Posted by NCBRC - November 28th, 2022
In a succinct opinion, the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed its 2004 decision that Congress abrogated tribal sovereign immunity with respect to the automatic stay. Numa Corp. v. Diven, No. 22-15298 (9th Cir. Nov. 14, 2022) (unpublished).
NCBRC and NACBA filed an amici brief in support of the debtor in this case. Read More
Posted by NCBRC - August 31st, 2022
The Oregon Division of Child Services did not violate the automatic stay or the terms of the confirmation order when it engaged in collection activities where the efforts related to a time not covered by the debtor’s settlement agreement with his ex-wife forgiving all child support payments predating the adoption of their child. In re Bronson, No. 20-30704 (Bankr. D. Ore. Aug. 23, 2022). Read More
Posted by NCBRC - August 9th, 2022
The bankruptcy court was not bound by the state court’s finding that the debtor’s ex-wife did not violate the stay when she had the debtor arrested for failure to pay domestic support out of an offshore trust he claimed no ownership interest in, but the court found the issues more appropriate for summary judgment and granted the debtor’s motion to vacate its earlier order of dismissal. Foufas v. Foufas, No. 20-22967, Adv. Proc. No. 22-1013 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. June 17, 2022). Read More
Posted by NCBRC - July 19th, 2022
Where the debtor filed her second chapter 13 petition while her first case was still pending, the automatic stay was not reduced by section 362(c)(3) but, without regard to the debtor’s intent, the second case was an abuse of process and the court could dismiss sua sponte after notice and a hearing. In re Giles, No. 22-14494 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. July 15, 2022). Read More
Posted by NCBRC - June 24th, 2022
The County Animal Control Office did not violate the automatic stay when it refused to return 36 cats it had confiscated from the debtor’s property where it acted within its police and regulatory powers, and the court lacked jurisdiction to order the return of the cats where the trustee had abandoned them. In re Mitchell-Smith, No. 21-57646 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. June 17, 2022). Read More
Posted by NCBRC - May 26th, 2022
Plaintiff’s attorneys were liable for monetary contempt sanctions for violating the automatic stay due to their failure to investigate the plaintiff’s bankruptcy petition which was filed decades earlier to determine whether he had disclosed his interest in mineral rights in land that was the subject of a current state lawsuit. In re McConathy, No. 90-13449 (Bankr. W.D. La. May 20, 2022).
In 1990, the debtor and his wife filed a chapter 7 bankruptcy petition for which they received a discharge. On two occasions they reopened their bankruptcy to disclose previously undisclosed assets and in both cases the assets were addressed and the case closed. However, unbeknownst to the bankruptcy court and chapter 7 trustee, at the time he filed his petition, the debtor owned mineral rights on land in Kansas. Read More
Posted by NCBRC - March 28th, 2022
An ex-husband’s efforts to collect medical expenses and a $50.00 direct payment ordered by the Family Court violated the automatic stay, where, unlike the debtor’s other domestic support obligations which he collected through wage garnishment, payment for the debts was not limited to non-estate property as required by the domestic support exception to the automatic stay. In re Dougherty-Kelsay, No. 19-8013 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. March 21, 2022).
The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Dougherty-Kelsay v. Kelsay (In re Dougherty-Kelsay), No. 22-5270 (6th Cir. Oct. 17, 2022) (unpublished).
Posted by NCBRC - January 13th, 2022
No stay arose in the bankruptcy case as to either the debtor husband or the debtor wife, where the husband had filed and dismissed two cases in the preceding year, in which the wife had not joined, and then the husband and wife filed the present joint case. In re Koval, No. 1:21-bk-11170 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2021).
The debtor and her husband filed for chapter 13 bankruptcy on May 26, 2021 in the Southern District of California. At that time, the debtor-husband had two bankruptcies he had filed and dismissed within the previous year. The second of the two bankruptcies was dismissed on May 25, 2021, with a 180-day bar to refiling. The debtor-wife had no previous bankruptcies. The co-debtors moved the court for an order stating that the stay was in effect in their case. The court found that, due to his prior bankruptcy filings, the stay was not in place with respect to the debtor-husband. It made no finding with respect to the debtor-wife. The case was then transferred to the Central District of California and debtor-husband was dismissed as a debtor due to the 180-day filing bar. Read More
Posted by NCBRC - December 20th, 2021
The chapter 13 debtor was entitled, under Oregon’s reciprocal fee statute, to recover attorney fees for successfully defending a motion for relief from stay where the motion required interpretation of the terms of the motor vehicle lease. In re Gilgan, 2021 WL 4047463 (Bankr. D. Or. Sept. 3, 2021) (case no. 19-32009). Read More
Posted by NCBRC - November 18th, 2021
The Supreme Court’s decision in City of Chicago v. Fulton, 141 S. Ct. 585 (2021), effectively overruled Ninth Circuit precedent to the effect that a creditor has an affirmative obligation to return pre-petition funds to a debtor even if those funds are held by a third party. Therefore, when the creditor here stayed its garnishment action and acquiesced to release of funds by the debtor’s bank, it maintained the status quo and fulfilled its automatic stay obligations. Stuart v. City of Scottsdale, No. 21-1063 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Nov. 10, 2021). Read More
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!
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.
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.
