From the Editor - Confirmation and Effect • NACTT Academy

From the Editor – Confirmation and Effect

By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired)

Failure to include live-in girlfriend’s income on Schedule I was not bad faith. Declining to equate a live-in significant other with a non-filing spouse for purposes of the Code, Schedules and Form 22C, the debtor’s failure to include the person’s income on Schedule I did not establish bad faith in the plan proposal. The trustee did not show that the girlfriend was legally obligated to financially contribute to the joint household. Case law about such income is largely in the context of eligibility . . .

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.

Chris Hawkins Appointed Judge

The Academy

March 20, 2022

Chris Hawkins was sworn in as a bankruptcy judge for the Middle District of Alabama on March 14, 2022, succeeding Judge William R. Sawyer. Before his appointment, Chris was a partner at Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, where he focused exclusively on bankruptcy and insolvency matters. For over twenty years, he represented debtors and creditors in out-of-court restructurings, commercial and...

The Case of the Naked Client

Cathy Moran

December 10, 2023

“The bankruptcy petition came to my desk for review with no entry for “clothing and wearing apparel”. Funny, I think I’d remember if I’d interviewed any naked people lately.” Although filled with Attorney Moran’s wit, there is an important lesson here! Feel free to add your own ‘naked client’ story in the comments section below the article.

Members

From the Editor – Curing Default

October 27, 2019

By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired) Debtor could cure default beyond 60 months. Agreeing with In re Klaas, 858 F.3d 820 (3d Cir. 2017), bankruptcy court had discretion to permit debtors to cure plan default, allowing a reasonable grace period beyond the 60 months of confirmed plan. Dismissal of the case for plan default was not required under §...

Members

From the Editor – Claims

October 20, 2019

By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired) Claim allowed after reopening of no-asset case. The Chapter 7 case filed as no-asset was reopened after discovery of assets for distribution, and debtors objected to a claim on basis of statute of limitations. Affirming, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel held that the time to commence action on the claim had been tolled under...

Members

Critical Case Comment

June 27, 2021

By Henry E. Hildebrand, III, Chapter 13 Standing Trustee (Nashville, TN) It constitutes an unfair discrimination, violative of 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(1), for a Chapter 13 plan which would pay more to a student loan than to the remaining general unsecured creditors. (Somers) In re Kane, 603 B.R. 491 (Bankr. C.D. Kan. June 18, 2019) Case Summary Ronald Kane filed...

Members

Can a Secured Claim Still “Ride-Through” Bankruptcy Despite BAPCPA? – Part 1 In re Rhodes Says, “Let Me Count the Ways”

Lawrence R. Ahern, III

January 30, 2022

Background A recent Chapter 7 case out of the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of California, In re Rhodes,1 addresses reaffirmation in a context that is very significant and should be of interest to all debtor's attorneys. It points out that the "ride-through" of a debtor's secured debt in Chapter 7—which Congress tried to eliminate in 2005—still exists. In...

Members

Brace & Beyond: Joint Tenancy & Transmutation

November 8, 2020

By Cathy Moran, Esq., Moran Law Group (Redwood City, CA) For Californians, the CA Supreme Court’s decision in Brace this summer upended our understanding of joint tenancy and community property. For decades, we “knew” that a property couldn’t be . . . It looks like you are not signed in or registered! This content is only available to members. Join...

Members

Critical Case Comment – Fee Wars: The Battle Over Debtor Attorney Compensation

Henry E. Hildebrand, III

March 31, 2024

Debtors’ attorney’s fees can be calculated as a percentage of the presumptively reasonable “no-look” fee for cases involuntarily dismissed prior to confirmation and is an allowed administrative claim which can be paid under § 1326(a)(2).

Members

Two Supreme Court Decisions with Effects on Bankruptcy Practice

March 1, 2020

By William Houston Brown, Adviser, Academy for Consumer Bankruptcy Education, Inc. and Lawrence R. Ahern, III, Brown and Ahern (Nashville, TN) In two February opinions, the Supreme Court addressed issues that appear in bankruptcy cases, one dealing with a common practice of entering nunc pro tunc orders and the other affecting determination of property rights under state law. In a...

Members

Critical Case Comment – Five Theories of Post-Confirmation Property Treatment

Henry E. Hildebrand, III

February 26, 2023

In examining the effect of vesting of property of the estate at confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan, bankruptcy court examines the impact of five different theories on how post-confirmation property is to be treated, settling on the “Estate Replenishment Theory,” but does not decide if the debtors can receive the proceeds. (Fenimore) In re Marsh, 2023 WL 215263 (Bankr....

Members