From the Editor

By Wm. Houston Brown, United States Bankruptcy Judge (Retired)

Discharge in Chapter 13

Direct payments on mortgage were payments under the plan. The confirmed plan provided for payments to the trustee to cure arrearage, while the debtors were to make direct payment on the ongoing mortgage, but the debtors defaulted on those direct payments. Discharge had been entered after the trustee filed notice of cure of arrearage, but the trustee subsequently filed a complaint to revoke discharge. The court did not revoke the discharge, because the trustee had been advised . . .

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.

Related Articles

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
Copy of Hildebrand-2016
November 13, 2022
Chapter 13 debtor must demonstrate extraordinary circumstances to justify the extraordinary relief of setting aside or “reconsidering” an order dismissing a Chapter 13 case. (Cary) In re Canas, 2022 WL 10707000 (Bankr. D. Ma. October 18, 2022) Case Summary Nelson and Annemarie Canas filed a Chapter 13 petition in August of 2019. The debtors immediately fell behind on their proposed...
Members
langehennig
As a prerequisite to a claim’s payment, Rule 3002.1 requires certain secured creditors to provide to the trustee and the debtor notice of the full value of the secured creditor’s claim, including any “fees, expenses, and charges” related to the claim. Two bankruptcy courts have demonstrated a willingness to expand the reach of Rule 3002.1’s noticing requirements. These courts generally...
Members
Academy Circle Logo Final
March 6, 2022
Diane Cipollone is an attorney and a qualified expert on mortgage servicing and loan origination matters. While Diane no longer provides expert testimony, she continues to consult with consumer attorneys; trains attorneys, court mediators, housing counselors and fair housing advocates on foreclosure prevention guidelines and federal mortgage regulations; and mentors pro bono attorneys and non-profit housing counselors. She has presented...
June 7, 2020
By Lawrence R. Ahern III, Brown & Ahern (Nashville, TN) Introduction Chapter 13 practitioners certainly do not need to be told that a lender with a mortgage1 on the debtor's principal residence has a special position in a Chapter 13 case. A chapter 13 plan may "modify the rights of holders of secured claims, other than a claim secured only...
Members
April 5, 2020
By Henry E. Hildebrand, III, Chapter 13 Standing Trustee (Nashville, TN) During the free Academy webinar The CARES Act – Impacts on Chapter 13 on April 2, 2020, the panel – Judge Wm. Houston Brown (Retired), Amanda DeBerry and I – referred to the importance of detailing the reasons for modifications or suspensions to be related to financial hardship stemming...
Members
September 20, 2020
By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired) Debt buyer was debt collector under FDCPA. The Ninth Circuit agreed with the Third Circuit that an entity purchasing consumer debts qualified as a debt collector under the Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692(a)(6), even though it outsourced the actual debt collection activity. McAdory v. M.N.S. & Assoc., LLC, 952 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir....
Members
Mark
May 8, 2022
At my firm, we see a lot of consumers who have some combination of high debt and low income. Many of them arrive for their consultations after having been abused by debt collectors and predatory lenders, harmed by mortgage servicing errors, or subjected to inaccurate and derogatory credit reporting. Until fairly recently, after filing bankruptcies for these folks, we usually...
Members
Copy of Hildebrand-2016
March 19, 2023
Below-median Chapter 13 debtor bears the burden of justifying a plan longer than three years as confirmation of a five-year plan would be denied as providing insufficient justification to exceed three years. (Robinson) In re Ingram, 2023 WL 2529730 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. March 15, 2023) Case Summary Danny Ingram filed four bankruptcy cases over 20 years. He was single with...
Members
February 9, 2020
By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired) Unreasonable fees for proof of claim. $4,000 fee for private mortgagee’s proof of claim and objection to proposed plan was unreasonable, and creditor was denied recovery of $7,500 attorney fee for responding to debtor’s objection to proof of claim. The Court considered Fannie Mae’s guidelines for maximum fees related to proof of claim...
Members