Posted by NCBRC - November 19th, 2019
NCBRC filed a motion to unseal documents in the chapter 7 case of Mata v. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2006-1, et al., No. 16-30625, Adv. Proc. No. 18-1089 (Bankr. C.D. Cal.) (motion filed Nov. 15, 2019).
In the underlying adversary proceeding filed by the debtor seeking to discharge student loans, the defendant student loan securitization trusts moved for summary judgment arguing that the loans were nondischargeable under section 523(a)(8)(A)(i), which excepts from discharge “an educational benefit overpayment or loan made, insured, or guaranteed by a . . . nonprofit institution.” The trusts argued that, although they themselves were not non-profit organizations, the loans “were made under a program funded, in whole or in part, by [TERI] a non-profit institution.”
NCBRC’s motion seeks to “unseal (1) two student loan guaranty agreements between National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2006-1, National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2006-4, and National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-4, on the one hand, and the now-defunct The Education Resources Institute, Inc. (“TERI”), . . . and (2) two unredacted pleadings that rely on the Guaranty Agreements.” Read More
Posted by NCBRC - November 15th, 2019
On direct interlocutory appeal, the Fifth Circuit found that courts may not use their contempt powers to enforce discharge orders issued by other courts outside their judicial districts. The court also held that the private student loans at issue were not subject to section 523(a)(8)(A)(ii)’s nondischargeability provision because that provision applies only to educational benefits where, as in the case of grants or scholarships, the obligation to repay is conditional. Crocker v. Navient Solutions LLC, No. 18-20254 (5th Cir. Oct. 22, 2019). Read More
Posted by NCBRC - November 13th, 2019
The district court abused its discretion when it denied certification of a class of plaintiffs alleging FDCPA violations based on the mortgage servicer’s post-discharge collection efforts where the servicer’s defense that the Bankruptcy Code’s discharge injunction precluded the claim applied to all claims of the purported class members. Sellers v. Rushmore Loan Management Services, No. 15-1106 (11th Cir. Oct 29, 2019).
After the Sellerses moved out of their home and obtained a chapter 7 discharge, the mortgage servicer, Rushmore, continued to send them monthly statements listing an ever-increasing amount due on their mortgage. The Sellerses filed suit in the district court alleging that Rushmore’s continued collection efforts violated the FDCPA and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA) by falsely representing its right to collect the discharged debt. In addition, the Sellerses sought to certify a class of consumers subject to the same conduct. In its answer to the complaint, Rushmore argued against class certification and raised the affirmative defense that the claims were preempted/precluded by the Bankruptcy Code’s discharge injunction provision.
The district court declined to certify the class, finding that the issue of whether the Code preempted/precluded the purported class’s claims was a matter of individualized consideration. Its decision rested on the finding that the preclusive effect of the Bankruptcy Code was a function of the applicability of section 524(j), which permits a debt collector to collect payments in lieu of foreclosure from a debtor whose personal liability was discharged in bankruptcy but who continues to live on the property. The district court found that the issue of preclusion would affect only debtors to whom section 524(j) applied. Read More
Posted by NCBRC - November 7th, 2019
The District Court for the District of Maine adopted the “complete snap-shot” rule for treatment of a homestead exemption attached to property the debtor owned at the time of his chapter 13 petition and sold during the pendency of that case, even though he failed to reinvest the proceeds within six months as required by state exemption law, and converted his case to chapter 7. Hull v. Rockwell, No. 18-385 (D. Me. Sept. 24, 2019).
When Jeffrey Rockwell filed his chapter 13 petition in August, 2015, he claimed an exemption on his residence for the maximum amount of $47,500. During the course of his chapter 13 plan, in March, 2017, Mr. Rockwell sold the property and contributed the proceeds over and above the amount of his exemption to his plan. In August, 2017, Mr. Rockwell converted his case to chapter 7. He received a discharge in November, 2017. In December, 2017, the trustee filed an objection to Mr. Rockwell’s homestead exemption because he had not reinvested the funds in a new homestead within six months as required by state exemption law. After a hearing, the bankruptcy court overruled the objection. Read More
Posted by NCBRC - November 5th, 2019
A chapter 13 debtor’s voluntary post-petition contributions to his 401k plan must be included in the calculation of disposable income under section 1325. Penfound v. Ruskin, No. 18-13333 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 20, 2019).
Above-median Debtor, John Penfound, worked continuously for twenty-four years during which time he made regular voluntary contributions to his 401k plans. When he and his wife, Jill Penfound, filed a petition for chapter 13 bankruptcy, he sought to continue contributing $1,375/month to his 401k and exclude those amounts from his calculation of disposable income. Upon objection by the trustee, the bankruptcy court ordered the debtors to amend their proposed plan based on a re-calculation of disposable income including the monthly contributions to the 401k plan. The debtors appealed confirmation of the amended plan.
