Tag Archive: automatic stay

• Lifting the Stay only for Debtor in Serial Filings

  Posted by NCBRC - October 23rd, 2020

  Where a debtor makes serial filings for bankruptcy, the automatic stay is lifted after 30 days only with respect to the debtor and not with respect to property of the estate. Rose v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., No. 19-50598 (5th Cir. Dec. 10, 2019).

  Five years after the debtor and her then husband bought their residence, they divorced and the debtor’s husband retained the house on the condition that, if he defaulted on the mortgage, he would transfer ownership to the debtor. He defaulted. Although the house did not actually transfer to the debtor until five years after the last payment on the mortgage, the debtor became actively involved in battle with the mortgage creditor. On four occasions, the creditor set a foreclosure date and the debtor filed for bankruptcy to forestall the sale of the property. The bankruptcy cases were pending for a total of 269 days. Read More

• $67,000 in Fees and Costs Reasonable for Stay Litigation

  Posted by NCBRC - June 13th, 2020

  The debtors’ attorney was entitled to approximately $67,000.00 in attorney’s fees and expert witness fees and costs for his representation of the debtors in their action against the creditor for violation of the automatic stay. In re Moon, No. 13-12466 (Bankr. D. Nev. May 29, 2020).

  After they had obtained their discharge, the debtors reopened their bankruptcy with new counsel, Christopher Burke, in order to file a motion to hold Rushmore Loan Management Services, LLC, in contempt for violation of the automatic stay and the discharge injunction. After an evidentiary hearing, the bankruptcy court found Rushmore in violation of the automatic stay, but because the date Rushmore learned of the discharge was not established, the court did not find it in violation of the discharge injunction. The bankruptcy court awarded the debtors over $100,000 in actual damages, $200,000 in punitive damages, and attorney’s fees and costs under section 362(k)(1).

  Mr. Burke then submitted his fee application seeking $56,150 in fees based on 112.3 hours of work at $500.00/hour, $1,950.30 in costs, and $8,907.64 in witness fees for the expert testimony of John Rao. He further sought an order enhancing his fees by a multiplier of 1.5. Rushmore objected to the fee application generally, arguing that because he did not have a written fee agreement with the debtors, Mr. Burke did not comply with ethics requirements. Rushmore further argued that Mr. Burke’s hourly rate and the expert witness fee were excessive. Finally, Rushmore argued that Mr. Burke was not entitled to a fee enhancement. Read More

• Creditor Had Affirmative Duty to Stop State Contempt Action

  Posted by NCBRC - May 29th, 2020

  “A creditor, who has put a collection effort into motion must affirmatively act to stop, stay, or hold the collection effort in abeyance or risk incurring liability once a bankruptcy commences.” Valentine v. Valentine, No. 19-40593, Adv. Proc. No. 19-4022 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 27, 2020).

  Before he filed for chapter 7 relief, the debtor and the creditor were divorced. The divorce agreement obligated the debtor pay his ex-spouse domestic support. At some point after their divorce the debtor fell behind on his payments and sought to modify the support agreement. His efforts were unsuccessful and, in a state court contempt action, he was ordered to sell his residence to pay the domestic support debt. He failed to do so and continued to reside in the property. He filed for bankruptcy on February 1, 2019. Within days of filing his petition, on February 4, 2019, the state court held a second hearing for contempt due to his failure to sell his residence. Though his ex-spouse’s divorce counsel knew of the bankruptcy filing, he did not attempt to stop the contempt hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the state court found the debtor had filed for bankruptcy in order to remove the residence from the grasp of the creditor. The court issued an Order & Confinement holding in part: “[Debtor] to remain confined until he pays the sums due and owing in principal sum of $64,003.73 as of 1-22-18 or otherwise purges himself of contempt.” Pursuant to this order, the debtor was jailed for four days. On appeal, the state appellate court vacated the Order & Confinement finding that the debtor had no avenue for purging the contempt. Read More

• First Circuit BAP Applies “Gavel Rule” to Foreclosure Sale

  Posted by NCBRC - February 18th, 2020

  A panel for the First Circuit BAP found that the debtor could not cure and maintain her mortgage in bankruptcy because she had no interest in the property which was sold in a foreclosure sale prior to her bankruptcy petition, despite the fact that the mortgagee failed to record the deed of sale in accordance with state foreclosure law. U.S. Bank Nat’l Assoc. v. Vertullo, Nos. 18-56, 18-63 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. Jan. 10, 2020).

