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,...
Critical Case Comment:In re Carr
Print This Article
Link to Post:
By Henry E. Hildebrand, III, Chapter 13 Trustee for the Middle District of Tennessee
In re Carr, 2012 WL 930337 (Bank. E.D. Va., Mar. 19, 2012) (Mayer)
A fee allegedly incurred by a mortgage servicer in responding to a Trustee’s notice of final cure pursuant to Rule 3002.1 was unreasonable and would not be allowed.
Case Summary
The debtor’s Chapter 13 plan was confirmed in December 2006 proposing to cure a mortgage default. At the end of the case, the Chapter 13 trustee filed a notice of final cure payment and the . . .
It looks like you are not signed in or registered! This content is only available to members.
Or Sign In Below:
Related Articles
Eviction Diversion Programs and Chapter 13 Bankruptcy
Appendix – A Review of Residential Mortgage “Stripping,” Recent Developments and the Effect of 11 U.S.C. § 1111(b)
9th Circuit BAP: Actually, Absolute Right to Dismiss Means Absolute
IRS Attempting to Collect on Virtual Currency
Cars, Fines, and Chapter 13 in the Windy City
2022 Bankruptcy Procedure Year in Review: Revised Statute and Rules and Selected Cases Part 6 Finality Versus a Residential Mortgagee: Espinosa and Nobelman Clash in the Eleventh Circuit
Courts are Expanding the Protections of Bankruptcy Rule 3002.1
2022 Bankruptcy Procedure Year in Review: Revised Statute and Rules and Selected Cases – Part 3 Rules Related to SBRA (Continued)
From the Editor
Advising Consumer Clients About Credit Scoring – Some Questions