From the Editor

By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired)

Confirmation Effect: Creditor bound by plan modifying mortgage. The confirmed and modified, now completed, plan contained language modifying the home mortgage, a provision impermissible under § 1322(b)(2); nevertheless, the creditor withdrew its objection to the plan, and the creditor was bound by the confirmed plan’s terms. The plan provided for full payment of the mortgage, in a specified amount, over the life of the plan, and the debtor expected plan completion to satisfy the mortgage in full. The claim was “provided for in . . .

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.

Are Monthly Newsletters to Clients Beneficial? Heck Yeah!

November 14, 2021

By Mary Beth Ausbrooks, Rothschild & Ausbrooks PLLC (Nashville, TN) With the prolonged decline in case filings, I found that sending a mass emailed newsletter has been very beneficial. In order to send a mass email to a group of people, it was necessary to find software that would send the emails out in such a fashion that the email...

Members

Will Getting Home Mortgage Forbearance Save Your Client’s Home?

April 19, 2020

By Cathy Moran, Esq. (Redwood City, CA) Mortgage forbearance for homeowners, shout the headlines. No need to make a house payment. Borrowers who can’t make this month’s mortgage payment were thrown a lifeline of sorts in the coronavirus rescue package. Only it’s probably not the help they think it is. And the lifeline may be far more fragile than they...

Members

Can Good Facts Also Make Bad Law? Finality of Orders in Bankruptcy Revisited after Ritzen Group

Lawrence R. Ahern, III

March 20, 2022

"Finality" in Bankruptcy When is an order within a bankruptcy case "final"? When must a party to the proceeding appeal within 14 days? When may a party either seek interlocutory review or sit back and wait until something more occurs to make the order final? Final orders are appealable. In civil actions, this is a relatively easy proposition to apply...

Members

From the Editor – Lien Modification

March 28, 2021

By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired) Junior mortgage lienholder not affected by modifications of senior mortgage. Under Pennsylvania law, the prepetition modification of terms of the senior mortgage had recapitalized interest and costs already owed but had not created new liabilities. As a result, the junior mortgage holder was not materially prejudiced. The Chapter 13 debtors could avoid the...

Members

Between the 1st and the 15th: Is Mortgage Current?

Cathy Moran

May 7, 2023

The no man’s land between the mortgage due date and late payment is a persistent trouble spot for Chapter 13 practitioners. For example, are there arrears when the case is filed during the grace period and the payment made before it was late? In Borre, Judge Ronald Sargis of ED CA said no. He held that the payment was not...

Members

Small Business Reorganization Act

September 29, 2019

By The Honorable Hannah Blumenstiel Yes, MORE on SBRA. We realize that to attorneys February of 2020 seems a LONG way away but it really isn’t. We are building our library on this important legislation so it is available when YOU are ready for it. In this week’s installation, Judge Blumenstiel, analyzes the legislation. The first two and a half...

Members

Bankruptcy Court Broadly Interprets “Engaged in Business” Requirement for Subchapter V Eligibility

May 23, 2021

By Lawrence R. Ahern, III, Brown & Ahern (Nashville, TN) Introduction The Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado ruled recently, in a case styled In re Ikalowych,1 that while eligibility for subchapter V of Chapter 112 requires that 50% of a debtor's debt must arise from commercial or business activities, the debtor was not required to be directly involved...

Members

Passing of Wichita Attorney

The Academy

November 19, 2023

It is with sadness that we report the passing of William (“Bill”) Schantz formerly of the Office of UST.

Critical Case Comment – Siegel v. Fitzgerald

Henry E. Hildebrand, III

June 19, 2022

Congress’ enactment of differing fees for U.S. Trustee states and Bankruptcy Administrator states violated the uniformity provision of the Bankruptcy Clause of Article I of the Constitution. (Sotomayer) Siegel v. Fitzgerald, 2022 WL 1914098 (S.Ct. June 6, 2022) Case Summary In 2008, the retail chain, Circuit City Stores, filed a Chapter 11 petition. In 2010, Circuit City’sliquidating plan was confirmed...

Members

Critical Case Comment – You Gotta Fix Your Own Screwups, on Your Own Dime

Henry E. Hildebrand, III

December 3, 2023

Debtor’s counsel should not be compensated for work undertaken on behalf of a debtor in order to correct errors.

Members

From the Editor

Link to Post:

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

Or Sign In Below:

Related Articles

Are Monthly Newsletters to Clients Beneficial? Heck Yeah!

Will Getting Home Mortgage Forbearance Save Your Client’s Home?

Can Good Facts Also Make Bad Law? Finality of Orders in Bankruptcy Revisited after Ritzen Group

From the Editor – Lien Modification

Between the 1st and the 15th: Is Mortgage Current?

Small Business Reorganization Act

Bankruptcy Court Broadly Interprets “Engaged in Business” Requirement for Subchapter V Eligibility

Passing of Wichita Attorney

Critical Case Comment – Siegel v. Fitzgerald

Critical Case Comment – You Gotta Fix Your Own Screwups, on Your Own Dime

Academy

Members

Website

Legal

Looking to Become a Member?

Webinars

Member Articles

Industry News

To get started, please let us know which of these best fits your current position: