Posted by NCBRC - February 20th, 2019
Type: Amicus
Date: February 6, 2019
Description: Whether the bankruptcy court erred in ruling that a creditor and its law firm did not violate the discharge injunction when, after the Chapter 7 debtor’s discharge, she was arrested pursuant to a state court bench warrant that had been issued in supplemental collection proceedings against the debtor in state court.
Result: Pending
Sterling 7th Cir NACBA Amicus Feb 2019
Posted by NCBRC - February 20th, 2019
Type: Amicus
Date: February 12, 2019.
Description: Whether the bankruptcy court erred in denying the Chapter 7 debtor’s claimed exemption in funds in a 401(k) account and an IRA that had been awarded to him in a prepetition marital dissolution proceeding.
Result: Affirmed. February 7, 2020.
Lerbakken 8th Cir Feb 2020
Lerbakken 8th Cir NACBA Amicus Feb 2019
Posted by NCBRC - February 15th, 2019
A bankruptcy court recently reviewed the issue whether a debtor can receive a discharge under § 1328 even if her co-debtor husband is delinquent on a post-petition DSO payment. The court examined the requirements for discharge using the plain language of § 1328(a).
In this case the debtors, Mr. and Mrs. Hernandez, filed a joint chapter 13 bankruptcy. At filing neither owed a DSO. Approximately two years into their confirmed plan, Mr. Hernandez became liable for a DSO and subsequently fell behind in those payments. Both parties were aware of the DSO and neither reported the delinquency to their attorney nor the trustee.
After completion of the plan payments, Mrs. Hernandez moved for entry of discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1328(a). The Trustee objected arguing Mrs. Hernandez was unjustly enriched and that failure to amend the plan demonstrates bad faith. No party disputed that all plan payments were made.
To read more and access the opinion click here.
Posted by NCBRC - February 14th, 2019
A bankruptcy court recently expunged a claim of Ditech Financial LLC (Ditech) asserting that it was the creditor and the servicer of a note secured by an investment property (the “Property”) owned by the Debtors. Ditech filed a petition for bankruptcy in Case No. 19-10414 (Bankr. S.D.NY February 11, 2019). The order was entered in another proceeding before a different judge after Ditech’s bankruptcy was filed.
In this case the Debtors filed a chapter 11 and sought to sell the Property free and clear of all liens pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 363. Ditech filed its claim. The Debtors successfully objected to Ditech’s claim because Ditech had not demonstrated it had standing. Ditech then filed a motion to reconsider which was granted. Meanwhile the court granted the motion to sell the Property but kept the proceeds in escrow pending the new hearing on the standing issue.
Ominously, the court’s opinion began with “Throughout this case Ditech Financial LLC (“Ditech”) has shown disdain for this Court and for [the] debtors…”
To read more and get the opinion click here.
Posted by NCBRC - February 6th, 2019
The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the 10th Circuit recently addressed a thorny issue about amending schedules in reopened cases. See In re Dollman, BAP No. NM-18-030(10th Cir. B.A.P. February 5, 2019). The question is whether a debtor in a reopened case seeking to amend schedules must first move for an extension of time pursuant to Fed.R.Bankr.P. 9006, and demonstrate excusable neglect.
In Dollman and the consolidated companion case In re Mendoza, both debtors unknowingly failed to disclose personal injury claims in their schedules. Both cases received a chapter 7 discharge. Both debtors reopened their cases to amend their schedules and claim exemptions in the settlements. In both cases the chapter 7 trustee objected to the amended schedules asserting that the debtors must show excusable neglect under Fed.R.Bankr.P. 9006(b) before they could exercise their rights to amend under Fed.R.Bankr.P. 1009(a). The bankruptcy courts sustained those objections on the basis that neither of them could show excusable neglect for failing to amend schedules prior to the closing of their cases.
Read More
Posted by NCBRC - December 13th, 2018
Type: Amicus
Date: April 18, 2018
Description: Whether False Claims Act case was properly dismissed on judicial estoppel grounds for failure to disclose it to the bankruptcy court.
Result: Judgment affirmed, December 5, 2018 (withdrawn). New opinion issued March 22, 2019. Affirmed.
Bias 5th Cir March 2019 new opinion
Bias 5th Cir Dec 2018
Bias NACBA amicus 5th Cir April 2018
Posted by NCBRC - December 13th, 2018
Type: Amicus
Date: August 13, 2018
Description: Whether termination of the automatic stay applies to property of the estate.
Result: Judgment affirmed, December 12, 2018.
Smith 1st Cir Dec 2018
Smith NACBA Amicus 1st Cir Aug 2018
Posted by NCBRC - November 30th, 2018
Type: Amicus
Date: November 15, 2018
Description: Whether creditor’s unreasonable belief that conduct did not violate discharge injunction precludes finding of contempt.
Result: Vacated and Remanded, June 3, 2019. On remand, affirmed, No. 16-35402 (9th Cir. Nov. 24, 2020).
Taggart (USSC) June 2019
Taggart NACBA amicus Nov 2018
Taggart 9th Cir Nov 2020
Posted by NCBRC - November 13th, 2018
Type: Amicus
Date: November 8, 2018
Description: Whether termination of stay under 362(c)(3)(A) extends to property of the estate, as well as to the Chapter 13 debtors and the debtors’ property.
Result: Appeal dismissed for failure to file petition for direct appeal. June 14, 2019.
Wade 7th Cir NACBA Amicus Nov 2018
Posted by NCBRC - November 13th, 2018
Type: Amicus
Date: November 5, 2018
Description: Whether the Brunner undue hardship test as applied in the Fifth Circuit is contrary to the language of the Code, and whether the Brunner test is obsolete in general.
Result: pending
Thomas 5th Cir NACBA amicus Nov 2018