From the Editor

By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired)

Confirmation Effect: Creditor bound by plan modifying mortgage. The confirmed and modified, now completed, plan contained language modifying the home mortgage, a provision impermissible under § 1322(b)(2); nevertheless, the creditor withdrew its objection to the plan, and the creditor was bound by the confirmed plan’s terms. The plan provided for full payment of the mortgage, in a specified amount, over the life of the plan, and the debtor expected plan completion to satisfy the mortgage in full. The claim was “provided for in . . .

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.

Ask Ms. Ps and Qs

May 10, 2020

By Professor Nancy Rapoport, University of Nevada Dear Readers: Regina Logsdon has just asked me a great question: In this new world of Zoom, is it okay to record meetings? Video and audio? Permission needed? Does it vary state to state? We are living in a new normal, and video conferencing will continue to be part of our lives even...

Members

ABI Commission on Consumer Bankruptcy – Collateral Repossessed Pre-Petition

October 6, 2019

By Henry E. Hildebrand, III, Chapter 13 Standing Trustee (Nashville, TN) One of the most difficult situations faced by a debtor and debtors’ counsel is the repossession of important collateral securing a debt owed to a creditor. These items, such as automobiles, furniture, boats, and mowers which have been pledged to a creditor are important – often critical – to...

Members

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

Chapter 13 No-Look Fees

The NACTT Emeritus Trustees

December 10, 2023

As a follow-up to The Academy’s December 3, 2023, issue, three Emeritus Trustees weighed in. Last week’s issue included Cathy Moran’s Chapter 13 NoLook Fees: The Horns of a Dilemma and Trustee Hildebrand’s You Gotta Fix Your Own Screw-ups, On Your Own Dime. You may also want to take note of the comments on each article and add your own.

Members

From the Archives – An Oldie but Goodie

Nancy B. Rapoport

April 14, 2024

Ms. Ps & Qs on ‘Wet Signatures’ – Yep, they are important and nope, you can’t blame others for your mistakes.

Members

Bankruptcy Court Finds Jurisdiction to Hear Discharge-Injunction Violation Class Action

May 9, 2021

By Lawrence R. Ahern, III, Brown & Ahern (Nashville, TN) Introduction The Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York ruled last month, in a case styled In re Ajasa,1 that bankruptcy courts have subject matter jurisdiction to consider nationwide class actions that allege contempt of discharge injunctions. The broader effect of the opinion is that a discharge injunction...

Members

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...

Critical Case Comment–“No Realistic Future Prospects”

Henry E. Hildebrand, III

March 26, 2023

A 34-year-old Chapter 7 debtor could discharge his student loan obligation by establishing that he could not reasonably make payments on the balance, could not maintain a reasonable standard of living, and because the expiration of his payment term had already passed, his standard of living was likely to persist, with no realistic future prospects. (Silverstein) In re Wolfson, No....

Members

Keep Calm and Carry On – Observations Regarding CBRA

Henry E. Hildebrand, III

October 9, 2022

First, breathe deep and try to relax. The Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative House Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee, with minimal notice, set an oversight hearing for September 29, 2022. The subcommittee is charged to deal with matters relating to bankruptcy. The subject of the hearing was to be the “Oversight of the Bankruptcy Code, Part 2: Ensuring a Fresh...

From the Editor

Link to Post:

It looks like you are not signed in or registered! This content is only available to members.

Or Sign In Below:

Related Articles

Ask Ms. Ps and Qs

ABI Commission on Consumer Bankruptcy – Collateral Repossessed Pre-Petition

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

Chapter 13 No-Look Fees

More Questions on the Mortgage Interest Deduction

From the Archives – An Oldie but Goodie

Bankruptcy Court Finds Jurisdiction to Hear Discharge-Injunction Violation Class Action

Chris Hawkins Appointed Judge

Critical Case Comment–“No Realistic Future Prospects”

Keep Calm and Carry On – Observations Regarding CBRA

Academy

Members

Website

Legal

Looking to Become a Member?

Webinars

Member Articles

Industry News

To get started, please let us know which of these best fits your current position: