Critical Case Comment - In re Weisel, 400 B.R. 457 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2009) (Judge Thomas P. Agresti) • NACTT Academy

Critical Case Comment – In re Weisel, 400 B.R. 457 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2009) (Judge Thomas P. Agresti)

In re Weisel, 400 B.R. 457 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2009) (Judge Thomas P. Agresti)

A utility is not obligated to seek relief from the automatic stay or obtain court approval before terminating service to a Chapter 13 debtor as a result of the failure of the debtor to make utility payments post-petition.

Summary of the Case

The Weisels filed a Chapter 13 petition in October 2006, disclosing an obligation to Dominion Peoples Gas Company . . .

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

March 24, 2019

By Wm. Houston Brown, United States Bankruptcy Judge (Retired) Discharge - Paying more than original loan balance would be undue hardship. The 59-year old debtor employed in aging and disability services couldn’t maintain a minimal living standard without discharge of substantial portion of student loan debt. The Court identified factors included in “minimal standards” in modern American society and found...

Members

Two Final Observations about the SBRA – Part IX

February 23, 2020

By Lawrence R. Ahern, III, Brown & Ahern (Nashville, TN) Introduction This series has focused on the four bankruptcy-related bills that were enacted during the 116th Congress and signed into law on August 23, 2019. One bill, the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (SBRA), became effective February 19, 2020. It appears in its entirety in Appendix B to this...

Members

District of South Carolina

The Academy

May 28, 2023

Retirement of Judge David Robert Duncan

Avoidance Powers in Chapter 13 – Part 4 of 6

January 20, 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 3 of 6

Members

Critical Case Comment – No Such Thing as “Technical” Violation of the Stay

Henry E. Hildebrand, III

February 20, 2022

Bankruptcy Court found violation of automatic stay to be “technical”, thus no damages. Ninth Circuit BAP did not agree. Continuing to pursue state court fraudulent transfer action after transfer or filed for Chapter 7 relief violated the automatic stay; even if the violation of the stay is “technical”, damages, including attorneys’ fees and costs, should be assessed against the violator....

Members

Did You Really Rely Upon That?

Angela M. Scolforo

September 11, 2022

The Mississippi Bankruptcy Court in The Huntington National Bank vs. Ashley Mosby, case #21-11614, adversary case #21-1028, on September 1, 2022, denied the bank’s request to declare a debt non-dischargeable because the bank did not rely upon the debtor’s false statement. In this case the Debtor purchased a 2020 Dodge Challenger, financed by the bank, without disclosing she intended to...

Members

Why Creditors Should Get Less in Chapter 13

Cathy Moran

October 30, 2022

Spending every dollar they make, and then some, is often how our Chapter 13 clients got into financial trouble. Yet Chapter 13, as practiced, validates the practice of continuing to spend 100% of each month’s income during the life of the plan. In doing so, we, as a society, squander the chance to use Chapter 13 to teach new budgeting...

Members

One Woman’s Opinion

December 13, 2020

By Margaret A. Burks, Chapter 13 Standing Trustee for the Southern District of Ohio (Cincinnati) Chapter 13 works. Some people wish to continually criticize Chapter 13. They criticize the success rate. They criticize racial bias. They criticize how Chapter 13 works. They also criticize the fact that Chapter 13 appears less voluntary than it was before access to Chapter 7...

The Uneasy Co-Existence of Federal and State Consumer Remedies in Bankruptcy Cases – the Fourth Circuit Weighs In

Mark C. Leffler

October 15, 2023

“Why do I need the FDCPA if there’s already a remedy under Rule 3001?” This is what the bankruptcy judge asked me when I brought an adversary proceeding against a claims buyer, alleging potential class claims under both the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and Bankruptcy Rule 3001(c)(2). The defendant had a business practice of filing high volumes of...

Members

From the Editor – Lien Issues

September 15, 2019

By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired) Legal rate of interest applies after foreclosure judgment. Applying New Jersey common law on merger, the mortgage was merged into a final order of judgment of foreclosure; therefore, the mortgage was no longer the basis for determining post- judgment interest. The debtor obtained a sale from which the mortgage creditor would be paid,...

Members