October Term 2006 · Docket 05-996

Can a bankruptcy court deny conversion to Chapter 13 as a sanction for bad faith?

Marrama argues the court lacks power to deny his conversion request. Citizens Bank argues the court must deny it to punish bad faith.

Official caption
Marrama v. Citizens Bank of Mass.
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Brunstad argued the court must deny abusive motions.

    He cited Section 105 and inherent judicial power.

    Ms. Blatt argued courts have inherent authority to sanction bad faith.

    She stated courts must prevent abuse of process.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

Marrama seeks to convert his Chapter 7 case to Chapter 13. He claims the lower court wrongly denied this request. Citizens Bank argues the denial was a valid sanction for his bad faith conduct.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 6, 2006.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Marrama wants the Supreme Court to reverse the denial of his conversion request.

Citizens Bank wants the Supreme Court to affirm the denial of his conversion request.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Marrama argues the bankruptcy court lacks inherent authority to deny conversion as a sanction.

Citizens Bank argues the court has inherent authority to deny conversion to prevent abuse.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Scalia asked if Marrama made the same argument to the bankruptcy court.

Justice Scalia asked if the case is moot because Marrama is ineligible for Chapter 13.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the scope of bankruptcy court power to sanction bad faith. It determines whether courts can deny relief to punish procedural abuse. This affects how debtors interact with the bankruptcy system.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON