Attorney Profile

Alex Koval, Debtor Counsel in Metro Government v. Hildebrand as Trustee Appellee and Corrin as Appellee, is a board certified consumer bankruptcy specialist. He regularly and passionately represents individuals and small businesses in Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases.

Alex has been with the firm of Rothschild & Ausbrooks, PLLC, in Nashville, Tennessee, since August, 2007. He graduated from Nashville School of Law with a Doctor of Jurisprudence in 2010.

Prior to becoming an attorney, he spent seven years working as a bankruptcy paralegal, during which time he helped thousands of individuals and families in Nashville and Middle Tennessee reach for, and often obtain, a fresh start.

Alex immigrated to the United States from Ukraine in July of 2002. In Ukraine he completed a Master’s Degree in Business Administration and English. He is fluent in English, Russian, and Ukrainian languages.

Alex is an avid runner. He enjoys travel, camping and hiking with his family and all kinds of physical activity from yoga to weightlifting. He is also a world history buff and enjoys reading on this topic. Alex is a doting father to his almost three-year old daughter who is a true Yankee Doodle Dandy . . . born on the 4th of July!

No Author Biography has been linked to this Article.

Critical Case Comment

Henry E. Hildebrand, III

April 17, 2022

In re Galloway, 2022 WL 1017951 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. April 5, 2022) A Chapter 13 trustee’s final audit and notice of completion of payments is not necessary or a precondition to the court granting a discharge to a debtor who has satisfied the requirements of § 1328. (Judge Thorne) Case Summary Tara Galloway filed a Chapter 13 petition in May...

Members

Critical Case Comment

December 27, 2020

By Henry E. Hildebrand, III, Chapter 13 Trustee for the Middle District of Tennessee (Nashville) Section 506(d) does not allow the voiding of a lien when the underlying claim, filed by the debtor, has been disallowed; when notice is provided to a corporation it must be addressed to the individual who holds the office of an officer, manager, or general...

Members

What Does “Following” Mean?

Kara K. Gendron

April 2, 2023

Section in 109(g)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code bars a debtor from filing a new case for 180 days if the Debtor voluntarily dismisses a case “following” a motion for relief. Not surprisingly, courts are split on how they interpret the word “following” as used in § 109(g)(2). After all, the word “following” is not limited to one definition, or even...

Members

The Chapter 13 Business Model

February 21, 2021

By John M. Hauber, Chapter 13 Standing Trustee (Indianapolis, IN) I have recently written an article for the NACTT Quarterly, that may or may not be published at the time of this writing, which is simply a stream-of-conscious style response to Senator Elizabeth Warren’s desire to modify the Bankruptcy Code based upon her perception that debtors’ attorneys get rich off...

Critical Case Comment

February 3, 2019

By Henry E. Hildebrand, III, Chapter 13 Trustee for the Middle District of TN (Nashville) Where a Chapter 13 plan provides that a mortgage payment will be paid “outside the plan,” the plan does not “provide for” the mortgage payment and, accordingly, the discharge under § 1328 is not applicable to the mortgage obligation. Dukes v. Suncoast Credit Union, 909...

Members

Chapter 13 Trustees Prosecutorial Discretion

The NACTT Emeritus Trustees

July 30, 2023

While administering cases, Chapter 13 Trustees should carefully exercise their prosecutorial discretion. Trustee discretion is a powerful tool. It should be used wisely and consistently. Trustees should have office policies in place fort heir attorneys and office staff. What matters involve discretion? The UST Chapter 13 Handbook describes some: We asked the NACTT Emeritus Trustees for their thoughts and examples...

Reaffirmations Impose Impossible Demands on Bankruptcy Counsel

February 28, 2021

By Cathy Moran, Esq. (Redwood City, CA) When BAPCA gutted the ipso facto clause, reaffirmation was left as the only way a debtor could be assured of retaining his wheels. Car lenders took sides back then, then changed sides, on whether they would automatically repossess a vehicle when the debt was not reaffirmed. Some wanted the in terrorem effect of...

Members

Critical Case Comment – Service Counts

Henry E. Hildebrand, III

October 2, 2022

Debtor’s filing application to extend or impose the automatic stay must comply with the service requirements of Rule 7004 as to all creditors or the stay cannot be imposed or extended. (Johnson) In re Hardy, 2022 WL 1196963 (C.D. Cal. April 21, 2022) Case Summary Kimberly Hardy had a long history in consumer bankruptcy. She had filed eight cases, including...

Members

Amended Rule 2002(a)(5) – Who Gets Served and Who Petitions the Court for Change?

November 22, 2020

By Phil Lamos, Chief Legal Counsel, Office of the Chapter 13 Trustee Lauren A. Helbling (Cleveland, OH) Bankruptcy Rule 2002(a)(5) directs that 21 days’ notice must be given of the “time fixed to accept or reject a proposed modification of a [Chapter 13] plan.” But to whom must notice be given? Specifically, which creditors need to be given notice? This...

Members

CFPB Announces Action Against Monster Loans, Lend Tech Loans, and Associated Student Loan Debt-Relief Companies

January 19, 2020

January 9, 2020, the Bureau filed suit against several companies and individuals involved in offering student loan debt-relief services for allegedly obtaining consumer reports illegally, charging unlawful advance fees, and engaging in deceptive conduct. The Bureau’s action is against a mortgage lender called Chou Team Realty, LLC, which does business as Monster Loans (Monster Loans); an allegedly sham mortgage brokerage...