  After the debtor defaulted on her mortgage, the mortgagee, U.S. Bank, sold the property to a third party through a foreclosure sale. The foreclosure deed was not recorded. When Ms. Vertullo filed for chapter 13 bankruptcy, the Bank sought to lift the automatic stay in order to evict Ms. Vertullo from the property. Ms. Vertullo countered that, because the foreclosure sale was not recorded within the time required by state law, she retained an interest in the property and could cure and maintain the mortgage through her plan. The bankruptcy court agreed. It denied the Bank’s motion for relief from stay and, in a separate order, confirmed the debtor’s plan. In re Vertullo, 593 B.R. 92, 94 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2018). The Bank appealed both orders to the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the First Circuit. Read More

• Denial of Motion for Relief from Stay is Final and Appealable

  Posted by NCBRC - January 16th, 2020

  In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that a bankruptcy court’s denial of a motion for relief from stay constitutes a final, appealable order under section 158(c)(2). Ritzen Group, Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC, No. 18-938, 589 U.S. ___ (2020). NACBA filed an amicus brief in support of the Respondent.

  Ritzen Group and Jackson Masonry entered into a land-sales contract. The deal fell through and Ritzen filed suit against Jackson in Tennessee state court for breach of contract. On the eve of trial, Jackson filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy. Ritzen sought relief from stay to allow the state civil trial to go forward. The court denied the motion, and Ritzen did not appeal. After a hearing in which it found Ritzen at fault for the failure of the contract, the bankruptcy court also disallowed Ritzen’s claim against the bankruptcy estate. Ritzen then appealed to the district court challenging both the denial of the motion for relief from stay and the ruling on the contract dispute. The district court found the relief from stay appeal was untimely, and ruled against Ritzen on the merits of the contract appeal. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. In re Jackson Masonry, LLC, 906 F. 3d 494 (2018). Read More

• No Stay Violation When Creditor Retains Vehicle Repossessed Pre-Petition

  Posted by NCBRC - November 29th, 2019

  The Third Circuit joined the Tenth and D.C Circuits to hold that, “upon notice of the debtor’s bankruptcy, a secured creditor’s failure to return collateral that was repossessed pre-bankruptcy petition is [not] a violation of the automatic stay,” because it is not an act “to exercise control over property of the estate.” In re Denby-Peterson, No. 18-3562 (3rd Cir. Oct. 28, 2019).

  After Joy Denby-Peterson paid $9,200 over approximately eighteen months toward her used Chevy Corvette, the holder of the loan repossessed the vehicle due to her failure to pay the $2,491 down payment that the purchase agreement required. Ms. Denby-Peterson filed for chapter 13 bankruptcy. She notified the creditor of the petition and demanded return of the vehicle. When the creditor failed to return the vehicle, the bankruptcy court granted Ms. Denby-Peterson’s motion for turnover under section 542(a), but, finding that the creditor’s retention of the vehicle did not violate the automatic stay, denied her demand for sanctions. The district court affirmed. Read More

• Scotus Offered Another Opportunity to Address Passive Conduct and the Automatic Stay

  Posted by NCBRC - September 19th, 2019

  After recently declining cert in a case involving the issue of whether a creditor’s passive conduct can ever violate the automatic stay (Davis v. Tyson Prepared Foods, No. 18-941 (10th Cir. cert. denied, May 20, 2019) (blogged here)), the Supreme Court has been presented with another opportunity to take on the issue. In In re Fulton, Nos. 18-2527, 18-2793, 18-2835, 18-3023, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 18393 (7th Cir. June 19, 2019), (blogged here), the City of Chicago impounded the debtors’ vehicles prior to their filing for chapter 13 bankruptcy. Upon filing for bankruptcy, the debtors sought to have the vehicles returned. The City refused, and the bankruptcy court found its refusal constituted a violation of the automatic stay. The City appealed.

  Citing its decision in Thompson v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 566 F.3d 699 (7th Cir. 2009), the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that passively retaining, and refusing to return, estate property is an exercise of control within the meaning of section 362(a)(3). The court found that section 542(a) also mandates that an entity in possession of estate property turn it over to the trustee. The court rejected the City’s call to overturn Thompson, recognizing that one of the fundamental purposes of bankruptcy is to allow a debtor to improve her financial situation, and that a vehicle is frequently necessary to achieve that goal.

  The City’s petition for certiorari, points out that five courts of appeals (the second, seventh, eighth, ninth and eleventh), have likewise found that passive conduct can be the basis for an automatic stay violation, while two courts of appeals (the tenth and the District of Columbia) have adopted the position that a creditor’s conduct must be affirmative.

  City-of-Chicago-v.-Fulton-Cert-PetitionDownload

• City Did Not Violate Stay by Failing to Rescind Warrant

  Posted by NCBRC - July 17th, 2019

  City had no obligation under the automatic stay to take affirmative action to rescind a warrant for the debtor’s arrest or to issue a letter of compliance to the state, where the City had taken no post-petition action to enforce the warrant, and the debtor was not in compliance with the court order to pay a traffic fine. Edwards v. City of Ferguson, No. 18-6032 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. July 3, 2019).

