.See,e.g.,11   U.S.C.348(f)(1)(requiringthat,whenacaseisconvertedto D   chapter7fromchapter13,propertybevaluatedatthesameamount @  asitsdeterminedvalueduringthechapter13case).VL #  3      ׀Wherethe   debtordecidesnottoreaffirm,orthepartiescannotnegotiatea  reaffirmation,orredemptionisnoteconomicallyfeasible,the \ debtorhasbutoneoption: surrenderthecollateral.ThePratts X electedthelatteroption.      ` Subsection521(a)(2)doesnot,however,definetheterm `   surrender.SinceCongressdidnotusetheterm deliver,  \  however,onereasonablymayassumethat surrenderdoesnot   necessarilycontemplatethatthedebtorphysicallyhavetransferred d  thecollateraltothesecuredcreditor.See,e.g.,InreCornejo, `  342B.R.834,83637(Bankr.M.D.Fla.2005).X< #  4      ׀Thus,themost   sensibleconnotationof surrenderinthepresentcontextisthat h thedebtoragreedtomakethecollateralavailabletothesecured d creditor!viz.,tocedehispossessoryrightsinthecollateral!  within30daysofthefilingofthenoticeofintentionto l surrenderpossessionofthecollateral.Similarly,nothingin h subsection521(a)(2)remotelysuggeststhatthesecuredcreditoris  requiredtoacceptpossessionofthevehicleattheendofthe30 p  dayperiod,assuchareadingwouldbeatoddswithwell  establishedlawthatacreditorsdecisionwhethertoforecloseon \ and/orrepossesscollateralispurelyvoluntaryanddiscretionary. X Thus,weagreewiththeGMACcontentionthatthePrattssurrender   didnotrequirethatitrepossessthevehicleifGMACdeemedsuch `  repossessioncostineffective.  \     ` Themoredifficultquestioniswhetherthe surrender   provisionrequiredthatGMACreleaseitslien.Inassessing d  violationsoftheautomaticstayandthedischargeinjunction,the `  coreissueiswhetherthecreditoractedinsuchawayasto    coerceor harassthedebtorimproperly.SeeInreDiamond,346 h F.3d224,227(1stCir.2003);Jamo,283F.3dat399.Althoughthe d factthatthePratts(andnotGMAC)initiatedalltheinquiries  aboutreleasingthelienmightprecludeafindingthatGMAC l  harassedthePratts,thatdoesnotforeclosethepossibilitythat h GMAC'srefusalwasobjectivelyandimproperly coerciveinthe  circumstances.However,thelinebetweenforcefulnegotiationand p  impropercoercionisnotalwayseasytodelineate,andeachcase !l" mustthereforebeassessedinthecontextofitsparticularfacts. "$ Seeid. t$&    ` Theparticularrecordfactsmaterialtoourassessmentof  &p!( objectivecoercionare:(i)thePrattstimelyfileda521(a)(2) '#* noticeoftheirintentiontosurrenderthevehicle;(ii)theydid x)$, nothingtopreventGMACfromrepossessingthevehicle;(iii)the $+t&. valueoftheinoperablevehiclehadplummetedtosuchanextent  thatitneededtobetowedtoajunkyard,whichdeclinedtoaccept \ itabsentavalidlienrelease;(iv)GMACdetermined!presumably X basedupontheprecipitousdropinthevehiclesworth!thatit   wasnotcosteffectivetorepossessandresellthevehicle;and(v) `  accordingtostatelaw,thevehiclecouldnotbejunkedunlessGMAC  \  releaseditslien.      ` AlthoughGMACdidnotcreateallthesecircumstances,and d  wefindnorecordevidencethatitactedinbadfaith,inthese `  circumstancesitsactionswereobjectivelycoercive.Mainelaw   unqualifiedlyentitledGMACtorefusetoreleaseitslienunless h anduntiltheoutstandingloanbalancewaspaid,see11Me.Rev. d Stat.Ann.tit.11,91620to1624,butstatelawgovernsina  bankruptcyproceeding unlesssomefederalinterestrequiresa l differentresult.Butnerv.UnitedStates,440U.S.48,55, h (1979);InreLANTamers,329F.3d204,21314(1stCir.),cert.  denied,540U.S.1047(2003).Thus,evenlegitimatestatelaw p  rightsexercisedinacoercivemannermightimpingeuponthe !l" importantfederalinterestservedbythedischargeinjunction, "$ whichistoensurethatdebtorsreceivea freshstartandarenot t$& unfairlycoercedintorepayingdischargedprepetitiondebts.  &p!(    ` Inourview,theparticularconfluenceoftheabove '#* mentionedcircumstancesrenderstheGMACrefusaltoreleaseits x)$, lienobjectivelycoercive.First,GMACannouncedthatitdidnot $+t&. intendtorepossessthe surrenderedvehiclebecauseitwasof  insufficientvalue,thenexpresslyconditioneditsreleaseofthe \ lienuponthePrattsagreementtorepaytheloanbalanceinfull. X WhateverthebonafidesofthestatelawbasisfortheGMAC   statement,itspronouncementeffectivelyamountedtoademandfor `  a reaffirmation,whichobviouslyneverpurportedtocomplywith  \  thestringent anticoercionrequirementsofBankruptcyCode   524(c).Seesupranote2.Moreover,asthePrattscouldnotjunk d  thevehiclewithoutareleaseoftheGMAClien,seeMe.Rev.Stat. `  Ann.tit.29A,664A(4),theywereconfrontedwiththegrim   prospectofretainingindefinitepossessionofaworthlessvehicle h unlesstheypaidtheGMACloanbalance,togetherwithallthe d attendantcostsofpossessing,maintaining,insuring,and/or  garagingthevehicle.Therefore,theGMACrefusalhadthe l practicaleffectofeliminatingthePratts surrenderoption h under521(a)(2).Thiscourtpreviouslyhasnotedthatthe   surrenderoptionisanimportantsafetyvalve,inasmuchasa p  debtorultimatelycannotbecoercedintoareaffirmationwherehe !l" retainstheoptiontosurrenderthecollateraltothesecured "$ creditor.See,e.g.,InreBurr,160F.3dat848(notingthat t$& debtorscannotbecompelledtoreaffirm,since theycanalways  &p!( surrenderthepropertyandbedischargedoftheunderlyingdebt); '#* seealsoJamo,283F.3dat400(same). x)$,    ` Wedonotsuggestthatasecuredcreditorinvariably $+t&. wouldbeinviolationofthedischargeinjunctionwereittoinsist  uponitsinremrightsunderstatelaw.However,GMACidentifies \ nocompellingreasonfordoingsointhisinstance,relyinginstead X uponitsbarerightofrefusalunderstatelaw.Sincethismotor   vehiclewasessentiallyworthless,andvehiclesrarely(ifever) `  appreciateinvalueovertime,therewasnoreasonableprospect  \  thattheautomobilewouldgeneratefuturesaleproceeds(towhich   theGMAClienautomaticallywouldhaveattached,seeMe.Rev.Stat. d  Ann.tit.11,91315(1)).GMACdeterminedthatrepossessionwas `  notfeasible.ThePrattsmaintained,andthebankruptcycourt   found,thatthevehiclehadnosignificantvalue.Thus,the h legitimateraisondetrefortheGMACliennolongerobtained,and d thefederalbankruptcylawinterestinaccordingdebtorsafresh  start,freefromobjectivelycoercivereaffirmationdemands,must l beaccordedsupremacy.Cf.InreGroth,269B.R.766,76768 h (Bankr.S.D.Ohio2001)( [A]debtorinachapter7case,aspart  ofhisfresheconomicstart,shouldbepermittedtosurrender p  [worthless]collateralhedoesnotintendtokeep.Ifthesecured !l" creditordeterminesthatitscollateralisworthlessthanthecost "$ oftakingitintoitspossession,thecreditormustwaivethe t$& effectofitsliensothatthedebtorisabletodisposeofthe  &p!( collateral.).] #  5       '#*    ` Althoughthebankruptcycourtaptlynotedthatthis  precisesituationislikelytoariseinfrequently(ifever)in \ futurecases,the coercivenessinvolvedineachcasemustbe X assessedonitsparticularfacts.Wecanonlyconcludethatthe   GMACrefusaltoreleaseitsvaluelessliensothatthevehicle `  couldbejunked!thoughpresumablynotmadeinbadfaith!was  \   coerciveinitseffect,andthuswillfullyviolatedthedischarge   injunction.ThePrattsarethereforeentitledtoestablishand d  recovertheircompensatorydamages,togetherwithotherappropriate `  reliefunderBankruptcyCode105(a).    