CRITICAL CASE COMMENT: In re Mattson

By Henry E. Hildebrand, III, Chapter 13 Standing Trustee, Nashville, TN

In re Mattson, 2011 WL 3798844 (Bankr. W.D. Wash, Aug. 26, 2011) (Lynch)

To modify a confirmed Chapter 13 plan a debtor must demonstrate that there has been a substantial change in the debtor’s circumstances and the proposed plan change correlates to the changes experienced by the debtors; debtors may not, without cause, shorten the terms of their Chapter 13 plans.

Case Summary

The Debtors filed a Chapter 13 plan in December 2010. They had above median income but . . .

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.

Critical Case Comment – Frontloading Attorney’s Fees

Henry E. Hildebrand, III

August 6, 2023

Nothing prohibits the confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan which frontloads the payment of attorney’s fees ahead of payments to secured and other creditors.

Members

Is Voluntary Dismissal of a Chapter 13 Case an Absolute Right?

July 12, 2020

By Daryl J. Smith, Senior Staff Attorney to Sylvia Ford Brown, Chapter 13 Trustee (Memphis, TN) and Katherine L. Rea, Staff Attorney to Pamela Simmons-Beasley, Chapter 13 Trustee (Columbia, SC) Is there ever a reason to oppose a voluntary dismissal of a chapter 13 that has not been converted from a chapter 7? Maybe. But will you be successful? Probably...

Members

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

August 9, 2020

By Lawrence R. Ahern III, Brown & Ahern (Nashville, TN) Introduction to this Series Current pandemic circumstances and economic conditions portend an onslaught of bankruptcy filings. In the consumer bankruptcy field, trustees and debtors' counsel often are uncomfortable with the rules in UCC Article 9. Here, we look at a couple of topics that touch on the interplay of Article...

Members

Sanctions in South Carolina

Ashley Baxter Curry

December 12, 2021

In a recent case out of South Carolina, rather than a debtor seeking sanctions against a creditor, it was the creditor’s counsel who sought sanctions against counsel for a Chapter 13 debtor in an adversary proceeding. Ruling on a Motion for Sanctions in James Defoe v. Winyah Surgical Specialists, P.A. doing business as Winyah Surgical Specialists (In re Defoe), 632...

Members

From the Editor

September 27, 2020

By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired) Disgorgement of fees for nondisclosure. The Tenth Circuit held that the “default sanction” for an attorney’s failure to satisfy disclosure obligation is full disgorgement of fees paid. While full disgorgement may not be required in particular circumstances, the “default sanction” principle required reversal and remand. The bankruptcy court, affirmed by the BAP, had...

Members

Navigating Secured Creditors Who File Unsecured Chapter 13 Claims

October 31, 2021

By Eric K. Fox, Esq. (Hendersonville, TN) Jane Debtor has a home with a mortgage. An unsecured creditor obtains a judgment against Jane for, say, a credit card debt. Creditor’s attorney records a certified copy of the judgement order with the county register of deeds, thereby converting the unsecured claim against Jane in personam, to a secured claim against her...

Members

ABI Commission on Consumer Bankruptcy – Definition of “Tax Return” for Purposes of Nondischargeability

June 2, 2019

By Henry E. Hildebrand, III and Sloan Hastings Section 523(a)(1) excepts from discharge taxes that are priority claims under § 507(a)(8). One of § 507(a)(8)’s provisions makes debts not dischargeable for income taxes requiring the filing of a tax return due during the three years prior to filing bankruptcy. It is this “recent years taxes nondischargeable” moniker that leads many...

Members

Federal District Court Affirms Decision that Residential Loan Modification Does Not Alter Lien Priority in Pennsylvania

March 15, 2020

By Scott Waterman, Standing Chapter 13 Trustee Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Reading) Citing Pennsylvania law, a Federal District Court in In re Hamilton (Hamilton v. Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency), ___ B.R. ____ (E.D. Pa. 2020) refused to apply the equitable subordination doctrine to reorder the priority of mortgages after the first mortgage lender granted the debtors a loan modification prior...

Members

Escrow 102 – Part 3 of 4

October 10, 2021

By Michael J. McCormick, Esq., McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce, LLC (Roswell, GA) Escrow 101 – Part 1 Escrow 101 – Part 2 Escrow 101 – Part 3 Escrow 102 – Part 1

Members

Fraud Imputed to Partner – Bartenwerfer v. Buckley

The Honorable William Houston Brown

February 26, 2023

On February 22, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, 598 U.S. _____, 2023 WL 2023 WL 2144417 (Feb. 22, 2023), affirming the Ninth Circuit’s decision and resolving “confusion in the lower courts on the meaning of § 523(a)(2)(A).”1 Two Justices joined the opinion with the understanding that the Court was only addressing fraud in the context...

Members