Two cases out of the Western District of Louisiana found that Attorney Glay H. Collier’s fee collection practices violated Sections 526, 528, 362, and 524 of the Bankruptcy Code. Wheeler v. Collier (In re Wheeler), No 11-1670 (W.D. La. May 22, 2014) and (July 17, 2014), and Patrick v. Collier (In re Patrick), No. 14-11203 (Bankr. W.D. La. July 23, 2014). [Read more…] about Attorney’s “No Money Down” Fee Collection Practice Violates BAPCPA
New York AG Settles with Usurious Lenders
In January 2014, New York Attorney General Erik T. Schneiderman announced that his office had settled with Western Sky Financial, CashCall, WS Funding, and their owners for violations of New York’s usury and licensed lender laws in connection with personal loans made over the internet. The usurious loans were made at interest rates ranging from 89% to 355%. The settlement involves repayment to borrowers who paid back the principal plus the legal interest rate of 16% and modification of all outstanding loans. The companies will also be required to pay $1.5 million in penalties. The settlement was approved on April 29, 2014. Consumers who are eligible for a refund should be contacted by the fund administrator within 90 days of the court’s approval of the settlement and asked to submit a claim. Questions may be directed to the Attorney General’s Consumer Helpline at: (800) 771-7755.
Creditor’s AP Amendment Denied Due to Delay
The creditor waited too long to amend his adversary complaint, and, therefore, the bankruptcy court’s denial of the motion to amend was not an abuse of discretion. Zullo v. Lombardo (In re Lombardo), No. 13-9004 (1st Cir. June 13, 2014). The case involved an apprentice plumber (Debtor) who passed himself off as a master, did a poor job, and cost the creditor (Zullo) additional money to fix his work. Zullo sued and won in state court. After the debtor filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition, Zullo sought an order of nondischargeability of the state court judgment under Section 523(a)(6), which excepts from discharge debts caused by willful injury. After losing a motion for summary judgment and being informed by the court that a claim under Section 523(a)(2)(A), which excepts debts based on fraud, might have fared better, Zullo moved to amend to add a claim under that section. The timing of the motion was seventeen months after filing the complaint and one week before trial.
The court found that “undue delay in moving to amend, even standing alone, may be . . . an adequate reason” for denial of the motion. Citing Acosta-Mestre v. Hilton Int’l of P.R., Inc., 156 F.3d 49, 51-52 (1st Cir. 1998). The court recognized the tension between efficient resolution of cases and liberally permitting appeals to ensure that all relevant claims are addressed, and found that the unwarranted delay in this case resolved that tension in favor of the non-movant/debtor. No extenuating circumstances justified the delay: there had been no change in law or recent discovery of facts since the state court judgment. Any foot-dragging by the debtor in discovery was irrelevant as the facts and law were plain from the outset.
The court concluded that, while the bankruptcy court might have been justified in granting the motion to amend, it was not an abuse of discretion to have denied it.
