Debtor had filed an action against defendant to avoid a property transfer, alleging defendant's conduct violated the automatic stay in debtor's Missouri bankruptcy, and that it constituted a fraudulent conveyance. The court found that the Missouri bankruptcy filing was ineffective, and ruled in favor of defendant. Defendant then sought sanctions from debtor under both Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927. The court found that, even though the Missouri filing was later determined to be ineffective, debtor's counsel had made reasonable inquiry into the facts and law in relation to debtor's stay violation claim. Defendant's Rule 9011 and § 1927 fee claims were therefore denied as to the stay violation claim. However, the court found that debtor's counsel had failed to sufficiently ascertain the legal requirements of the fraudulent conveyance claim under the Utah Fraudulent Conveyance Act, and had thereby violated both Rule 9011 and § 1927 as to that claim. The court imposed sanctions under Rule 9011, which are mandatory, and denied sanctions under § 1927, which are discretionary, concluding that the Rule 9011 sanction was sufficient for both statutes.