Brief Bank:Hamilton v. Lanning

We are proud to announce a new feature of our website, the Brief Bank.  We debut this resource with our own Jan Hamilton’s briefs from Hamilton v. Lanning.  However, for this resource to be successful, we need your help.  Please contact Michaela White, Editor and Advisor, if you have access to a brief (or know of anyone else that has) that you think can be helpful to others facing similar issues.  The briefs need not concern novel or rarely litigated questions.  In fact, routine matters are especially useful particularly for members who are new to bankruptcy.  The purpose of the Academy is to educate and raise the bar on the practice of consumer bankruptcy. To accomplish our mission, we need our members’ support.  We look forward to hearing from you.

Hamilton v. Lanning Brief of Petitioner

Hamilton v. Lanning Reply Brief

No Author Biography has been linked to this Article.

Related Articles

November 1, 2020
By James J. Robinson, Chief United States Bankruptcy Judge, Northern District of Alabama Under what circumstances should the trustee object to claims (assuming a purpose would be served under § 707(a)(5))? Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson, 137 S. Ct. 1407 (2017). This case centered around the debtor’s argument that a creditor violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act when it...
Members
Copy of Hildebrand-2016
January 29, 2023
Percentage fees collected by a Chapter 13 trustee prior to confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan must be returned to the debtor by the trustee if Chapter 13 plan is not confirmed. (Ebel) Goodman v. Doll, 2023 WL 216778 (10th Cir. January 18, 2023) Case Summary Daniel Doll filed Chapter 13 in November of 2017. The debtor complied with 11...
Members
January 3, 2021
By Mark C. Leffler, Boleman Law Firm, PC (Richmond, Hampton, and Va. Beach, VA) Part I: Derby v. Portfolio Recovery Associates Recently, Hon. Keith L. Phillips of the Eastern District of Virginia Bankruptcy Court issued his fourth and final written opinion in the Derby v. Portfolio Recovery Associates adversary proceeding, Adv. Pro. No. 18-03097-KLP, 2020 Bankr. LEXIS 2589 (Bankr. E.D.Va....
Members
October 11, 2020
By Mary Viegelahn, Chapter 13 Trustee San Antonio, Texas Although Trustee Viegelahn first produced this list for an ethics panel in 2019, it is a timely heads-up now. This list was gathered from Trustees across the country. Providing ECF credentials to an outside “firm” to allow them to file a bankruptcy for a debtor the attorney has never met or...
Members
August 4, 2019
By John P. Gustafson, United States Bankruptcy Judge, Northern District of Ohio, Western Division Click here for Part 1 Click here for Part 2
Members
William-1_print_2019
Selected Consumer Opinions Since January 1, 2022 Automatic Stay Denial of stay relief was final and appealable, although it was “without prejudice.”Deciding an issue not addressed in Ritzen Grp., Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC, 140 S.Ct. 582 (2020), the Ninth Circuit concluded that the bankruptcy court’s order denying stay relief was final and appealable, despite its “without prejudice” language, because...
Members
Copy of Hildebrand-2016
March 27, 2022
The issuance of a subpoena to a Chapter 7 trustee by a third party was subject to the Barton Doctrine and could not be permitted without the parties seeking bankruptcy court consent. (Clarkson) In re Eagan Avenatti, LLP, 2022 WL 630332 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. March 3, 2022) Case Summary Eagan Avenatti, LLP, was the California law firm of the somewhat...
Members
rmichaelsmith
September 18, 2022
As we observe the growing discussion over the tremendous amount of outstanding student loan debt, several points of clarification might do us well. There are those favoring relief for debtors now unable to pay their student loans. They have proposed various forms of relief, including several forgiveness programs and re-allowing such debts to be discharged in bankruptcy under more usual...
Members
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
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