Great Decision on Judicial Estoppel

Posted by NCBRC - July 30th, 2020

In a lengthy decision addressing a challenge to its order reopening the debtor’s chapter 13 case, a Bankruptcy Court for the District of South Carolina found that the debtor had no duty under the Bankruptcy Code or Rules to disclose a lawsuit that accrued and was filed post-confirmation. In the face of a judicial estoppel defense raised by the Defendants in the debtor’s state personal injury lawsuit, the court stated, “[w]ithout such a duty or knowledge that one existed, Debtor cannot be found to have acted intentionally to mislead this Court.” In re Boyd, No. 13-2924 (Bankr. S.C. July 17, 2020). Read More

Lienholder May Seek Value for Post-Discharge Release of Lien

Posted by NCBRC - July 24th, 2020

The discharge injunction does not prohibit a lienholder from seeking value for release of its lien so long as, under the specific facts of the case, its conduct is not an improper attempt to coerce repayment of the discharged debt. Bentley v. OneMain Financial Group, No. 19-8026 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. July 8, 2020). Read More

Debtor’s Service of Objection to the IRS’s Proof of Claim was Proper

Posted by NCBRC - July 16th, 2020

The bankruptcy court had personal jurisdiction over the IRS when the debtor mailed a copy of his objection to the address given with the proof of claim in accordance with Rule 3007, rather than serving the IRS through the Attorney General as required for contested motions under Rules 9014 and 7004. Nicolaus v. United States, No. 19-1155 (8th Cir. July 6, 2020). Read More

“Good Reason” Required to Not Revest Property in Debtor after Plan Confirmation

Posted by NCBRC - July 14th, 2020

Finding that “[a] bankruptcy court may confirm a plan that holds property in the estate only after finding good case-specific reasons for that action,” and signaling exasperation with the whole topic, Judge Easterbrook of the Seventh Circuit reversed the bankruptcy court’s order of confirmation of the debtors’ plan in which they opted not to have their vehicles revest in themselves post-confirmation. Cherry v. City of Chicago, No. 19-1558 (7th Cir. July 6, 2020). Read More

Chapter 13 Plan Need not Be of Fixed Duration

Posted by NCBRC - July 11th, 2020

In an important win for debtors, the Ninth Circuit held that “no express provision of Chapter 13, even when viewed in the context of its broader structure, prohibits plans with estimated lengths.” In re Sisk, No. 18-17445 (9th Cir. June 22, 2020) (reported below as In re Escarcega). In an opinion in which the circuit court adopted the bulk of the debtors’ arguments, the court reversed and vacated the BAP’s holding that the Bankruptcy Code imposes an implied temporal requirement on all initial Chapter 13 plans. Read More

Bankruptcy Court May Not Limit Debtor’s Right to Modify as Condition of Confirmation

Posted by NCBRC - June 30th, 2020

The Fifth Circuit held that the bankruptcy court improperly required a chapter 13 debtor to amend his plan to pledge 100% payment to unsecured creditors with no right to modify unless the modification likewise paid 100% or the debtor relinquished his right to discharge. Brown v. Viegelahn (In re Brown), No. 19-50177 (5th Cir. June 8, 2020). Read More

Uncashed Retirement Loan Check Not Exempt

Posted by NCBRC - June 29th, 2020

The debtor’s uncashed loan check from her retirement account was property of the estate and was not exempt under section 522(d)(12). Ostrander v. Brown (In re Brown), No. 19-24 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. May 21, 2020).

Prior to filing her bankruptcy petition, the debtor received, but did not cash, an $18,000 check representing a loan from her retirement account. The chapter 7 trustee sought turnover of the check. The bankruptcy court denied the turnover motion finding that, because the funds were from an exempt retirement account and the debtor had not yet cashed the check, the check was likewise exempt. Read More

Arbitration Clause Not Enforced in Discharge Violation Case

Posted by NCBRC - June 24th, 2020

In the absence of intervening legislative or Supreme Court directive, the Second Circuit followed its precedent finding that a debtor could not be compelled to arbitrate his contempt motion for violation of the discharge injunction. Belton v. GE Capital Retail Bank, No. 19-648 (2d Cir. June 16, 2020) (consolidated with Bruce v. Citicorp Inc., No. 19-655). Read More

$67,000 in Fees and Costs Reasonable for Stay Litigation

Posted by NCBRC - June 13th, 2020

The debtors’ attorney was entitled to approximately $67,000.00 in attorney’s fees and expert witness fees and costs for his representation of the debtors in their action against the creditor for violation of the automatic stay. In re Moon, No. 13-12466 (Bankr. D. Nev. May 29, 2020).

After they had obtained their discharge, the debtors reopened their bankruptcy with new counsel, Christopher Burke, in order to file a motion to hold Rushmore Loan Management Services, LLC, in contempt for violation of the automatic stay and the discharge injunction. After an evidentiary hearing, the bankruptcy court found Rushmore in violation of the automatic stay, but because the date Rushmore learned of the discharge was not established, the court did not find it in violation of the discharge injunction. The bankruptcy court awarded the debtors over $100,000 in actual damages, $200,000 in punitive damages, and attorney’s fees and costs under section 362(k)(1).

Mr. Burke then submitted his fee application seeking $56,150 in fees based on 112.3 hours of work at $500.00/hour, $1,950.30 in costs, and $8,907.64 in witness fees for the expert testimony of John Rao. He further sought an order enhancing his fees by a multiplier of 1.5. Rushmore objected to the fee application generally, arguing that because he did not have a written fee agreement with the debtors, Mr. Burke did not comply with ethics requirements. Rushmore further argued that Mr. Burke’s hourly rate and the expert witness fee were excessive. Finally, Rushmore argued that Mr. Burke was not entitled to a fee enhancement. Read More

Sixth Circuit Says Contributions to Retirement Plan Not Disposable Income

Posted by NCBRC - June 9th, 2020

Rejecting its dictum to the contrary in Seafort, the Sixth Circuit held that a debtor’s voluntary contributions to her retirement account, begun prior to bankruptcy, may continue during bankruptcy and are excluded from her disposable income. Davis v. Helbling (In re Davis), No. 19-3117 (6th Cir. June 1, 2020).

Ms. Davis had approximately $200,000 in debt of which approximately $189,000 was unsecured. She proposed a chapter 13 plan paying $323.00 for sixty months. The trustee objected on the basis that she underrepresented her disposable income by failing to include $220/month in wages withheld as a contribution to her employee 401(k) retirement plan. The bankruptcy court reluctantly sustained the trustee’s objection, stating that it was bound to follow the Sixth Circuit’s direction on the issue of voluntary contributions to an IRA as set forth in dictum in Seafort v. Burden (In re Seafort), 669 F.3d 662, 674 n.7 (6th Cir. 2012). Ms. Davis amended her plan to reflect the $220 as additional disposable income then objected to her own plan. The bankruptcy court confirmed the amended plan and certified the case for direct appeal. Read More