  Read More

• 7th Circuit Rules Chicago Can Not Ignore the Automatic Stay and Hold Vehicles Until Tickets are Paid

  Posted by NACBA - June 20th, 2019

  On June 19, 2019 the 7^th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decisions of the lower bankruptcy courts.

  In four chapter 13 bankruptcies, the City of Chicago impounded vehicles owned by the Debtors for failure to pay multiple traffic fines. After the Debtors filed chapter 13, the City refused to return the vehicles claiming they needed to maintain possession to continue their perfection on them and wouldn’t return the vehicles until the fines were paid.

  The bankruptcy courts held that the City violated the automatic stay by exercising control over the vehicles, that no exceptions applied, and ordered the return of the vehicles and sanctions. The City appealed and the 7^th Circuit consolidated the appeals in this case.

  The Debtors were represented in part by NACBA members John Wonais of the Semrad Law Firm, and Eugene Wedoff. NACBA member Tara Twomey supported the Debtors by filing an amici curiae brief for NACBA and the National Consumer Bankruptcy Rights Center. NACBA member David Yen filed an amicus curiae brief for the Legal Assistance Foundation.

  To read more click here.

• Bankruptcy Court Addresses Eligibility, Non-formal Notice of Bankruptcy and a Creditor’s Affirmative Duty to Correct Technical Violations of the Automatic Stay

  Posted by NACBA - February 21st, 2019

  A bankruptcy court recently ruled on several issues of importance to all potential debtors. First, the court examined the effect of a prior dismissal order (for failure to timely file certain schedules, statements or other documents) on a subsequent bankruptcy petition. Specifically, the court examined the small slice of cases where the automatic stay does not apply in a second case when the Debtor is not an “eligible Debtor” under 11 U.S.C. § 109(g). The court also examined the split in authority on who bears the burden of proof of proving eligibility.

  Further the court examined whether a creditor, who unknowingly completed a foreclosure sale during the second case, violated the automatic stay by not promptly undoing the sale upon notification of the bankruptcy. Further the court extensively discussed the different non-traditional methods that creditors can receive binding notice of a bankruptcy and their responsibility thereafter. The court also examined whether a technical violation can turn into a willful violation and whether a creditor has an affirmative duty to correct a technical violation.

  To read more click here.
Older posts

• Search

• Request Assistance

  Request assistance with a case.

   

  

• Help NCBRC

  NCBRC needs your support to protect the rights of consumer bankruptcy debtors. The most effective way to support NCBRC is with a direct donation.

   

  

   

  There are many other ways to give to NRBRC:

   

  iGive.com: When you purchase items at over 1,400 online stores, a percentage of your purchase will be donated to NCBRC. Stores include Macy’s, Melissa and Doug, Bed Bath & Beyond, Nike, Petsmart, and more. Shop and Give today!

  More ways to help

• HAVEN Act Guide

  HAVEN Act Guide 2019

   The Honoring American Veterans in Extreme Need Act of 2019 (“HAVEN Act”) excludes certain benefits paid to veterans or their family members from the definition of current monthly income (“CMI”) found in the Bankruptcy Code. The HAVEN Act amends § 101(10A) of the Bankruptcy Code and supplements the 2005 amendments to the Code that excluded other government benefits, such as social security income. 

  This Guide provides an overview of the HAVEN Act identifies benefits that are excluded, and answers frequently asked questions.

   

• Keep up with NCBRC

  Cases In Review August 2020

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • RSS
• 

  Thank you!

  Thank you to the following organizations without whose support our work would not be possible.

   

  American College of Bankruptcy
  The American College of Bankruptcy is an honorary public service association of bankruptcy and insolvency professionals who are invited to join as Fellows based on a proven record of the highest standards of professionalism plus service to the profession and their communities.  Together with its affiliated Foundation, the College is the largest financial supporter of bankruptcy and insolvency-related pro bono legal service programs in the United States.

   

  NACBA
  The only national organization dedicated to serving the needs of consumer bankruptcy attorneys and protecting the rights of consumer debtors in bankruptcy. Formed in 1992, NACBA has more than 3,000 members located in all 50 states and Puerto Rico.

   

  O. Max Gardner Foundation, Inc.
  The O. Max Gardner Foundation, Inc. provides financial support to institutions devoted to charitable, scientific, literary or educational purposes.  NCBRC has been a recipient of grant awards from the foundation.

  Visit NACBA.org

© 2011 National Consumer Bankruptcy Rights Center