The NACTT Academy offers a comprehensive community for bankruptcy professionals seeking to advance their education in consumer bankruptcy.
ConsiderChapter13.org offers a forum to advance continuing education of consumer bankruptcy via access to insightful articles, informative webinars, and the latest industry news. Join now to benefit from expert resources and stay informed.
These informative sessions are led by industry experts and cover a range of consumer bankruptcy topics.
Written by industry experts, these articles provide in-depth analysis and practical guidance on consumer bankruptcy topics.
The Academy is the go-to source for the latest news and analysis in the Chapter 13 bankruptcy industry.
From the Editor – Discharge and Dischargeability
Print This Article
Link to Post:
By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired)
Marital settlement agreement’s obligation to hold spouse harmless from credit card debt gave rise to implied indemnity right for purposes of § 523(a)(15). Under California law, the Chapter 7 debtor’s promise in marital settlement agreement to pay credit card debt and hold wife harmless was enforceable, even though the agreement did not include indemnification language. Section 523(a)(15) does not require that the obligation be paid directly to the former spouse, and under California law, the debtor’s obligation was an implied indemnification claim. The . . .
It looks like you are not signed in or registered! This content is only available to members.
Or Sign In Below:
Related Articles
IRS Updates Guidance for Deductible Business, Charitable, Medical and Moving Expenses
Rules, Means-Test Amounts and Miscellaneous Fees: Changes Wrap Up 2020
Escrow 102 – Part 2 of 4
Chapter 13 Trustee Duties, Powers, And Limitations – Part 3
Critical Case Comment – Siegel v. Fitzgerald
Ask Ms. Ps and Qs
ABI Commission on Consumer Bankruptcy – Introduction
Ninth Circuit BAP Says§ 523(a)(15) Includes §§ 523(a)(2), (4) and (6) in Chapter 7
Critical Case Comment – Pigs Get Fat/Hogs Get Slaughtered
The Extent of 362(c)(3)’s Stay Termination: Bankruptcy Court Adds an Argument to the Debate