Prior to filing for bankruptcy, the Debtor entered into a prepetition lease agreement with her landlord.  The Debtor received a Chapter 7 discharge and, thereafter, the landlord filed two separate eviction complaints based on the Debtor’s pre- and post-petition default in her lease obligations.  The landlord was not seeking monetary judgments in the eviction proceedings; it solely sought possession of the leased premises.  The Debtor removed the eviction proceedings to this United States District Court, which referred the proceedings to this Court, thereby resulting in two adversary proceedings.  The landlord requested that the Court abstain from presiding over the eviction proceedings and remand the proceedings back to state court.  In response, the Debtor filed a three-count counterclaim against the landlord alleging that the landlord violated the discharge injunction in Section 524 of the Bankruptcy Code and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Court determined that it had jurisdiction to adjudicate the Debtor’s counterclaim and concluded that the landlord did not violate the discharge injunction by seeking possession of the leased premises.  In doing so, the Court distinguished in personam rights from in rem rights and stated that the law is clear – a landlord can pursue its in rem rights to obtain possession of the premises based on a prepetition payment default notwithstanding the discharge of a debtor’s personal liability for the unpaid, prepetition rent.  Thereafter, the Court remanded the eviction proceedings to state court, finding that both mandatory and permissive abstention applied.