Posted by NCBRC - April 15th, 2021
A debtor may claim the California automatic homestead exemption with respect to property where he resides even though the property was owned by a trust created by his father and he and his brother were equal beneficiaries of the trust. In re Nolan, 2021 WL 528679, No. 20-1496 (C.D. Cal. 2021). Read More
Posted by NCBRC - April 8th, 2021
Because an action for fraudulent transfer is not merely a collection action, the creditors were precluded by the discharge injunction from pursuing their state court appeal of that action even though the predicate debt was found to be nondischargeable in the debtor’s bankruptcy. SuVicMon Dev. Inc. v. Morrison, No. 20-11681 (11th Cir. March 25, 2021). Read More
Posted by NCBRC - April 5th, 2021
The Supreme Court recently denied cert petitions in three bankruptcy-related cases: Hull v. Rockwell, No. 20-499 (pet’n denied Feb. 22, 2021); GE Capital Retail Bank v. Belton, 20-481 (pet’n denied March 8, 2021); and Marino v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, No. 20-409 (pet’n denied March 22, 2021). Read More
Posted by NCBRC - April 2nd, 2021
Citing six separate stay violations by the homeowner’s association, the district court awarded the debtor damages for emotional distress and property interference. It also upheld the bankruptcy court’s award of punitive damages and attorney’s fees. The court remanded, however, for a determination of whether the damages for property interference should have extended beyond the end of the automatic stay. In re Parker, No. 19-2588 (N.D. Cal. March 22, 2021). Read More
Posted by NCBRC - March 27th, 2021
Where the fifty-seven-year-old debtor’s current income and anticipated future income would both be insufficient to pay even the interest on his student loans, his expenses were not excessive, and he acted in good faith, he was entitled to partial discharge under section 523(a)(8), and the bankruptcy court had leeway to determine which of his several loans to discharge. ECMC v. Goodvin, No. 20-1247 (D. Kan. March 17, 2021). Read More
Posted by NCBRC - March 17th, 2021
The debtor’s ex-wife’s interest in the marital residence did not enter the bankruptcy estate even though the property was titled to the debtor, where their dissolution agreement gave her half interest and the debtor was prohibited from unilaterally disposing of the property. But the debtor’s ex-wife did not show that his failure to comply with the dissolution agreement generally, was an indication that he undertook the debts created by the agreement by fraud where the evidence did not support her contention that he never intended to comply. Williams v. Williams, No. 18-1197 (Bankr. D. Colo. Jan. 8, 2021). Read More
Posted by NCBRC - March 12th, 2021
The debtor was barred by the doctrines of laches and equitable estoppel from asserting that a debt was nondischargeable where he had stipulated to its nondischargeability in an earlier bankruptcy and had not raised the issue of nondischargeability during several subsequent years of litigation concerning that debt. Storick v. CFG LLC, No. 20-80126 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 21, 2021). Read More
Posted by NCBRC - March 5th, 2021
Where the creditor raised all its defenses to the debtors’ contempt motion in a collateral adversary complaint, the debtors were entitled to at least a portion of their attorney fees incurred in litigating the adversary proceeding under section 362(k)(1). Moon v. Rushmore Loan Management Services, LLC., No. 20-1199 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Feb. 4, 2021) (unpublished). Read More
Posted by NCBRC - March 1st, 2021
NACBA/NCBRC filed an amicus brief in support of the debtors in a case where, two years after he elected not to administer a fully-disclosed cause of action against Ocwen, and the debtors’ bankruptcy case was closed, the chapter 7 trustee moved to reopen the case to obtain approval for a settlement agreement with Ocwen. Stevens v. Whitmore (In re Stevens), No. 20-60044 (9th Cir.) (filed Feb. 26, 2021). Read More
Posted by NCBRC - February 18th, 2021
For plan modification under the CARES Act, the debtor need not have been current in plan payments prior to enactment of the Act. In re Gilbert, No. 16-12120 (Bankr. E.D. La. Oct. 6, 2020).
In four separate cases, debtors sought to modify their chapter 13 plans under section 1329(d) which Congress added to the Bankruptcy Code as part of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act). In all four cases, the debtors’ plans were confirmed and they fell behind on payments prior to March 27, 2020. In three of the cases, the debtors sought modification of their plans to pay off the arrearages and extend the length of the plan beyond sixty months. In the fourth case, the debtor sought only to reduce payments to unsecured creditors. The trustee opposed the modifications arguing that the CARES Act permits modifications only if the debtors first fell behind in their plan payments after March 27, 2020, and the sole reason for the default was the pandemic.
The bankruptcy court disagreed. Read More