Comparing the potential purchaser to a vulture, a bankruptcy court disapproved a sale of estate property as not passing the business judgment test. In re Pervine, 2016 Bankr. LEXIS 712, No. 13-2289 (Bankr. E.D. N.C. March 7, 2016). [Read more…] about Sale to Vulture Fails Business Judgment Test
Mere Physical Possession Not Legally Cognizable Property Interest
The Ninth Circuit found that mere possession of property whose title had been fully adjudicated against the debtor in a state unlawful detainer action was not a property interest protected by the automatic stay. Eden Place v. Perl, No. 14-60049 (9th Cir. Jan. 8, 2016). [Read more…] about Mere Physical Possession Not Legally Cognizable Property Interest
VPSI, Inc. v. Padula, No. 15-2114 (4th Cir.)
Type: Amicus
Date: January 26, 2016
Description: Whether Chapter 13 debtors are required to amend their bankruptcy schedules to reflect post-petition tort actions and whether debtors have standing to bring causes of action in their own name on behalf of the estate.
Result: Affirmed, per curiam, June 9, 2016
In re Peet, No.15-2040 (8th Cir.)
Type: Amicus
Date: September 23, 2015
Description: Whether chapter 7 debtors’ filing of Bankruptcy automatically severed joint tenancy in which the debtors owned property with the debtor wife’s parents, so that, when both parents died post-petition, debtors became sole owners and interest in property became property of the estate.
Result: Affirmed April 27, 2016.
POC for Time-Barred Debt May Violate FDCPA
The Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois added to its body of law finding that a debt collector may violate the FDCPA by filing a proof of claim for a time-barred debt. Davenport v. Calvary Investments (In re Davenport), No. 14-30261, Adv. Pro. 15-559 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Dec. 14, 2015). [Read more…] about POC for Time-Barred Debt May Violate FDCPA
Debtor May Not Compel Sale of Property under Section 363(h)
A chapter 13 debtor does not have the authority under section 363(h) to sell estate property free and clear of a co-owner’s interest. Kao v. Kelly (In re Kao), No. 15-31193, Adv. Pro. 15-3114 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. July 7, 2015). [Read more…] about Debtor May Not Compel Sale of Property under Section 363(h)
Trustee’s Valuation of Unresolved Pre-Petition Cause of Action Rejected
A bankruptcy court rejected a Chapter 13 trustee’s valuation of the debtor’s pre-petition cause of action and found that an estimated value of the state court case should not be included in the plan distributions but that the plan may be modified if the debtor obtains a money judgment during the commitment period. In re Morales, No. 12-7296 (Bankr. P.R. July 2, 2015). [Read more…] about Trustee’s Valuation of Unresolved Pre-Petition Cause of Action Rejected
Jones v. Bob Evans Farms, Inc., No. 15-2058 (8th Cir.)
Type: Amicus
Date: August 10, 2015
Description: Whether under Rule 1007(h) a chapter 13 debtor has a duty to disclose acquisition of post-petition legal claim.
Result: Affirmed, January 26, 2016. Debtor lost.
Funds from Consent Order Not Estate Property
Funds the debtor received through operation of a post-petition consent order between banking regulators and Bank of America were not part of the bankruptcy estate subject to turnover. MacKenzie v. Neidorf (In re Neidorf), No. 14-1496 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. July 10, 2015). Carrie Margaret Neidorf’s home was foreclosed upon while she was in bankruptcy and years later, while her bankruptcy case was still open and pursuant to a national settlement between banking regulators and Bank of America, she received $31,250 as a result of the foreclosure. The 2011 Consent Order (amended in 2013) required Bank of America to make a $1,127,453.261 cash payment to a Qualified Settlement Fund. That fund was then distributed to borrowers who had experience foreclosure within a specified period. The chapter 7 trustee sought turnover of the funds arguing that they were property of the estate. The bankruptcy court disagreed and the BAP affirmed.
The BAP stated three conditions that must be met for after-acquired property to be considered part of the estate under section 541(a)(7); “(1) It must be created with or by property of the estate; (2) acquired in the estate’s normal course of business; or (3) otherwise be traceable to or arise out of any prepetition interest included in the bankruptcy estate.” The panel found that the fact that the foreclosed residence was property of the estate was not dispositive. It found that the debtor’s entitlement to the foreclosure payment arose out of the post-petition Consent Order rather than out of her ownership of the property. The panel concluded: “Seen in this light, that the estate had an interest in Debtor’s Residence is not enough. Nowhere has Trustee shown how the estate obtained an interest in the Foreclosure Payment itself when the qualifying events giving rise to Debtor’s legal rights to the payment all occurred post-petition and were held solely by the borrowers.”
Debtor Lacks Standing to Bring Adversary Complaint Based on Pre-Petition Claims
The debtor’s pre-petition TILA claims were part of his Chapter 7 bankruptcy estate and, therefore, only the trustee had standing to bring those claims while the bankruptcy was pending. Bernstein v. Wells Fargo (In re Bernstein), No. 14-65054, Adv. Proc. 14-5306 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. Jan. 2, 2015). [Read more…] about Debtor Lacks Standing to Bring Adversary Complaint Based on Pre-Petition Claims