From the Editor – Chapter 13 Issues • NACTT Academy

From the Editor – Chapter 13 Issues

By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired)

Disposable Income: Payments on stripped mortgage were part of projected disposable income. Notwithstanding § 707(b)(2)(A)(iii)(I)’s deduction for “amounts scheduled as contractually due to secured creditors,” the debtors were not permitted to deduct payments on a junior mortgage that was being stripped in the plan. Under Hamilton v. Lanning, the stripping’s result in elimination of secured claim was a “known or virtually certain” change in deductible payments. In re Garrepy, 501 B.R. 13 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2013).

________________________________

The . . .

It looks like you are not signed in or registered! This content is only available to members.

Or Sign In Below:

No Author Biography has been linked to this Article.

From the Editor – Claims

June 21, 2020

By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired) Portion of divorce award was priority domestic support claim and portion dischargeable unsecured claim. Applying Third Circuit’s factors from In re Gianakas, 917 F.2d 759 (3d Cir. 1990), and considering special master’s intent in divorce proceedings, one-third of former spouse’s claim was priority domestic support but two- thirds was reclassified as general unsecured...

Members

No Answers?

Cathy Moran

September 17, 2023

What do you do when you don’t know the answer to a bankruptcy client’s questions? After all, you’re a bankruptcy lawyer.

Members

Avoidance Powers In Chapter 13 – Part 3 of 6

January 13, 2019

By John P. Gustafson, United States Bankruptcy Judge, Northern District of Ohio, Western Division (Toledo, OH) Click here for Part 1 of 6 Click here for Part 2 of 6 Click here for Part 4 of 6 Click here for Part 5 of 6

Members

Avoidance Powers in Chapter 13 – Part 5 of 6

January 27, 2019

By John P. Gustafson, United States Bankruptcy Judge, Northern District of Ohio, Western Division (Toledo, OH) Click here for Part 1 Click here for Part 2 Click here for Part 3

Members

From the Editor – Claims

June 21, 2020

By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired) Objection to proof of claim barred by preclusion. The Chapter 13 debtor objected to Wells Fargo’s proof of claim in an adversary proceeding that alleged the note had been procured by fraud and was unenforceable; but the debtor had previously litigated those and other issues in the state court. Preclusive effect of the...

Members

Fourth Circuit: Brittner v. Beach Anesthesia

Edward C. Boltz

June 25, 2023

Summary: Brittner filed an adversary proceeding against Beach Anesthesia alleging violations of the automatic stay, but the bankruptcy court (affirmed by the district court) held that she had either failed to establish actual damages or to mitigate damages. The Court of Appeals held that that Brittner needed to satisfy a five-part test to establish a violation of the automatic stay: (1) that a bankruptcy...

Creditors’ Rights and Debtors’ Protections at the Intersection of Consumer Bankruptcy and UCC Article 9 – Part 3

September 13, 2020

By Lawrence R. Ahern III, Brown & Ahern (Nashville, TN) PART III – DELAYED PERFECTION OF SECURITY INTERESTS Introduction Current circumstances (a pandemic and dire economic conditions) portend an onslaught of bankruptcy filings. In the consumer bankruptcy field, trustees and debtors' counsel often are uncomfortable with the rules in Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). In this space,...

Members

Claim Preclusion and the Opportunities for Mischief

Cathy Moran

March 27, 2022

I’ve been having nightmares about the 9th Circuit’s decision in Siegel for 20 years. Broad strokes, Siegel (143 F.3d 525 (9th Cir. 1998) holds that a filed claim in a no asset bankruptcy case to which no one objects is entitled to preclusive effect in subsequent litigation by . . . It looks like you are not signed in or...

Members