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,...
From the Editor – Claims
Print This Article
Link to Post:
By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired)
Inconsistency on proof of claim negated prima facie validity and preemption of state law. Examining whether secured creditor was “debt collector” under California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and concluding that Act’s definition was broad enough to include the creditor, the debtor’s complaint under that Act was preempted by the Bankruptcy Code’s claim objection procedures. Also, the debtor’s RESPA claim was similarly preempted. However, the proof of claim contained inconsistencies on its face as to the amount of the claim, negating the prima . . .
It looks like you are not signed in or registered! This content is only available to members.
Or Sign In Below:
Related Articles
Creditors’ Rights and Debtors’ Protections at the Intersection of Consumer Bankruptcy and UCC Article 9 – Part 3
What the FICO? Reaffirming Doesn’t Help My Credit Score?
Critical Case Comment – Service Counts
From the Editor
ABI Commission on Consumer Bankruptcy – Dischargeability of Homeowner Association Fees
Critical Case Comment – Debtor Not Current But May Invoke CARES Remedies
Here’s What Taxpayers Should Know About Making 2019 Estimated Tax Payments
Is a CARES Act Stimulus Payment Exempt?
Critical Case Comment – Ignoring 3002.1 Will Cost You
An Open Thank You Letter to NACTT – Reflections from a New(er) Trustee: My First Two Years