From the Editor – Modification • NACTT Academy

From the Editor – Modification

By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired)

Postconfirmation modified plan not required to comply with projected disposable income test. After confirmation of above-median debtor’s plan, debtor’s income decreased and he moved to modify to reduce term of plan and distribution to unsecured creditors. The court concluded that § 1329(a)(2) permits shortening of plan term and that § 1325(b)’s projected disposable income is not enumerated in § 1329(b)(1)’s modification requirements. The split of authority on the issue was discussed, concluding that “the inclusion of section 1325(b) in the requirements . . .

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.

Meet a New Trustee

The Academy

October 8, 2023

David A. Mawhinney is the Chapter 13 Standing Trustee for the Central and Western Divisions of Massachusetts and a Subchapter V Trustee for Region One. He replaced Denise M. Pappalardo upon her retirement which was effective December 24, 2022. David is a 2002 graduate of Boston College and received his J.D. from Boston College Law School in 2011. When David started...

Critical Case Comment – Ignoring 3002.1 Will Cost You

Henry E. Hildebrand, III

February 5, 2023

Mortgagee’s failure to disclose payment changes resulting from escrow adjustments and interest rate modifications compels the Court to order mortgagee to credit all undisclosed increases and subject it to sanctions, including attorney’s fees. (Somers) In re Kinderknecht, 2023 WL 320984 (Bankr. D. Kan. January 19, 2023) Case Summary Kyle and Chasity Kinderknecht filed a Chapter 13 petition in December of...

Members

Courts are Expanding the Protections of Bankruptcy Rule 3002.1

Debbie Langehennig, Cameron Kelly

October 9, 2022

As a prerequisite to a claim’s payment, Rule 3002.1 requires certain secured creditors to provide to the trustee and the debtor notice of the full value of the secured creditor’s claim, including any “fees, expenses, and charges” related to the claim. Two bankruptcy courts have demonstrated a willingness to expand the reach of Rule 3002.1’s noticing requirements. These courts generally...

Members

ABI Commission on Consumer Bankruptcy – Dischargeability of Homeowner Association Fees

May 19, 2019

By Henry E. Hildebrand, III, Chapter 13 Standing Trustee (Nashville, TN) Homeowner association fees that obligate homeowners of condominium and planned unit developments can be a substantial obligation that accrue on a monthly basis. These obligations are generally a burden when a debtor files for bankruptcy relief. To be fair, homeowners’ associations provide a significant benefit to homeowners. Exterior maintenance,...

Members

Happy Thanksgiving

November 19, 2023

As our ‘thank you’ to our loyal readers, we bring you a completely non-password protected issue! ENJOY.

The Weak Link in the Means Test

Cathy Moran

August 27, 2023

The bankruptcy means test, designed to keep people out of bankruptcy, has a fatal weakness. . . . it’s health care.

Members

Applying the Principles of “Lady Justice”

Beverly M. Burden

June 16, 2024

“I recently had the opportunity to consider the symbolism of the well-known “Lady Justice” emblem or statue and pondered how the principles attributed to that icon apply to our present bankruptcy system.”

Members

How My Law Firm Learned to Stop Leaving Money on the Table Part 3 – Valuable Lessons Learned in Automatic Stay Litigation

Mark C. Leffler

June 5, 2022

Bankruptcy has been the focus of the Boleman Law Firm’s 30+ year history, but my law partners and I believed it was important for our firm’s long-term health to add a new practice area that would be complimentary to bankruptcy. Even though we were filing almost 250 new Chapter 7 and 13 cases every month before the pandemic, most of...

Members

SCOTUS Rules Insurer Is Party in Interest, Reversing Fourth Circuit

The Academy

June 9, 2024

Reversing the Fourth Circuit, SCOTUS rules insurer is Party in Interest. Although an 11 there are possible implications in the context of Chapter 13.