SCOTUS Addresses “Debt Collector” Definition

Posted by NCBRC - March 29th, 2019

In a unanimous, narrow, decision, the Supreme Court held that an entity merely carrying out nonjudicial foreclosures is not a “debt collector” within the meaning of the FDCPA. Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP, 586 U.S. ___, No. 17-1307 (March 20, 2019).

The action arose when the law firm of McCarthy & Holthus, acting as agent for the mortgagee, initiated nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings against Dennis Obduskey. In response to McCarthy’s notice of foreclosure, sent in compliance with Colorado nonjudicial foreclosure law, Mr. Obduskey invoked the FDCPA and sent a letter disputing the debt. When McCarthy went forward with the foreclosure proceedings, Mr. Obduskey filed a complaint in district court alleging violation of the FDCPA’s requirement that, upon notification of a disputed claim, a debt collector must cease collection activities and obtain verification of the debt. The district court found that McCarthy was not a debt collector to which the FDCPA requirements applied. The Tenth Circuit affirmed. Obduskey v. Wells Fargo, 879 F. 3d 1216 (2018). Read More

7th Circuit Certifies Workers’ Compensation Exemption Question to Illinois Supreme Court

Posted by NCBRC - March 27th, 2019

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has certified a question to the Illinois Supreme Court concerning “whether the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act [IWCA], as amended, allows care-provider creditors to reach the proceeds of workers’ compensation claims.” In re Hernandez, No. 18-1789 (7th Cir. March 18, 2019). Read More

Attorney Fee Award Upheld Against Student Loan Servicer

Posted by NCBRC - March 21st, 2019

The district court found that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in holding the student loan servicer in contempt for failing to apply the student debtor’s payments outside the plan in accordance with pre-petition payments as required by the debtor’s confirmed chapter 13 plan. Penn. Higher Educ. Assistance Agency v. Berry, No. 18-444 (D. S.C. March 5, 2019).

Berry had student loans issued by the Department of Education (DOE) and administered by the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency (PHEAA). She was paying off her loans under an Income-Driven Repayment plan (IDR) and a Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program. In her chapter 13 bankruptcy, her confirmed amended plan provided for continued payments on her student loan debts outside the plan with those payments being applied exactly as before thereby allowing her to continue to benefit from the IDR and PSLF. The PHEAA, however, put the loans into administrative forbearance under which it applied the payments to principal and interest. Ms. Berry filed a Motion to Enforce seeking sanctions in the amount of $22,317.30, representing the attorney fees she incurred pursuing proper application of the payments. The DOE eventually settled its portion of the action for $6,000 and Ms. Berry sought the remaining amount from PHEAA. The bankruptcy court granted Ms. Berry’s entire attorney fee request consisting of $22,317.30 of which, after the DOE’s $6,000 settlement, the PHEAA owed $16,317.30. Read More

7th Circuit Reverses Bankruptcy Courts’ Uniform Rule to Keep Debtor’s Vehicle in Chapter 13 Post-Confirmation Estate

Posted by NACBA - March 15th, 2019

This opinion was based on the consolidated appeals of seven cases. Each of the seven debtors filed a petition for bankruptcy under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code in the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The uniform confirmation order in this district (in most cases) is that upon confirmation, the property of the estate remains property of the estate. City of Chi. v. Marshall, 281 F. Supp. 3d 702, 704 (N.D. Ill. 2017).

Thereafter, the debtors incurred fines as the registered owners of vehicles involved in parking or traffic violations of Chicago’s Municipal Code. In each bankruptcy case, the City of Chicaco sought payment of the outstanding post-petition traffic fines as administrative expenses pursuant to § 503 of the Bankruptcy Code, which, pursuant to § 507(a), would give these claims priority status (second only to domestic support obligations), ahead of pre-petition creditors in the distribution of the assets of the bankruptcy estates. Id.

Six of the seven cases were heard before Bankruptcy Judge Barnes. Judge Barnes oral ruling rejected Chicago’s argument. “He found that the City’s attempt to collect post-petition fines as administrative expenses had “a dangerous irritative effect, which is that the debtor could continue even after the first administrative expense claim for the life of the plan to incur additional tickets and they could be added to the plan,” depleting the assets available to unsecured creditors. (Citation omitted.) Judge Barnes concluded that “the traditional set of circumstances holds true, which is the debtor remains responsible for these claims,” and that the City had the same collections options as any post-petition creditor: it could move for relief from the stay and pursue state court remedies, or it could seek dismissal of the bankruptcy case. (Citation omitted.)” Id. at 705.

The seventh case was heard by Judge Hollis. She also rejected Chicago’s argument in a written opinion, In re Haynes, 569 B.R. 733 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2017), finding that post-petition traffic tickets did not qualify as administrative expenses.

These cases were consolidated on appeal to the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois which affirmed the Bankruptcy Courts’ decisions. City of Chi. v. Marshall, 281 F. Supp. 3d 702 (N.D. Ill. 2017).

Click here to read more.

