Posted by NCBRC - May 19th, 2022
The debtor has standing to avoid a tax sale under section 548 but only to the extent of her exemption and allowed claims. She may not recover her equity in the property. Morawski v. Effect Lake, LLC., No. 20-1125 (Bankr. D.N.J. April 11, 2022).
On October 3, 2016, Effect Lake purchased a tax sale certificate encumbering the debtor’s home. In January, 2019, Effect Lake filed a tax sale foreclosure action in the state court and a lis pendens for the foreclosure action with the Essex County Register’s Office. The state court entered final judgment on September 30, 2019. The debtor filed her chapter 13 bankruptcy petition on February 7, 2020. Effect Lake filed a proof of claim for $141,947.88. At the time the debtor filed for bankruptcy, the redemption amount for the tax sale certificate was $90,323.88 and the property was valued at between $544,000 and $600,000.
The debtor filed an adversary proceeding seeking a finding that the tax sale was a fraudulent conveyance under section 548. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The bankruptcy court held a hearing and issued the following findings. Read More
Posted by NCBRC - May 16th, 2022
The debtor’s proposed amendment to file her chapter 11 petition under the newly enacted SBRA under which only the debtor could have a plan confirmed, would unduly prejudice the mortgage creditor who expended a great deal of time, expense, and effort to negotiate and obtain approval of its own plan. Ventura v. Gregory Funding, No. 20-1949 (E.D.N.Y. April 21, 2022). Read More
Posted by NCBRC - May 13th, 2022
The debtors were entitled to summary judgment on the issue of dischargeability of their payday loans despite the fact that they took out the loans three days prior to filing for bankruptcy. Ameri Best, LLC, v. Holmes, No. 18-20578, Adv. Proc. No. 18-6044 (Bankr. D. Kans. April 27, 2022).
As they had done many times before, in March, 2018, the debtors, James and Stacy Holmes, each borrowed $500 from payday lender, Ameribest. The loans were due two weeks later with $75 interest. Three days later, they filed for bankruptcy owing Ameribest $1,150. Ameribest filed an adversary proceeding seeking an order that the debt was nondischargeable under sections 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(6). It moved for summary judgment. The court denied the motion and ordered Ameribest to show cause why it should not enter summary judgment in favor of the debtors. The debtors then filed their own motion for summary judgment seeking an order of dischargeability and an award of attorney fees and costs under section 523(d). Read More
Posted by NCBRC - May 12th, 2022
A mortgage refinance agreement approved by the court is not equivalent to a motion to modify under section 1329. The debtors, who failed to pay their property taxes directly as required by their plan were not entitled to discharge even though the mortgagee paid those taxes on their behalf and the debtors and mortgagee refinanced their lending agreement to encompass that change. In re Villarreal, No. 16-10106 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. April 12, 2022). Read More
Posted by NCBRC - April 25th, 2022
The debtor stated a claim for turnover of the fair market value of a vehicle where the creditor repossessed the vehicle post-petition but prior to the expiration of section 108(b)’s extension of time to redeem or cure a default. Milledge v. Carolina Acceptance, No.21-2968, Adv. Proc. No. 22-80001 (Bankr. D. S.C. April 7, 2022).
The debtor bought a car under a retail installment contract obligating her to pay a $5,050.00 down payment and secure financing from the creditor, Carolina Acceptance, for the principal amount of $20,139.00 at an annual interest rate of 19.88% with 51 monthly payments of $592.87. The debtor paid all but $500.00 of the down payment and arranged with the creditor to pay that amount by November 4, 2021. She failed to make the payment and filed for chapter 13 bankruptcy on November 17, 2021, proposing a plan committing her to pay the car loan in full at 5.25% interest. Because of two prior dismissed bankruptcies the automatic stay did not take effect. Read More
Posted by NCBRC - April 22nd, 2022
The City’s possessory lien on the chapter 7 debtor’s vehicle was judicial rather than statutory and could therefore be avoided under section 522(f). City of Chicago v. Mance, No. 21-1355 (7th Cir. April 21, 2022).
After the chapter 7 debtor incurred several unpaid traffic tickets, the City of Chicago impounded her car subject to a possessory lien of $12,245, comprising the amount of the outstanding tickets, storage and towing costs, and the City’s attorney fees. The lien in this case was more than four times the car’s value. The debtor’s monthly income was $197 in food stamps. The bankruptcy court held that the lien was avoidable, and the district court affirmed. City of Chicago v. Howard, 625 B.R. 384, 390 (N.D. Ill. 2021). Read More
Posted by NCBRC - April 18th, 2022
The debtors were entitled to discharge despite their failure to disclose an asset where the trustee moved for dismissal for bad faith after the debtors completed all their plan payments but before they had received their discharge. In re Frank, No. 18-12812 (Bankr. D. Colo. March 30, 2022).
Less than one year after one of the debtors was injured in a car accident, the below-median debtors filed for chapter 13 bankruptcy. The debtors did not inform the trustee of the car accident or list the potential cause of action in their bankruptcy schedules. The debtors’ confirmed 39-month plan committed them to paying a priority tax debt, a small secured debt, trustee fees and their own attorney fees. The plan paid nothing to unsecured creditors. About one year after their plan was confirmed, the debtors received a $67,000 settlement in the personal injury case. They did not amend their schedules or inform the trustee of the settlement. One month before the final payment was due on the debtors’ plan, the trustee asked them whether they had received any payment on a separate wrongful discharge claim that they had listed in their schedules. They then informed the Trustee of the $67,000 payment on the personal injury claim. The debtors made their final plan payment the following month and the trustee then moved to dismiss on the grounds of bad faith for nondisclosure of the personal injury claim. The debtors claimed inadvertence based on their belief that the settlement proceeds were exempt. Read More
Posted by NCBRC - April 15th, 2022
In a consolidated opinion, the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts held that the “equal payment provision of § 1325(a)(5)(B)(iii) is best read to prohibit confirmation of a sale plan, over the objection of a secured creditor holding a mortgage of a principal residence, that contemplates periodic payments followed by a lump-sum payment.” In re Materne, No. 20-40027, and In re Gnaman, No. 19-40930 (Bankr. D. Mass. April 7, 2022). Read More
Posted by NCBRC - April 13th, 2022
An employment contract between the debtor and his ex-spouse where the ex-spouse’s only responsibilities were to assist the debtor in family matters, was in the nature of domestic support and was entitled to priority treatment in the debtor’s chapter 7 bankruptcy. In re Wibracht, No. 21-50477 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. March 31, 2022). Read More
Posted by NCBRC - April 6th, 2022
NCBRC has filed an amicus brief on behalf of the NACBA membership in the Tenth Circuit case of Goodman v. Doll (In re Doll). The case addresses the issue of whether a chapter 13 standing trustee is entitled to keep pre-confirmation statutory fees when the case is ultimately dismissed prior to plan confirmation. Case No. 22-1004 (filed April 6, 2022). The bankruptcy court found in favor of the trustee and the district court reversed. Read More
