Critical Case Comment: In re Sheppard

By Henry E. Hildebrand, III, Chapter 13 Trustee for the Middle District of TN

In re Sheppard, 2012 WL 1344112 (Bank. E.D. Va., Apr. 18, 2012) (Huennekens)

A mortgage creditor is not obligated to include in the 3002.1 notice of additional fees and expenses those fees and costs which have previously been disclosed to and awarded by the Court.

Case Summary

The debtors filed their Chapter 13 petition in June 2010, proposing to maintain payments on the mortgage which they proposed to pay directly “outside the plan.” During the year following confirmation, the debtors . . .

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.

Related Articles

March 21, 2021
By The Honorable Kevin R. Anderson, United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Utah Coming off the longest economic expansion in U.S. history, Chapter 13 filings were at their lowest levels since 2007. With the country entering a sudden and unanticipated recession in February of 2020, we expected to see Chapter 13 filing rates increase; however, the opposite occurred....
Members
June 2, 2019
By Tammy E. Stickley and Francis J. DiCesare, Staff Attorneys for Margaret A. Burks, Esq. Chapter 13 Standing Trustee (Cincinnati, OH) In a media age in which people expect to be told when “spoilers” are ahead, this summary needs no such warning. Courts have little patience for debtors who surrender collateral – especially real estate – then oppose the foreclosure...
Members
February 2, 2020
By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired) Punitive damages reduced for FDCPA and RESPA violations. The mortgage servicer violated FDCPA, RESPA and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act by treating account as delinquent after Chapter 13 debtor had cured arrears, brought account current and obtained discharge. The servicer mistakenly marked the Chapter 13 case as dismissed rather...
Members
Copy of Hildebrand-2016
August 14, 2022
Where a stipulation of a settlement of an objection to confirmation provided that a creditor’s claim would be “excepted from discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6)”, the stipulation would not prevent the discharge of the claim based upon a breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference with business relations, unfair competition, defamation, and conversion which resulted in a state jury...
Members
moran_cathy
March 27, 2022
I’ve been having nightmares about the 9th Circuit’s decision in Siegel for 20 years. Broad strokes, Siegel (143 F.3d 525 (9th Cir. 1998) holds that a filed claim in a no asset bankruptcy case to which no one objects is entitled to preclusive effect in subsequent litigation by . . . It looks like you are not signed in or...
Members
AAA_4864
February 6, 2022
(Used with expressed permission from the MI Bankruptcy Journal and the Steven W. Rhodes Consumer Bankruptcy Conference) III. Contrasting the Majority and Minority Interpretations The majority and minority approaches differ as to (1) the interpretation of the use of "collect" in § 586(e); (2) the operative effect of parallel provisions in chapters 11 and 12 on the interpretation of §...
Members
NBR cropped 2
October 9, 2022
Dear Readers: We are all working at what feels like the speed of light these days. (And if we’re not, then we’re upset that work is too slow. Yes, we feel like Goldilocks—work’s either too busy or not busy enough.) But the wonderful Regina has asked me a question that often relates to someone hitting “send” too soon: “When opposing...
Members
Molly Pro picture
June 26, 2022
Consider if you will that your client has just filed a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy. They have intelligently chosen to surrender a luxury item - a boat or 4-wheeler or even that extra vehicle they don’t need. Because the creditor would like to preserve the value of the collateral by obtaining possession quickly, they file a Motion for Relief shortly after...
Members
Copy of Hildebrand-2016
March 5, 2023
Mortgage loan servicer violated mortgage agreement with debtor, the automatic stay, the confirmation order and Rule 3002.1 by applying debtor’s post-petition monthly mortgage payments pursuant to the contractual terms of the loan, thereby applying post-petition payments to the debtor’s pre-petition mortgage arrearage. (Cary) In re Pope, 647 B.R. 597 (Bankr. D. N.H. August 15, 2022) Case Summary In November of...
Members
June 30, 2019
By Phil Lamos, Chief Legal Counsel, Office of the Chapter 13 Trustee Lauren A. Helbling (Cleveland, OH) Section 1322(b)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code states that a Chapter 13 plan may not modify a claim that is “secured only by a security interest in real property that is the debtor’s principal residence.” But the inverse of this statute is true; if...
Members