Game Stop: Dismissals with Prejudice

Faced with abusive and serial bankruptcy cases,courts have fashioned various sanctions to put a stop to gaming the system. The favored sanction of the majority of courts is to enter an order of dismissal with prejudice under Section 349(a) of the Bankruptcy Code that adds a condition prohibiting refiling another bankruptcy case for a set period of time. See Lundin on Chapter 13 Sec. 153.3 “Court-Imposed Conditions and Restrictions on Dismissal”. The issue for the courts to decide is what is an appropriate length of time as a sanction? Is it 180 days? 1 year . . .

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

Or Sign In Below:

Michael B. Joseph

Former Chapter 13 Trustee

Michael B. Joseph was the Chapter 13 Trustee for the District of Delaware (appointed in 1987) and has served as a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Trustee (appointed in 1981) and a Chapter 12 Case Trustee. He also is a founding Director of the Wilmington, Delaware law firm of Ferry, Joseph, P.A. Mr. Joseph received his B.A. from Rutgers University (1972) and his J.D. from Widener University (1975). He is admitted to practice in Delaware (1976), New Jersey (1977), United States District Court for the District of Delaware (1977) and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (1990). Mr. Joseph is a Fellow of the American College of Bankruptcy. Mr. Joseph is a Past President of the National Association of Chapter 13 Trustees (2010-2011) He also has served as a member of the Liaison Committee to the U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for United States Trustees in Washington, D.C. (2006-2011). He is a member of the Bankruptcy Section of the Delaware State Bar Association, and the American Bankruptcy Institute.

Cars, Fines, and Chapter 13 in the Windy City

January 12, 2020

By Herbert L. Beskin, Chapter 13 Trustee for the Western District of Virginia (Charlottesville) The Seventh Circuit thought that it had finished dealing with the intersection of cars, fines, Chapter 13, and the City of Chicago when it rendered its decision earlier in 2019 in “Steenes I.” In re Steenes, 918 F.3d 554 . Alas, it was not to be,...

Members

From the Editor – Discharge Injunction

May 31, 2020

By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired) Application of Taggart to lien avoidance. When the Chapter 13 confirmed plan bifurcated the secured creditor’s claim and the secured portion had been paid in full with interest, the completion of payments voided any lien, and the creditor violated the discharge injunction by commencing foreclosure. The Panel found the plan’s language, although “inartful,”...

Members

Word to the Wise: Failure to Properly Notice a Creditor Is Bad!

M. Jonathan Hayes

April 7, 2024

When the debtor fails to properly schedule a creditor in an asset case, is the now non-dischargeable debt under § 523(a)(3) limited to the amount the creditor would have received had it filed a proof of claim?

Members

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

October 4, 2020

By Lawrence R. Ahern III, Brown & Ahern (Nashville, TN) PART IV – INTRODUCTION TO CONSUMER FORECLOSURE PROCEDURES 2020 portends a flood of bankruptcy filings. In the consumer bankruptcies, trustees and debtors' counsel often are uncomfortable with the rules in Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). In this space, we have looked at topics involving the interplay of...

Members

Duty to Disclose Substantial and Unanticipated Changes in Debtor’s Financial Condition

Angela M. Scolforo

December 11, 2022

In the case of In re Ilyev, 17-12987-KHK (Bankr. E.D. VA July 26, 2022), Judge Kenney granted the Chapter 13 Trustee’s motion to modify the plan to require the Debtor to repay some of the $29,250 of disposable income he retained by not making his mortgage payments during an 18-month Covid forbearance. The Debtor never disclosed to the Trustee, or...

Members

Covid-19 and the 7 Year Plan

March 29, 2020

By Ken Siomos, Staff Attorney for Marsha L. Combs-Skinner (Newman, IL) A small part of the recently passed “Cares Act” is the ability of Chapter 13 debtors experiencing a “material financial hardship” as a result of the covid-19 pandemic to modify their plan to 84 months.i Many Chapter 13 Trustee’s are likely anticipating a series of Chapter 13 Plan defaults...

How to Present an Effective Summary Judgment Motion

August 23, 2020

By Hon. Erik P. Kimball, United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida (Used with permission - Originally Published by the Courthouse Beacon, United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida August, 2020) Summary Judgment Applies In Contested Matters Bankruptcy Rule 7056 incorporates all of Federal Rule 56 for purposes of adversary proceedings, adjusting only the...

Members

When Wishes Come True

September 19, 2021

By Helen M. Morris, Chapter 13 Standing Trustee for the Northern and Southern Districts of West Virginia Like most trustees, my case load is down, and I’ve been actively encouraging new filings. Perhaps too enthusiastically as certain new cases reflect. A bankruptcy filer who has been dormant for months filed a new case recently. Schedule A is clearly marked with...

Members

The Proposed Consumer Bankruptcy Reform Act: A Political Analysis

January 17, 2021

By Kevin M. Ball, Eastern Michigan University Senator Warren and Representative Nadler introduced identical legislation entitled the Consumer Bankruptcy Report Act (“CBRA”) late in the 116th Congress. Although the bills died without action at the conclusion of that term, the sponsors have indicated their intent to reintroduce them in the 117th Congress. The legislation would bring major changes to 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...