The NACTT Academy offers a comprehensive community for bankruptcy professionals seeking to advance their education in consumer bankruptcy.
ConsiderChapter13.org offers a forum to advance continuing education of consumer bankruptcy via access to insightful articles, informative webinars, and the latest industry news. Join now to benefit from expert resources and stay informed.
These informative sessions are led by industry experts and cover a range of consumer bankruptcy topics.
Written by industry experts, these articles provide in-depth analysis and practical guidance on consumer bankruptcy topics.
The Academy is the go-to source for the latest news and analysis in the Chapter 13 bankruptcy industry.
From the Editor – Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
Print This Article
Link to Post:
By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired)
Section 727 complaint was not informal proof of claim. Creditors that filed a complaint for denial of discharge but did not file a timely proof of claim alleged that the complaint was an informal proof of claim, but under the Tenth Circuit’s test, the complaint did not make demand on the bankruptcy estate for payment. Denial of discharge is unrelated to the claims allowance process, and the complaint did not serve as an informal proof of claim. In re McCutchen, _____B.R._____, 2015 WL 5333485 . . .
It looks like you are not signed in or registered! This content is only available to members.
Or Sign In Below:
Related Articles
Critical Case Comment – Watch for Opportunities to Bifurcate Home Mortgage Claims
From the Editor
2022 Bankruptcy Procedure Year in Review: Revised Statute and Rules and Selected Cases – Part 2 Rules Related to SBRA
More Questions on the Mortgage Interest Deduction
Critical Case Comment – “Extraordinary” Key to Set Aside Dismissal
Max’s Knowledge Nugget
2020 Vision
Critical Case Comment – New Bankruptcy Term – “Sale Plan”
Pump the Brakes: Bad Faith Debtors Are Not Gaming the System
In re Fulton: Seventh Circuit Affirms Its Position with Majority of Circuits on Passive Retention of Property as Violation of Sections 362 and 542