Debtors’ Plan May Direct Student Loan Payments to Principal

Posted by NCBRC - March 13th, 2019

Finding that “non-dischargeability does not immunize the student loan claim from modification,” the bankruptcy court confirmed the chapter 12 debtors’ plan under which their payments would go to the principal on their student loan debt with accumulated post-petition interest to be paid post-discharge. In re Duensing, No. 18-10201 (Bankr. D. Kans. Feb. 22, 2019).

ECMC objected to Kirk and Eve Duensing’s proposed treatment of Ms. Duensing’s student loan debt arguing that, because the reduction of principal would result in declining post-petition interest, the proposed plan effectively discharged her student loan without a finding of undue hardship. Read More

Debtor’s Right to Amend Extends to Reopened Cases

Posted by NCBRC - March 12th, 2019

A debtor may amend his schedules as a matter of right “without limitation of whether the case is open or reopened after closing.” Mendoza v. Montoya, No. 18-19, Dollman v. Montoya, No. 18-30 (B.A.P. 10th Cir. Feb. 5, 2019). Read More

Debtors’ Manufactured Home Was Personal Property Under Iowa Law

Posted by NCBRC - March 8th, 2019

The Eighth Circuit found no clear error in the bankruptcy court’s finding that, under Iowa common law, the chapter 13 debtors’ manufactured home was personal property and therefore the debt it secured was not subject to section 1322(b)’s anti-modification provision. The Paddock, LLC v. Bennett, No. 18-2098 (Feb. 28, 2019).

Benjamin and Teresia Bennett purchased a manufactured home from Paddock, and placed it on a lot owned by Paddock under a 990-year lease. In their chapter 13 bankruptcy, the Bennetts proposed to bifurcate the debt secured by the manufactured home into secured and unsecured portions under section 506(a)(1). Paddock objected arguing that the home was real property and the interest was subject to the anti-modification provision of section 1322(b). The bankruptcy court found that, under Iowa law, the home was personal property and confirmed the plan. In re Bennett, 2017 WL 1417221 (Bankr. N.D. Iowa Apr. 20, 2017). The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed. In re Bennett, 584 B.R. 15 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2018). Read More

ACA’s Shared Responsibility Payment is Priority Tax Debt

Posted by NCBRC - March 6th, 2019

The District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana determined that the tax assessment for failure to maintain health insurance under the Affordable Care Act is a nondischargeable priority tax debt under section 507(a)(8)(A)(iii), rather than a penalty dischargeable in bankruptcy under section 523(a)(7) and 1328(a). United States v. Chesteen, No. 18-2077 (E.D. La. Feb. 25, 2019).

As the chapter 13 debtor, John Chesteen, pointed out on appeal, the shared responsibility payment at issue is described numerous times in the ACA as a penalty and is collected the same way other tax penalties are collected. The district court noted, however, that statutory descriptions, while informative, are not dispositive of whether a payment is a tax or a penalty. Rather, courts rely on the underlying purpose of the payment. A “tax” is a burden placed on the taxpayer for the financial support of the government, and a “penalty” is a punishment of an unlawful act. Read More

Federal Lien Broader than State Lien for Avoidance Purposes

Posted by NCBRC - March 2nd, 2019

Federal law defines a lien more broadly than Missouri law, and for that reason, the debtor was able to avoid a judgment lien as impairing the exemption he claimed on his residence, which he owned as a tenancy in the entireties with his wife, even though state law did not recognize the creation of the lien. CRP Holdings A-1, LLC v. O’Sullivan, No. 17-3226 (8th Cir. Feb. 1, 2019).

Chapter 7 debtor, Casey O’Sullivan, and his wife acquired their residence as tenants in the entirety. CRP obtained a foreign judgment in the amount of $765,151.18 against the debtor and registered the judgment in the debtor’s resident county in an effort to obtain a judicial lien against the property. When Mr. O’Sullivan filed for bankruptcy, he claimed an exemption for the property and sought to avoid CRP’s judicial lien under section 522(f)(1) as impairing that exemption. The bankruptcy court found that the judgment lien, even though unenforceable, placed a “cloud” on the debtor’s title and could therefore be avoided as impairing his bankruptcy exemption. The BAP affirmed. Read More

Bankruptcy Court Abused Discretion in Failing to Confirm Plan

Posted by NCBRC - February 26th, 2019

In a terse opinion, the Fifth Circuit balanced the evidence relied on by the bankruptcy court against various additional factors and concluded that the bankruptcy court abused its discretion when it denied the debtors’ chapter 13 plan for lack of good faith under section 1325(a)(3). Booker v. Johns (In re Booker), No. 18-30526 (5th Cir. Feb. 11, 2019) (unpublished).

In holding that the debtors’ plan was proposed in bad faith, the bankruptcy court relied on the fact that the debtors proposed to pay unsecured creditors at 4% while retaining their 1998 fishing boat, motor and trailer. The debtors proposed a new plan that was less favorable to them which the bankruptcy court confirmed. The debtors appealed, and the district court affirmed. Read More