From the Editor – Claims • NACTT Academy

From the Editor – Claims

By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired)

Chapter 13 debtor was not “prevailing party” under California law for purposes of recovering attorney fees for claim objection. The Chapter 13 debtor filed an objection to the proof of claim for mortgagee, disputing $425 attorney fees in the claim. The claimant amended its proof of claim, deleting the attorney fees, and the debtor than sought her own attorney fees and costs of $5,265, under a California statute, but the bankruptcy court correctly concluded that the debtor was not a “prevailing party” under that statute. The claimant voluntarily . . .

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.

Judicial Year in Review 2021: A Quick Look at Revised Rules and Selected Case – Part 2 Selected Cases under Parts I-III of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure

November 21, 2021

By Lawrence R. Ahern III, Brown & Ahern (Nashville, TN) Introduction Following Part 1's review of the December 1, 2021, changes in the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, this Part 2 presents a digest of selected judicial decisions of interest for their procedural import arising under Parts I-III of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. Digest of Selected Judicial Decisions

Members

Critical Case Comment – Bad Faith to Not Pay Both Tests?

Henry E. Hildebrand, III

February 27, 2022

Chapter 13 debtor is not obligated to pay both the disposable income pool and the best interest of creditors test pool to achieve confirmation, only the larger of the two; it is not a manifestation of bad faith that the debtor does not pay both the disposable income pool and the best interest of creditors test amounts. (Altenberger) In re...

Members

Ask Ms. Ps and Qs

March 15, 2020

By Professor Nancy Rapoport, University of Nevada Dear Readers: The marvelous, indefatigable Regina Logsdon just forwarded me this hypothetical: Post-confirmation, debtor/client gets upset with attorney. Let’s assume for this scenario that the attorney hasn’t done anything wrong – perhaps just a difference of opinion on a plan modification (or not). Debtor/client says ugly things to attorney – name-calling, etc. THEN...

Members

Are Your Loyalties Divided?

August 22, 2021

By Cathy Moran, Esq., (Redwood City, CA) When a married couple books a bankruptcy consultation, you have an immediate problem: There be dragons, as early map makers helpfully provided. Because, as a lawyer friend of mine says: Anytime there are two people sitting across from you, you have a conflict of interest. That pithy expression has stuck with me and...

Members

Is 1328(i) Ultimately Terrible for Debtors?

February 7, 2021

By Ken Siomos, Staff Attorney for Marsha L. Combs-Skinner (Newman, IL) The December 2020 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, more commonly known as the second covid-19 stimulus bill, contains a few bankruptcy related provisions, but none stood out more with respect to Chapter 13 than the newly created § 1328(i). This provision provides that a court may grant a full 1328(a)...

Members

Find The Hidden Mortgage Interest Tax Deduction in Bankruptcy

Cathy Moran

October 8, 2023

“Do you have clients in an active Chapter 13 plan paying back mortgage payments that were delinquent when the case was filed?” October 16th is the deadline to file extended income tax returns.

Members

Fourth Circuit Overrules Own Precedent, Holds Certain Primary Residence Claims Can be Crammed Down in Chapter 13 Bankruptcies

October 20, 2019

(First published here on August 19, 2019. Used with permission.) By Daniel Cohn, Esq., Legal Department, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. General Rule: No Primary Residence Mortgage Changes The general rule in bankruptcy is that debtors cannot cram down loans secured only by mortgages on their primary residences. But wait, “what’s a cram down?” you ask. For non-bankruptcy folks, a cram...

Members

Pump the Brakes: Bad Faith Debtors Are Not Gaming the System (Part II)

January 27, 2019

By Kathryne M. Shaw1 Boleman Law Firm, P.C. (Virginia Beach, VA) Click here for Part 1 In Part I of this article, we reviewed In re Holman, in which the debtors violated their confirmation order and exhibited bad faith . . . It looks like you are not signed in or registered! This content is only available to members. Join...

Members

Critical Case Comment – Pro Se Debtor Sanctioned

November 21, 2021

By Henry E. Hildebrand, III, Chapter 13 Standing Trustee for the Middle District of TN (Nashville) Where pro se debtors filed numerous groundless complaints and made specious allegations against their former counsel, sanctions under Rule 9011 were appropriate notwithstanding the fact that the debtors were now acting pro se. (Hopkins) In re Jones, 2021 WL 4168110 (Bankr. S.D. O.H., Sept....

Members

Meet a Brand Spankin’ New Trustee

The Academy

August 7, 2022

William F. Jaworski, Jr. - Bill - was appointed Chapter 13 Standing Trustee for the District of Delaware on April 1, 2022. Jaworski has very large shoes to fill as he is taking over for Michael Joseph upon his well-deserved retirement. Jaworski was born and raised in Buffalo, New York. As a hometown boy, he didn’t venture too far away...

Members