By Lawrence R. Ahern III, Brown & Ahern (Nashville, TN) PART VII – CONSUMER CREDITORS' PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF FORECLOSURE AND OTHER ARTICLE 9 RULES Introduction In this space, we have looked at numerous topics involving the operation of Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) in bankruptcy; in the current series, we are reviewing Article 9's important rules...
From the Editor – Claims
Print This Article
Link to Post:
By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired)
Time-barred claim was not revived by debtor’s scheduling of claim. The Chapter 13 debtor scheduled a claim to LVNV Funding, LLC and did not list it as contingent, unliquidated or disputed, but when LVNV filed a proof of claim, disclosing that it was time barred, the debtor objected. LVNV responded that the debtor’s scheduling of the claim amounted to revival of the debt for collection, but the court concluded that under South Carolina law, scheduling did not constitute revival. Even if South Carolina law were not . . .
It looks like you are not signed in or registered! This content is only available to members.
Or sign in below:
Related Articles
Twomey Appeals Firing
Taking Care of Business: Recordkeeping for Small Businesses
The Case of the Naked Client
Cui Pro Bono?
Conflicting Interpretations: A Chapter 13 Trustee’s Compensation After Pre-Confirmation Dismissal or Conversion – Part 2 of 3
Eligibility “Twofer”
Thoughts on the Law: “None of My Business” Or “CU Later”? – Does Refusing to Do Business with a Debtor Violate the Automatic Stay?
Constitutional Interpretation and State Bankruptcy Laws: Chief Justice Marshall on Sturges v. Crowninshield (1819)
How Can You Claim to Be “Creative” or “Innovative” If Your Website’s Home Page Shows a Skyline?
Creditors’ Rights and Debtors’ Protections at the Intersection of Consumer Bankruptcy and UCC Article 9