Sixth Circuit Discusses Appellate Jurisdiction

Posted by NCBRC - December 29th, 2020

Where the BAP remanded to the bankruptcy court for a finding on whether the creditor violated the automatic stay by failing to prevent the continuation of a contempt hearing against the debtor, the Sixth Circuit relied on precedent to conclude that the BAP’s order was not final and appealable. Wohleber v. Skurko (In re Wohleber), No. 19-3223/3225 (6th Cir. Nov. 18, 2020) (unpublished). In her concurring opinion, Judge Batchelder argued that the precedent relied on by the majority was erroneous and advocated for adopting a rule that “we have appellate jurisdiction if either the bankruptcy court’s judgment or the intermediate appellate judgment is final.” Read More

Lien for Incarceration Costs Is Avoidable Judicial Lien

Posted by NCBRC - December 23rd, 2020

The State Treasurer’s lien based on a statute authorizing the state to seek reimbursement from a prisoner for the costs of his incarceration was not a statutory lien but a judicial lien which the debtor could avoid as impairing his exemptions. State Treasurer v. Wigger, No. 19-732 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 16, 2020).

The debtor was a prisoner in the Central Michigan Correctional Facility. The Michigan State Treasurer sought to recover some of the costs of his incarceration under the State Correctional Facility Reimbursement Act (SCFRA). After a bench trial, the state court found the State Treasurer was entitled to reimbursement from the debtor’s IRA funds and from proceeds from a judgment the debtor had against his son. The debtor initiated a chapter 7 bankruptcy and filed an adversary proceeding seeking to have the state’s lien voided as a judicial lien impairing his exemptions under section 522(f)(1). The bankruptcy court granted the debtor’s lien avoidance motion finding that the lien impaired his exemption for retirement funds under section 522(d)(12), and his exemption for property valued up to $13,100 under section 522(d)(5). Read More

Debtor’s Post-Discharge Pre-Closure Motion to Convert Denied

Posted by NCBRC - December 16th, 2020

The debtor was not permitted to convert from chapter 7 to chapter 13 post-discharge but prior to administrative closure of his case where the court found the attempted conversion to be an abuse of process and his conduct in his chapter 7 case to indicate bad faith. In re Chamoun, No. 20-5069 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2020). Read More

Unlawful Possession of Real Property Does Not Create Property Interest

Posted by NCBRC - December 11th, 2020

Where the debtor was subject to a state court judgment cutting off his right to cure the default on an installment land contract, he had no interest in the property despite his continued unlawful possession and, therefore, the bankruptcy court erred in confirming the debtor’s chapter 13 plan that provided for payment of the default judgment. In re Peralta, No. 20-2380 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 4, 2020).

The debtor entered into an installment contract with the creditor for the transfer of real property. After the debtor defaulted on the contract, a new agreement was reached obligating the debtor in the event of future default to submit to a default judgment and vacate the property. He defaulted and the creditor obtained a judgment in the amount of $41,151.70, as well as a Judgment for Possession in state court. But rather than vacate the property, the debtor filed for chapter 13 bankruptcy and proposed a plan under which he would pay off the judgment and obtain possession of the property free and clear of the creditor’s interest. The bankruptcy confirmed the plan over the creditor’s objection. Read More

Med School Loans Partially Discharged after Debtor Fails to Match for Residency

Posted by NCBRC - December 9th, 2020

Finding that the debtor’s string of very bad luck unrelieved by his concerted efforts to increase his earnings, satisfied the Brunner test, a bankruptcy court granted him a partial discharge of his student loan, reducing the debt from $440,000 to $8,291.67. Koeut v. U.S. Dept. of Ed., No. 12-7242, Adv. Proc. No. 18-90130 (Bankr. S.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2020). Read More

9th Circuit Limits Walls, Permits FDCPA Action for Post-D/C Collection

Posted by NCBRC - December 4th, 2020

Declining to extend its 2002 holding in Walls, the Ninth Circuit found that a chapter 13 debtor who fully paid the creditor’s claim prior to completion of his plan was not precluded from pursuing an FDCPA claim based on the creditor’s post-discharge collection efforts. Manikan v. Peters & Freedman, L.L.P., No. 19-55393 (9th Cir. Nov. 25, 2020).

The debtor entered chapter 13 bankruptcy after receiving a notice of foreclosure from Peters & Freedman, a debt collector, based on HOA arrears. Through P&F, the HOA filed a claim in his bankruptcy, and the debtor provided for the arrears in his plan. He fully paid off the debt approximately two years prior to completion of his plan. After the debtor received his discharge, P&F hired Advanced Attorney Services (AAS) to re-serve a Notice of Default based on the debt that the debtor had paid off in his bankruptcy. AAS served the notice by breaking through a gate, entering the debtor’s backyard and banging on his windows, causing the debtor to call the police. Read More

Ninth Circuit Applies Scotus Standard in Discharge Injunction Case

Posted by NCBRC - December 2nd, 2020

On remand from the Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit found that, under the Supreme Court’s objective standard, the debtor’s active post-bankruptcy litigation in state court of the terms of his separation from his business partnership established sufficient cause for his business partner creditors to have a reasonable belief that he had “returned to the fray” and that their motion for attorney’s fees would not violate the discharge injunction. Lorenzen v. Taggart, No. 16-35402 (9th Cir. Nov. 24, 2020). Read More

California Clarifies Marital Property Presumptions

Posted by NCBRC - November 24th, 2020

Relying on the answer to a certified question propounded to the California Supreme Court regarding presumptions attached to marital property, the Ninth Circuit found that one of two properties owned by the individual debtor and his wife was community property despite its being designated a joint tenancy. Brace v. Speier (In re Brace), No. 17-60032 (9th Cir. Nov. 9, 2020).

The debtor and his wife acquired the San Bernardino property sometime after they married in 1972, and the Redlands property in 1977 or 1978. When the husband filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy, the trustee sought to sell both properties and distribute the proceeds to the debtor’s creditors. Even though both deeds characterized the properties as joint tenancies, the bankruptcy court found that, under the California Family Code, they were community property and could be sold to satisfy the husband’s debts. The BAP affirmed. In re Brace, 566 B.R. 13 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2017). Read More

ACA’s Shared Responsibility Payment Debt Not Entitled to Priority

Posted by NCBRC - November 20th, 2020

The shared responsibility payment under the Affordable Care Act is not an “excise tax,” within the meaning of section 507(a)(8) and, therefore, the IRS’s claim for unpaid SRP was not entitled to priority in bankruptcy. IRS v. Huenerberg, No. 18-1617 (E.D. Wisc. Oct. 22, 2020).

When the debtors filed for chapter 13 bankruptcy, the IRS submitted a claim for over $6,000 in unpaid taxes, a portion of which was attributable to the debtors’ failure to pay what they owed under the Affordable Care Act as their shared responsibility payment (SRP). The IRS sought to have the SRP treated as a priority tax debt under section 507(a). The bankruptcy court found that the SRP did not qualify as an “excise tax” under that section and denied the IRS’s motion. The IRS appealed to the district court. Read More

Local Standards Apply but Trustee Need Not Be a Sumpsimus

Posted by NCBRC - November 17th, 2020

Despite higher actual vehicle operating costs, when calculating disposable income on the means test, above-median debtors must use the exact numerical values for expenses that are specified in the IRS’s National and Local Standards. Rodriguez v. Bronitsky (In re Rodriguez), No. 20-1085 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Oct. 16, 2020). Read More