The pending matter concerns the Debtor’s Motion to Require Creditor to Accept Electronic Payment (the “Motion”). By the Motion, the Debtor asks the Court to require Citimortgage, Inc. and Cenlar FSB, as servicer (the “Servicer”), to accept the Debtor’s monthly mortgage payments through the Servicer’s website and online portal (referred to herein as the “online portal”). The Debtor argues that she routinely used the online portal to make her payments prior to the petition date and that the Servicer has not offered any valid reason for blocking her attempts to use this payment method during her bankruptcy case. The Servicer filed an opposition to the Motion, asserting that it is “impossible” to allow the Debtor to use the online portal because the Servicer’s systems cannot, among other things, distinguish between borrowers who are in bankruptcy and those who are not. The Servicer also notes that it generally restricts access to the online portal for any borrower in default and that, from its perspective, use of the portal is a convenience and not a right.
The Court held a preliminary hearing in this matter on May 13, 2024. The Court then entered a Preliminary Order, which set deadlines for additional briefing and identification of supplemental evidence. The Court held a further evidentiary hearing on August 15, 2024. The parties have presented their evidence and arguments on the record at the hearings and have filed post-hearing briefs. The Court likewise has had a full opportunity to review the record and study the applicable law.
The Court is bound by the language of the Code and the parties’ prepetition agreements. The Debtor did have a prepetition contractual “right to use” the online portal that came into the bankruptcy estate through the Debtor’s legal and equitable interests in the parties’ prepetition agreements. Moreover, the Servicer’s decision to unilaterally restrict this right by denying the Debtor access to the online portal effectively terminated the relevant agreement and violated the automatic stay of section 362(a)(3) of the Code. Nevertheless, the Debtor did not provide any support for an award of monetary damages under section 362(k) of the Code, and the Court finds no basis on the particular facts and posture of this matter to grant any such relief. 
The conclusion that relief under section 362(k) of the Code is not available in this matter does not end the Court’s inquiry. An action violating the automatic stay is void ab initio. The Court cannot allow a void action (or an ongoing violation of the statutory injunction) to go without remedy. The Court thus will continue the Motion to allow the parties an opportunity to further address an appropriate remedy under the facts of this case and the terms of this Opinion and the related Order.