Judge Thompson filed a dissenting opinion. He opined that Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) requires granting permission to amend in the absence of justification to deny. Because all the facts of the case were established, the claim Zullo sought to add was not so different from the original claim or from the claim litigated in state court; it would not have unduly burdened the debtor or the court to address the new claim. Mere delay was an insufficient reason to deny the motion
Three Cases of Discharge Injunction Violations
Three recent cases involve sanctions for violation of the discharge injunction by a creditor filing suit in state court over a debt discharged in bankruptcy. King v. Williams (In re King), No. 12-3701 (8th Cir. March 5, 2014); In re Gracia, No. 13-1373 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. April 4, 2014); In re Hopkins, No. 09-5835 (Bankr. S.D. Ia. April 1, 2014). [Read more…] about Three Cases of Discharge Injunction Violations
Supreme Court Finds that Court May Not Surcharge Homestead Exemption
In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Scalia, the Supreme Court found that a bankruptcy court may not surcharge the homestead exemption as a result of the debtor’s misconduct. Law v. Siegel (In re Law), No. 12-5196, 571 U.S. ___ (March 4, 2014). [Read more…] about Supreme Court Finds that Court May Not Surcharge Homestead Exemption
Crack-Down On Bankruptcy Petition Preparers
A bankruptcy petition preparer who preyed on vulnerable mortgage debtors was sanctioned by the court in In re Shelvin, No. 12-39045, A.P. No. 13-3004 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Oct. 4, 2013). [Read more…] about Crack-Down On Bankruptcy Petition Preparers
NACBA Amicus Filed in Supreme Court Exemption Case
The NACBA membership filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court case of Law v. Seigel (In re Law), No. 12-5196 (Sept 3, 2013), in an effort to defend the debtor’s homestead exemption against surcharge. In that case, the lower court, ostensibly pursuant to its power under section 105(a), imposed the surcharge to pay trustee fees resulting from litigation necessitated by debtor misconduct. See Law v. Siegel (In re Law), 435 Fed. Appx. 697, 2011 WL 2181198 (9th Cir. 2011). [Read more…] about NACBA Amicus Filed in Supreme Court Exemption Case
Wells Fargo Socked with Damages in Excess of $3 Million – Again
Upon the death of its mortgagor, the hulking beast that is Wells Fargo blindly slouched toward foreclosure heedless of the fact that it had sold an accidental death insurance policy to the mortgagor. The decedent’s personal representative, filed a complaint in state court alleging: 1) Wrongful foreclosure and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; 2) unconscionable and unfair trade practices; 3) breach of contract; 4) violation of the Home Loan Protection Act; and 5) attorneys’ fees under NMSA § 48-7-24. The court found Wells Fargo liable under each of the five claims except the claim for violation of the Home Loan Protection Act. Dollens v. Wells Fargo Bank, CV 2011-05295, Letter Decision (N.M. Dist. Ct. Aug. 27, 2013). [Read more…] about Wells Fargo Socked with Damages in Excess of $3 Million – Again
Wells Fargo Financial Finally Moving to Claims Review and Compensation
In 2011, the Federal Reserve Board issued a cease and desist order and assessed an $85 million civil money penalty against Wells Fargo & Company of San Francisco, a registered bank holding company, and Wells Fargo Financial, Inc., of Des Moines. (as distinguished from Wells Fargo Home Mortgage or by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.) The order addresses allegations that Wells Fargo Financial employees steered potential prime borrowers into more costly subprime loans and separately falsified income information in mortgage applications. The order affect certain mortgage loans made between January 1, 2004, and September 30, 2008. In addition to the civil money penalty, the order requires that Wells Fargo compensate affected borrowers.
Wells Fargo Financial made subprime loans that primarily refinanced existing home mortgages in which borrowers received additional money from the loan proceeds in so-called cash-out refinancing loans. The order addresses allegations that Wells Fargo Financial sales personnel steered borrowers who were potentially eligible for prime interest rate loans into loans at higher, subprime interest rates, resulting in greater costs to borrowers. The order also addresses separate allegations that Wells Fargo Financial sales personnel falsified information about borrowers’ incomes to make it appear that the borrowers qualified for loans when they would not have qualified based on their actual incomes.
According to both the Federal Reserve Board and Wells Fargo, some current and former customers of Wells Fargo Financial will receive notices that they may be eligible to file a claim. For more information, you can visit the Wells Fargo Financial Consent Order Website.
Creditor Must Return Repossessed Vehicle upon Bankruptcy Filing
The Second Circuit upheld sanctions against vehicle loan creditor SEFCU for refusing to return the debtor’s repossessed vehicle without a court order and adequate protection. Weber v. SEFCU, No. 12-1632 (May 8, 2013). SEFCU had lawfully repossessed the debtor’s pick-up truck under the loan agreement, but when the debtor filed for bankruptcy, SEFCU refused to return the vehicle. The bankruptcy court determined that SEFCU’s actions did not violate the automatic stay. The district court reversed. Weber v. SEFCU, 477 B.R. 308, 311 (N.D.N.Y. 2012). [Read more…] about Creditor Must Return Repossessed Vehicle upon Bankruptcy Filing