Inc. (In re Holman), 2010 WL 1880424, at *4 (Bankr.N.D.Ala.2010); Canty v. Chase Home Finance, LLC (In re Canty), 2010 WL 1880710, at *4 (Bankr.N.D.Ala.2010). Similarly, Judge Sawyer also found a cause of action under § 105 for fraud on the court or contempt was actionable. “Whether the Plaintiffs action is cast as one under § 105, the Court’s inherent power, or an independent action for fraud on the court, a bankruptcy court may act to remedy the wrong complained of here.” Woodruff v. Chase Home Finance, LLC (In re Woodruff), 2010 WL 386209, at *9. As stated in Rodriguez v. Countrywide Home Loans (In re Rodriguez), 396 B.R. 436, 457 (Bankr.S.D.Tex.2008): While it is true that the considerable discretion conferred on courts sitting in bankruptcy by § 105 is not th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); Pertuso v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 233 F.3d
recognizing that no private right of action exists for subsection a violations holding that no private right of action exists holding that no private cause of action exists under  105 for  524 violations holding that a private right of action exists holding that no private cause of action exists under  105 for fed r bankrp 2016 violations