B.0  TheBurdenofProof h(#(#    ` ThebankruptcycourtopinedthatthePrattsneededto 0 proveaGMACviolationsimplybyapreponderanceoftheevidence, , ratherthanbyclearandconvincingevidence,citingourdecision  inFleetMortgageGroup,Inc.v.Kaneb,196F.3d265(1stCir. 4 1999).Pratt,324B.R.at5.Asthebankruptcycourtultimately 0 foundnoviolationundereitherstandard,however,itdidnot   resolvetheissue.Id.Sincethebankruptcycourtdecisiononthe 8!" liabilityissuemustbereversed,theburdenofproofissueis "4$ beforeusonappeal. $&    ` Kanebdidnotspeaktothequestionwhetherabankruptcy <&!( debtormustproveanallegedviolationoftheautomaticstay(orby '8#* analogy,ofthedischargeinjunction)bytheheightenedevidentiary )$, standardofclearandconvincingevidence,whichisnormally  requiredtoestablishcivilcontemptoutsideofthebankruptcy \ context.Rather,Kanebinvolvedarelatedbutdistinctissue: X namely,whatfactsmustadebtoradducetoproveaviolation.We   rejectedthepropositionthatastayviolationcouldnotbe `  actionable(viz., willful)ifthecreditorhadmadeagoodfaith  \  mistake,andweheldthat thestandardforawillfulviolationof   theautomaticstayunder362(h)ismetifthereisknowledgeof d  thestayandthedefendantintendedtheactionswhichconstituted `  theviolation.Kaneb,196F.3dat265.Bycontrast,the   distinctionpresentlyatissue!betweenpreponderanceofthe h evidenceandclearandconvincingevidence!entailsthequantumof d proof;viz.,howmuchofthisfactualevidenceofknowledgeand  generalintent!thedebtormustadducetosurvivea"sufficiency l oftheevidence"challenge.SeeLampherev.BrownUniv.,798F.2d h 532,536(1stCir.1986)(defining"clearandconvincing"asmore  thanapreponderancebutlessthanbeyondareasonabledoubt). p     ` Giventhepresentrecord,weneednotnowaddressor !l" determinethequantumofevidenceissue.Compare,e.g.,Inre "$ Dunn,324B.R.175,179(D.Mass.2005)(holdingthat105 t$& contemptactiontriggers"clearandconvincing"standard);Inre  &p!( Parker,334B.R.529,538(Bankr.D.Mass.2005)(same);Inre '#* Feldmeier,335B.R.807,81112(Bankr.D.Or.2005)(same),with x)$, InreSilberkraus,253B.R.890,91314(Bankr.C.D.Cal.2000) $+t&. (holdingthat105containsnoevidenceofa"clearand  convincing"requirement),affd,336F.3d864(9thCir.2003). \ Whichevertheappropriateevidentiarystandard,GMAChasnot X suggested!norcoulditplausiblydosoontheserecordfacts!   thatitdidnotknowoftheexistenceofthePrattschapter7 `  discharge,orthatitdidnotintendtocommunicatetothePratts  \  itsrefusaltoreleaseitslienintheautomobilesothatitcould   bejunked.Giventheclarityofthepresentrecordastoboththe d  "notice"and"generalintent"elements,therefore,weconcludethat `  thePrattsadducedsufficientevidencethatGMACsviolationofthe   dischargeinjunctionwas willful. h  C.0  Damages d(#(#    ` Finally,thepartiesareinagreementthatthebankruptcy , courtwastodeterminetheissueastowhetherGMACviolatedthe  dischargeinjunctionpriortodeterminingdamages.Asthedamages 4 issueremainsextantforfactualdetermination,weremandtothe 0 bankruptcycourtforthatpurpose.      `  Thejudgmentofthedistrictcourtaffirmingthe 8!" bankruptcycourtdecisionisherebyreversed,andthecaseis #P$ remandedtothebankruptcycourtforthedeterminationofdamages. $ & SOORDERED.