Critical Case Comment

By Henry E. Hildebrand, III, Standing Chapter 13 Trustee for the Middle District of Tennessee (Nashville)

A Chapter 13 debtor may not “vest” property in a secured creditor without that creditor’s consent.

In re Weller, 2016 WL 164645 (Bankr. D. Mass. January 13, 2016) (Boroff)

Case Summary

The Wellers’ home was worth $139,000. Their home was subject to a mortgage held by Wells Fargo in the amount of $258,000. It was “underwater.” The debtors filed their Chapter 13 petition and moved out of the house.

The debtors’ original Chapter 13 plan . . .

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.

Critical Case Comment

June 2, 2019

By Henry E. Hildebrand, III, Chapter 13 Standing Trustee for the Middle District of Tennessee If a Chapter 13 debtor does not list a creditor on the creditor matrix when filing the petition and makes no effort to provide supplemental notice to the creditor, the provisions of Rule 3002 allow the extension of time for the creditor to file a...

Members

The Student Loan Solution

Henry E. Hildebrand, III

October 16, 2022

Recently, news stories, political pundits, social media outlets and the talking heads have become keenly aware of the growing danger imposed by burgeoning student loan debt and the economic chaos it has caused and will continue to cause. Although the crisis appears to dominate our cell phones and news feeds, bankruptcy professionals involved in consumer bankruptcy matters are fully aware...

Can a Secured Claim Still “Ride-Through” Bankruptcy Despite BAPCPA? Part 2: Looking Beyond In re Rhodes

Lawrence R. Ahern, III

February 27, 2022

Background A recent Chapter 7 case out of the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of California, In re Rhodes,1 addressed reaffirmation in a context that should be of interest to debtor's attorneys. As explained in Part 1, Rhodes points out that the "ride-through" of a debtor's secured debt after a Chapter 7 — which Congress . . . It...

Members

MEMORIAL DAY

The Academy

May 26, 2024

In Re Carter: A Hard Case (Maybe) Making Bad Law?

Owen W. Katz

May 21, 2023

Chapter 13 plans and confirmation orders will occasionally include post-confirmation disclosure and turnover requirements for tax returns and refunds and for other types of post-petition recoveries and income. Debtors are expected, on their own and without the need for rigorous trustee oversight, to fulfill the turnover requirements as a condition of plan completion and discharge. What happens when the case...

Members

Bankruptcy Court Strikes Back: Awarding $825,940.55 in Sanctions for Bad Faith Filing

M. Jonathan Hayes

March 24, 2024

Bankruptcy Court in Texas awards sanctions of $825,940.55 for bad faith filing and prosecution of a proof of claim. (Yes it’s an 11 but still, $825k!)

Members

FROM THE ARCHIVES: If You’re Gonna Bet the Farm, Maybe Play Against the House

Danielle N. Gueck-Townsend

December 3, 2023

Attorney Gueck-Townsend provides readers with a primer on evidence needed to prove losses.

Members

Good or Bad Faith?

Hale Andrew Antico

September 10, 2023

The Ninth Circuit BAP held that the chapter 13 debtors converted their case to Chapter 7 in good faith and therefore a post-petition inheritance was not property of the chapter 7 estate.

Members

Finding Your Village: An Introductory Guide to Bringing Fair Credit Reporting Act Claims for Clients Post-Bankruptcy

Emily Connor Kennedy

July 24, 2022

I hope that you’ve enjoyed the articles from Mark Leffler and Steve Relyea discussing how our firm began litigating against creditors in bankruptcy court and mortgage servicers in federal district court. In this (final) installment, I will discuss our entry into Fair Credit Reporting Act litigation. Our firm’s history with Fair Credit Reporting Act litigation is intertwined with the relationships...

Members

The Neglected Non-Dischargeability Provision

Cathy Moran

June 11, 2023

Hands up everyone who has encountered a claim that a debt is non-dischargeable by reason of § 523(a)(14). That’s what I thought: nada, or next thing to it. Despite watching for it, I hadn’t seen one ‘til this year when AmEx filed an adversary in a case in which I was peripherally involved. My copy of Collier’s code doesn’t comment...

Members