Michigan Dep’t of Treasury v. Hight (In re Hight), 670 F.3d 699, 705 (6th Cir. 2012) (Martin, Gibbons, Steeh)

Straddling tax claim for 2008 state income taxes was prepetition claim in 2009 case, entitled to priority by § 507(a)(8)(A)(i) and (iii) and § 502(i); debtor can file protective proof of claim on behalf of state under § 501(c). “The district court correctly interpreted the Bankruptcy Code in finding that § 1305 does not exclusively govern the filing of postpetition claims and that Hight was permitted to file a protective claim under § 501(c) because §§ 502(i) and 507(a)(8) establish that she could treat a postpetition claim for a tax debt arising from the immediately preceding tax year as if it were a prepetition claim.”

No Author Biography has been linked to this Article.

Another Defeat of Bifurcated Chapter 7 Fees

The Honorable William Houston Brown

February 11, 2024

Recent case authority has not been favorable for consumer debtor attorneys seeking approval of bifurcated fees in Chapter 7 cases.

Members

Lenders Can’t Hide from Consequences of Misapplication of Mortgage Payments

Cathy Moran

March 6, 2022

Who knew 20 years ago how apparently hard it is to account for money paid to you? Even if accounting for money was your business? Today’s raft of mortgage accounting issues were not ones I foresaw when I became a bankruptcy lawyer.Yet every day we encounter cases where the foreclosure notice follows the “all current” filing at the close of...

Members

Did Congress Mean What It Said in Section 1328(i)?

April 25, 2021

By Pardis Akhavan, Resnik Hayes Moradi LLP (Encino, CA) The bankruptcy court in In re Ritter, 2021 WL 864092 (Bkrtcy C.D. Cal, 2021)(J. Tighe),denied debtors’ motion for an immediate discharge under Section 1328(i) ruling that Congress apparently did not intend that a chapter 13 debtor who obtains a loan modification should also receive a discharge, on that basis alone at...

Members

Critical Case Comment

October 18, 2020

By Henry E. Hildebrand, III, Chapter 13 Trustee (Nashville, TN) There is no requirement to show a change in circumstance in order to modify a Chapter 13 plan pursuant to § 1329. Whaley v. Guillen (In re Guillen), 2020 WL 5015287 (11th Cir. Aug. 25, 2020) (Marcus) Case Summary Rachel Guillen filed a Chapter 13 petition in August of 2015....

Members

Progeny of Law v. Siegel: Sixth and Ninth Circuits Say Right to Dismiss Chapter 13 Case is Absolute, Not Qualified by Section 105

September 26, 2021

By Lawrence R. Ahern III, Brown & Ahern (Nashville, TN) "Equity is not an old man, with a long grey beard, sitting under a tree. Equity has rules."1 Introduction Section 105 When enacted in 1978, the Bankruptcy Code in section 105 included an "all writs" statute for the Bankruptcy Courts: The court may issue any order, process, or judgment that...

Members

Retirement of the Honorable Guy R. Humphrey

The Academy

February 18, 2024

Retirement of the Honorable Guy R. Humphrey

Critical Case Comment – Discharged Junior in 7 Survives in 13

October 17, 2021

By Henry E. Hildebrand, III, Chapter 13 Standing Trustee for the Middle District of Tennessee (Nashville) While in personam liability of a junior mortgage on the debtor’s residence is discharged by a Chapter 7, the lien survives and constitutes an allowed unsecured claim in the debtor’s subsequent Chapter 13 case. In re Hopper, 2021 WL 3435445 (Bankr. E.D. N.Y. Aug....

Members

Critical Case Comment – The Plan Rules

Henry E. Hildebrand, III

December 4, 2022

Chapter 13 plan which provided a specific amount to be cured on a reverse mortgage under § 1322(b)(5) would be controlled by the specific term of the plan provision and not by the larger proof of claim filed by the creditor. (Baer) In re Edelstein, 2022 WL 16730027 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. November 7, 2022) Case Summary The Edelsteins filed Chapter...

Members

Is a CARES Act Stimulus Payment Exempt?

April 26, 2020

By Lawrence R. Ahern, III, Brown & Ahern (Nashville, TN) Introduction Since April 1, 2020, many unemployed people in the United States have begun to receive "a recovery benefit" in the amount of $1,200.1 These payments, under the CARES Act2 stimulus program, were intended to provide some relief to suffering Americans. However, the most financially distressed Americans, perhaps with existing,...

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