By Hon. Brian Lynch, United States Bankruptcy Judge, Western District of Washington, Tacoma Division When the Supreme Court issued United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa1 on March 23, 2010, commentators were perplexed.2 On the one hand, the Court upheld the 9th Circuit’s ruling allowing a hardship discharge of student loans in a chapter 13 plan. The Court held that...
From the Editor – Dismissal and Conversion
Print This Article
Link to Post:
By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired)
Case properly dismissed for failure to comply with credit counseling. Assuming the debtor’s alleged lack of funds to pay for credit counseling could be an exigent circumstance, the debtor did not demonstrate that he had applied for credit counseling and had been unable to obtain it within the required seven days. The requirements of § 109(h)(3) were not satisfied, and the case was properly dismissed. Taal v. Sumski (In re Taal), 504 B.R. 682 (BAP 1st Cir. 2014).
________________________________
The Honorable William Houston Brown . . .
It looks like you are not signed in or registered! This content is only available to members.
Or Sign In Below:
Related Articles
In re Evans: Disgorging Chapter 13 Trustee Fees in Cases Dismissed Prior to Confirmation
United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa Ten Years After
TFS Bill Pay Announces New Attorney Report Center
Judge Carol A. Doyle: Pre-Retirement Interview
Critical Case Comment – Discharged Junior in 7 Survives in 13
Bankruptcy Court Broadly Interprets “Engaged in Business” Requirement for Subchapter V Eligibility
Ordinary Heroes Deliver Second Chances with Bankruptcy
Advising Consumer Clients About Credit Scoring – Some Questions
From the Editor – Dismissal
Avoidance Powers in Chapter 13© – Part 6 of 6