In Brown v. Viegelahn, No.18-282 the District Court for the Western District of Texas, on its motion, certified an appeal to the Fifth Circuit to resolve a dispute among lower courts concerning the so-called Molina language in which a Chapter 13 debtor paying less than his entire disposable income to his 100% plan, is required to agree that he will not later modify the plan to pay less than 100% to unsecured creditors. (appeal certified, Jan. 22, 2019). [Read more…] about District Court Certifies Appeal of 100% Plan Language Restricting Right to Modify
Whaley v. Guillen, No. 17-13899 (11th Cir.)
Type: Amicus
Date: January 23, 2018
Description: Whether Chapter 13 debtors are required to show an unanticipated change in circumstances in order to exercise the statutory right to modify their repayment plans under 11 U.S.C. § 1329.
Result: Pending
Court Takes a Hard Line on Curing Direct Mortgage Payment Default
A loan modification to cure a post-confirmation default on direct mortgage payments must be approved by the court prior to expiration of the chapter 13 plan. In re Hanley, 2017 WL 3575847, No. 11-76700 (Bankr. E.D. N.Y. Aug. 14, 2017).
Brian and Anahi Hanley’s confirmed chapter 13 plan provided for cure of their mortgage default through the plan and for regular mortgage payments to be made directly to the mortgagee, Nationstar Mortgage, LLC. They fell behind on their direct mortgage payments and, several months before completion of their plan, they entered into a trial loan modification which would cure the post-confirmation default. Though the Hanleys made all payments under the loan modification, they failed to sign and return the Loan Modification Approval Letter within the time required by Nationstar.
At the expiration of their plan, Nationstar filed a Rule 3002.1 Response notifying the court of the default based on the loan as it stood prior to the trial loan modification. The trustee moved to dismiss their bankruptcy without discharge. The Hanley’s moved to strike Nationstar’s Response and sought to modify their plan to allow them to cure the default in accordance with the terms of the loan modification.
For purposes of its decision, the court adopted the Hanleys’ factual assertion that the parties had agreed to the loan modification but had not submitted it to the court for approval. It thus framed the issue as “whether a chapter 13 debtor may cure an acknowledged default in post-petition direct mortgage payments, to be made pursuant to a confirmed chapter 13 plan, through a loan modification approved after the expiration of the 60th month.”
In answer to this question, the court found that the debtors had two choices for dealing with the post-petition default: modify the loan or modify the plan. It explained that a loan modification entered into by the parties outside the plan may cure a default even though the new loan terms are not memorialized in a plan modification. Alternatively, the cure of a post-confirmation default may be accomplished through a plan modification without an agreement between the parties to modify the loan. However, both options, the court emphasized, required approval by the court prior to expiration of the plan.
Acknowledging the “draconian” nature of denying discharge after the Hanleys had made all plan payments for five years, the court reasoned that its equitable powers were constrained by the Code and the terms of the Hanleys’ plan. Section 1328(a) makes discharge contingent upon completion of all plan payments, and relevant case law establishes that where a plan provides for mortgage payments outside the plan, those payments must be current as well.
The court noted that there is a line of cases in which courts have held that post-confirmation plan modifications to cure post-petition mortgage defaults are not permitted at all under section 1329. The court disagreed with or distinguished those cases, finding that, where, as here, the secured creditor’s rights under the loan agreement would not be altered by the modification, section 1329(a)(2) permits a modification extending the time for repayment. The court reiterated, however, that any such plan modification must take place prior to the expiration of the plan.
The court also recognized that some courts permit chapter 13 debtors to cure defaults post- plan completion either on equitable principles or on the theory that “the debtors are not seeking to extend the plan, rather they are only curing a default on already scheduled payments.” The court declined to adopt their reasoning finding instead that the Code does not allow for leeway in curing a default on plan payments. Citing sections 1322(a)(4), (d)(1), (d)(2), 1325(b)(1)(B) and 1329(c), and calling it a “drop dead jurisdictional deadline,” the court concluded that the right to discharge requires all plan payments be complete at the expiration of the plan.
Nor would the court permit a retroactive loan modification to cure the default in light of Nationstar’s position that it had not ultimately agreed to the modification.
The court granted the trustee’s motion to dismiss under section 1307(c)(6) due to a “material default.”
Plan Modification to Surrender 910 Vehicle Permissible
So long as the modification is proposed in good faith a debtor may modify a plan which originally provided for a “910 Claim” to be paid off in its entirety, to one in which she surrenders the vehicle and treats any deficiency as unsecured. In re Fayson, No. 16-10013 (Bankr. D. Del. July 13, 2017).
After experiencing maintenance problems and a dispute relating to an undelivered warranty on her 910 vehicle, Tabitha Fayson sought to modify her Chapter 13 plan to surrender the vehicle and treat the deficiency as unsecured. Citing In re Nolan. 232 F.3d 528 (6th Cir. 2000), the creditor argued that the modification she sought was prohibited under the Code. The court disagreed and joined the majority of bankruptcy courts finding that treatment of 910 claims may be modified in the manner sought by Ms. Fayson. [Read more…] about Plan Modification to Surrender 910 Vehicle Permissible
HAMP Deadline Is Fast Approaching
HAMP, the Treasury program that allows eligible homeowners to reduce their mortgage payment, will come to an end on December 30, 2016. The program, begun in 2009 as part of the “Making Home Affordable” initiative, was extended from its original deadline of December 30, 2015. A compilation of information provided by servicers participating in MHA under a Servicer Participation Agreement shows that, as of September, 2016, the program has processed over 9.3 million applications of which approximately 2.9 million were approved and 6.5 million denied.
