Posted by NCBRC - January 8th, 2019
A mortgage paid outside the plan is not “provided for by the plan” for purposes of discharge of the debtor’s personal liability under section 1328(a). Dukes v. Suncoast Credit Union, No. 16-16513 (11th Cir. Dec. 6, 2018).
When she filed her bankruptcy petition, Chapter 13 debtor, Mildred Dukes, was current on two mortgages held by Suncoast Credit Union. Though she listed both mortgages in her schedules, the credit union filed a proof of claim only for the second mortgage. Her confirmed plan stated that the mortgages would be paid outside the plan. Ms. Dukes successfully completed her plan payments and was granted discharge of all debts provided for by the plan. During the course of the plan, however, Ms. Dukes defaulted on both mortgages. The credit union foreclosed on the property under the second mortgage, and sought deficiency judgment against Ms. Dukes under the first mortgage. It moved to reopen her bankruptcy to obtain an order that her personal liability on the first mortgage was not discharged. The bankruptcy court found in favor of the credit union, and the district court affirmed. Read More
Posted by NCBRC - November 28th, 2018
Where the debtor’s residence was sold in a foreclosure sale but the mortgagee failed to record the foreclosure deed as required by state law, the debtor had the right to cure and maintain under section 1322(c). In re Vertullo, 18-10552 (Bankr. D. N.H. Oct. 1, 2018).
In this case, the mortgagee, U.S. Bank, moved for relief from stay, arguing that because the foreclosure auction was completed prior to Darlene Vertullo’s chapter 13 bankruptcy filing, the property did not enter the bankruptcy estate and she could not cure and maintain under section 1322(c). Ms. Vertullo countered that U.S. Bank’s failure to record the deed allowed section 1322(c) to preempt the state law which would have otherwise divested her of ownership interest in the property upon foreclosure sale at auction. Read More
Posted by NCBRC - July 24th, 2018
A tax sale was avoidable as constructively fraudulent where the state tax foreclosure sale procedures did not include notice and bidding procedures likely to result in the debtors’ receiving “reasonably equivalent value.” Hampton v. Ontario County, No. 17-6808, and Gunsalus v. Ontario County, No. 17-6810 (W.D. N.Y. July 18, 2018).
In two separate cases with substantially identical facts, the Western District of New York addressed whether the bankruptcy court improperly dismissed the debtors’ adversary proceeding seeking to avoid the transfers of the debtors’ homes in tax sales. Read More
Posted by NCBRC - November 7th, 2017
Ocwen’s misconduct led the bankruptcy court to not only grant the debtor’s motion for temporary restraining order but to order Ocwen, as servicer for U.S. Bank, to show cause why it should not be held in contempt for violation of a Consent Order entered between the debtor and lender during her chapter 13 bankruptcy. Arrington v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 12-70435, Adv. Proc. No. 17-70029 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. Sept. 25, 2017). Read More
Posted by NCBRC - January 27th, 2017
A news release issued by the Department of the Treasury, announced a $65 million fine against ServiceLink Holdings, formerly Lender Processing Services (LPS), for servicing deficiencies by LPS relating to its foreclosure services. The news release can be found here.
Posted by NCBRC - October 18th, 2016
Demanding full payment of a mortgage after the debtor’s default did not accelerate the maturity date such that the limitations period for filing a foreclosure action was moved up. Washington v. Bank of New York Mellon, No. 15-3210 (3rd. Cir. Sept. 30, 2016) (unpublished).
Though the mortgage agreement specified a maturity date of 2037, the debtor, Gordon Washington, argued that when Bank of New York demanded full payment and filed its first foreclosure action in 2007, it activated the mortgage agreement’s acceleration clause and established a new maturity date for the mortgage. The foreclosure action failed for lack of prosecution and the creditor filed a new action after Mr. Washington had filed his bankruptcy petition in 2014. Mr. Washington then sought an order to the effect that the creditor no longer had an interest in the property because the limitations period had elapsed. Read More
Posted by NCBRC - October 7th, 2016
“Debtors who surrender their property in Bankruptcy may not oppose a foreclosure action in state court.” Failla v. Citibank, No. 15-15626 (11th Cir. Oct. 4, 2016). Bankruptcy debtors, David and Donna Failla, opted, under section 521(a)(2)(B), to surrender their home but continued to live in the house and oppose Citibank’s state court foreclosure action. The trustee abandoned the property as having negative value. Citibank moved to compel surrender. The bankruptcy court granted the motion ordering the Faillas to cease opposition to foreclosure in the state court. The district court affirmed. Read More
Posted by NCBRC - February 24th, 2016
The Supreme Court of California held that a borrower on a home loan secured by a deed of trust has standing to base an action for wrongful foreclosure on allegations that defects in the purported assignment of the note and deed of trust renders the assignment void. Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corp., No. S218973 (Cal. Feb. 18, 2016). Read More
Posted by NCBRC - March 16th, 2015
Bankruptcy law enhances and expands a debtor’s state law property rights by specifying the time within which a debtor may cure a mortgage default. In re Ausburn, No. 16153 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. Feb. 10, 2015). Read More
Posted by NCBRC - December 15th, 2014
Where foreclosure is commenced pre-petition, continuance of the state foreclosure process does not violate the automatic stay. Witkowski v. Knight (In re Witkowski), No. 14-34, __ B.R. __ (B.A.P. 1st Cir. Nov. 13, 2014). Read More