Relying on reasoning and dictum in In re Seafort, 669 F.2d 662 (6th Cir. 2012), the district court affirmed. Read More
Posted by NCBRC - November 2nd, 2019
In an opinion that reads like a father chastising his ungrateful children, the District Court for the Western District of Texas scolded the debtors for their proposed treatment of anticipated tax refunds and required them to adhere to the District Plan under which they could retain up to $2,000 of their refunds, but must turn over to the Trustee any amount remaining as disposable income. Vega v. Viegelahn, No. 18-796 and Diaz v. Viegelahn, No. 18-798 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 19, 2019) (consolidated for argument and decision).
Contrary to the District Plan structure, the debtors in this case sought to amortize their tax refunds as income over one year. Upon objection by the trustee, the debtors ultimately amended their plans to conform to the District Plan. They then appealed the Bankruptcy Court’s order of confirmation arguing that the District Plan’s treatment of the tax refunds violated various provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, the Local Rules and the Official Forms. Read More
Posted by NCBRC - October 30th, 2019
The creditor’s judgment lien impaired the debtor’s federal homestead exemption even though she did not reside on the property, where her dependent son lived on the property part-time with the debtor’s ex-husband. Donovan v. Maresca, No. 18-1146 (D. Conn. Sept. 30, 2019).
When Melissa Maresca filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy, her divorce attorney held a judgment lien against real property Ms. Maresca owned with her ex-husband. Although Ms. Maresca did not use the property as her residence, her ex-husband resided there and her dependent son used the home as his part-time residence. In her bankruptcy, Ms. Maresca elected to use the federal exemptions and she sought to avoid the lien as impairing her federal homestead exemption under section 522(f). The creditor objected arguing that because Ms. Maresca did not actually reside on the property, she was not entitled to use the homestead exemption. The bankruptcy court granted Ms. Maresca’s motion to avoid the lien. Read More
Posted by NCBRC - October 25th, 2019
An action to strip off a wholly unsecured State tax lien is an in rem proceeding that does not implicate the State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity. Commonwealth of Pa. v. Berger, No. 19-417 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 21, 2019).
The debtors entered chapter 13 bankruptcy with outstanding State tax liens on their real property. Because the property was subject to mortgage liens amounting to more than its value, the debtors filed an adversary proceeding seeking to strip off the State’s tax lien as wholly unsecured. The bankruptcy court rejected the State’s Eleventh Amendment argument and denied its motion to dismiss. The State immediately appealed the denial to the district court as authorized by Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 147 (1993). Read More
Posted by NCBRC - October 21st, 2019
The Fifth Circuit found that the test it established in In re Nat’l Gypsum Co., 118 F.3d 1059, 1069 (5th Cir. 1997), was still good law notwithstanding the intervening case of Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018), and that, under National Gypsum, the bankruptcy properly exercised its discretion to deny the creditor’s motion to compel arbitration in an action alleging discharge injunction violation. Henry v. Educ. Fin. Serv., No 18-20809 (5th Cir. Oct. 17, 2019).
NCBRC, NACBA and Professor Jay Westbrook provided an amicus brief, authored by NACBA member Allan Gropper, in support of the debtor in this case.
Stephanie Henry filed for chapter 13 bankruptcy ten years after entering into a student loan contract with Wells Fargo’s predecessor. After she successfully completed her five-year plan, Wells Fargo sent her a letter containing language to the effect that it was attempting to collect the remaining debt on the loan. Ms. Henry filed an adversary proceeding alleging violation of the discharge injunction. Wells Fargo moved to compel arbitration in accordance with a clause in the lending agreement under which Ms. Henry agreed to have any complaint “arising under or relating to” the debt settled by arbitration. The bankruptcy court denied Wells Fargo’s motion to compel arbitration on the basis that the cause of action did not arise under or relate to the student loan contract. The court certified the case for interlocutory appeal directly to the Fifth Circuit. Read More
Posted by NCBRC - October 14th, 2019
Finding that “[w]ords in a consumer agreement cannot deprive the bankruptcy court of the inherent power to enforce compliance with an injunction,” the district court found an arbitration clause in a consumer contract did not constrain the court’s contempt powers. Verizon Wireless Personal Communications, LP v. Bateman, No. 14-5369, Adv. Proc. No. 18-1394 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 24, 2019).
Christopher Bateman filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy listing Verizon as an unsecured creditor. Verizon did not acknowledge or take part in the bankruptcy in any way. Five months after Mr. Bateman obtained his discharge, Verizon sent him a letter attempting to collect the discharged debt. Mr. Bateman moved the court to hold Verizon in contempt for violation of the discharge injunction. In response, Verizon moved to compel arbitration, invoking its Customer Agreement with Mr. Bateman which provided that any dispute which “in any way relates to or arises out of” the agreement is subject to arbitration. The bankruptcy court found that its power to enforce its order was not subject to the terms of Mr. Bateman’s Customer Agreement with Verizon. Read More
