On February 22, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, 598 U.S. _____, 2023 WL 2023 WL 2144417 (Feb. 22, 2023), affirming the Ninth Circuit’s decision and resolving “confusion in the lower courts on the meaning of § 523(a)(2)(A).”1 Two Justices joined the opinion with the understanding that the Court was only addressing fraud in the context...
Critical Case Comment
Print This Article
Link to Post:
By Henry E. Hildebrand, III
Where a student loan creditor and servicer do not comply with a provision of the confirmation order requiring the student loan creditor to properly apply payments and to permit the debtor to participate in the Income Driven Repayment plan or Public Service Forgiveness plan, attorney’s fees are appropriate and can be awarded against the servicer of the student loan. (Waites) In re LaDeidra Antoinette Berry, No. 16-01460-JW (Bankr. D.S.C. filed Feb. 2, 2018)
Case Summary
At the time the debtor filed her Chapter 13 petition, she . . .
It looks like you are not signed in or registered! This content is only available to members.
Or Sign In Below:
Related Articles
When Wishes Come True
Mortgage Loan Modification Does Not Alter Lien Priority
Do I Really Have to Tell the Trustee About Newly Acquired Assets?
Why Address Formatting Is So Important for Jurisdiction
Travis Sasser
Fraud Imputed to Partner – Bartenwerfer v. Buckley
Appendix – A Review of Residential Mortgage “Stripping,” Recent Developments and the Effect of 11 U.S.C. § 1111(b)
Meet the New Trustee
Bankruptcy Threshold Adjustment and Technical Corrections Act
From the Editor – Discharge Injunction