To apply for HAMP, you must submit by December 30, 2016:
- A “Request for Mortgage Assistance” (RMA) form
- IRS Form 4506T, 4506T-EZ, or a signed copy of last year’s tax return
- The “Dodd-Frank Certification” (which may be part of the RMA)
- Proof of income
Forms and information about the program are available at www.makinghomeaffordable.gov.
Modification Based on Increased Ability to Pay
The trustee may modify a Chapter 13 plan based on the debtor’s post-confirmation increase in ability to pay. Germeraad v. Powers (In re Powers), No. 15-3237 (7th Cir. June 23, 2016). Elvie Owens-Powers and Myrick Powers had a confirmed plan under which they would pay off their secured creditors and pay $22,000 toward their unsecured debts. Upon receiving their tax return during the plan, the trustee noticed a $50,000 increase in Mr. Powers’ income and sought an order requiring them to modify their plan under Section 1329 to increase their monthly plan contributions. The bankruptcy court denied the motion to modify on the basis that it was not supported by any provision of the Code, and, alternatively, that the facts did not support modification. In re Powers, 507 B.R. 262 (Bankr. C.D. Ill. 2014). The district court affirmed on the basis that the Code did not permit the modification. It did not address the alternative factual basis for the bankruptcy court’s decision. In re Powers, __ B.R. __, 2015 WL 5725701, at *2 (C.D. Ill. Sep. 30, 2015). [Read more…] about Modification Based on Increased Ability to Pay
Debtor may not modify default interest rate.
A “cure and maintain” plan permits deceleration of the loan but does not allow a debtor to return to the pre-default interest rate. Anderson v. Hancock (In re Hancock), No. 15-1505 (4th Cir. April 27, 2016).
The Andersons purchased residential property from the Hancocks, financed in the amount of $255,000 by the sellers. The Andersons signed a thirty-year note agreeing to pay $1,368.90 per month, including interest payments at 5%. In the event of a default, the note provided that the interest rate would increase to 7%. The note also entitled the Hancocks to accelerate the loan. When the Andersons defaulted on the loan, the Hancocks imposed the default interest rate, notified the Andersons of acceleration of the loan, and instituted foreclosure. The debtors filed Chapter 13 bankruptcy proposing to cure the arrears and maintain payments at the 5% interest rate through the life of the plan. The Hancocks objected to the plan on two bases. First, they argued that the calculation of arrears was too low because it was based on the pre-default interest rate. Second, they maintained that all future payments on the loan should be at the 7% interest rate. [Read more…] about Debtor may not modify default interest rate.
Ingram v, AAA Cooper Transportation, No. 16-11440 (11th Cir.)
Type: Amicus
Date: June 16, 2016
Description: Whether Chapter 13 debtors have a free-standing duty to amend their bankruptcy schedules to reflect the post-petition acquisition of a legal claim. Whether judicial estoppel is appropriately applied against former Chapter 13 debtors who attempt to amend their bankruptcy schedules.
Results: Pending
Rule 60(b) Subject to Limitations in Bankruptcy
In the absence of fraud, court mistake of fact or clerical error, or due process violation, a bankruptcy court cannot revoke a confirmation order under Rule 60(b). Federal National Mortgage Ass’n v. Meeko, No. 15-1200 (D. Or. March 17, 2016). [Read more…] about Rule 60(b) Subject to Limitations in Bankruptcy
Misconduct by HAMP Servicers Examined
A report to Congress by the Special Inspector General of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP) examined the reasons for the high percentage of redefaults by homeowners in HAMP. By December 31, 2015, over 500,000 homeowners who had HAMP modifications had missed three payments (“redefaulted”) on their loans. This number represents approximately one-third of homeowners in the program. Concern over the high redefault rate and potential misconduct on the part of the servicers caused the Treasury, at SIGTARP’s request, to conduct compliance testing at each of HAMP’s largest servicers: Bank of America, CitiMortgage, JP Morgan Chase, Nationstar, Ocwen, Select Portfolio Servicing, and Wells Fargo. The Treasury looked at samples of 100 homeowners who had redefaulted out of HAMP at each of the targeted servicers. The study found that 6 out of 7 servicers had wrongfully terminated homeowners who were in good standing. (The only large servicer that had not been found to have erred in this way was Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.). These six mortgage servicers account for 673,039 of the 915,699 (74%) HAMP modifications funded solely by TARP since the start of the program.
The improper servicing was so entrenched that 4 out of the 6 servicers continued to commit the termination errors even after the Treasury had repeatedly identified problems in their systems. Errors included miscounting the number of missed payments by a homeowner, misapplication of payments, and mishandling of rolling delinquencies. The report noted that servicers regularly failed to make timely and accurate reports to the Treasury, thereby making monitoring difficult.
The Treasury also found that 5 out of 7 servicers failed to offer redefaulting homeowners alternative assistance available through the Making Home Affordable Program. The report concludes with the warning that the number of erroneous terminations from HAMP in the small sample tested is an indication of extensive misconduct on the part of the servicers, which must be addressed by further oversight by the Treasury.