From the Editor

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

Confirmation - Bankruptcy court could not sua sponte object to confirmation. Distinguishing between “self-executing” provisions of the Code and those sections that were not “self-executing,” and discussing Espinosa’s impact on that distinction, District Court held that the bankruptcy court could not sua sponte object to confirmation based on the above- median debtor’s calculation of disposable income. Section 1325(b)(1) gives only the trustee and unsecured creditors authority to object to confirmation based on failure to commit projected disposable income to 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.

Related Articles

May 12, 2019
By Judge Michael A. Fagone & Career Law Clerk Ciera S. Dye III. Policy Considerations Where the statute does not provide definitive guidance, courts often turn to policy considerations. How do those considerations weigh out here? One answer is that policy considerations cut against imposing any sort of requirement of preapproval for postpetition borrowing by a consumer debtor. Several reasons...
Members
August 9, 2020
By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired) Disputed claim included in calculation of eligibility. The debtor’s case was dismissed for exceeding § 109(e)’s unsecured debt limit, when the debtor had signed $1,092,000 mortgage note but the mortgage was never recorded. The lender filed an unsecured claim for $1.7 million, and the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel agreed with the bankruptcy court that...
Members
Copy of Hildebrand-2016
Bankruptcy courts lack jurisdiction to apply “innocent spouse” relief to determine the amount of a tax claim to be paid in a Chapter 13 case.  (Taddonio) In re Geary, 2023 WL 2996720 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. April 19, 2023) Case Summary When a taxpayer signs a joint tax return with their spouse, the Internal Revenue Code is very clear.  Both signatories...
Members
Academy Circle Logo Final
January 16, 2022
NCLC seeking non-profit organizations to sign two letters (one to the CFPB and one to FHFA, FHA, VA, and USDA) urging the agencies to require servicers to pause foreclosure activity for at least 60 days after being notified that a borrower has applied for HAF assistance and meets conditional program eligibility. We ask organizations to sign both letters, and the...
Copy of Hildebrand-2016
July 17, 2022
A referral fee by retained special counsel paid to debtor’s attorney violates the prohibition in § 504 in that the referral fee constitutes an unauthorized splitting of attorney’s fees. (Williamson) In re Davis, 638 B.R. 198 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. March 31, 2022) Case Summary Four years after Lisa Davis filed her Chapter 13 petition, she was involved in an auto...
Members
March 31, 2019
By Wm. Houston Brown, United States Bankruptcy Judge (Retired) Debtor’s Attorney - Chapter 13 no-look fee subject to Hawai’i’s general excise tax. Construing the State’s excise tax, the Chapter 13 debtor’s attorney could not collect the required excise tax in addition to the agreed upon no-look fee. The district’s Rights and Responsibilities Agreement between debtor and attorney did not contain...
Members
February 3, 2019
As people prepare to file their taxes, there are things to consider. They will want to determine if they need to file and the best way to do so. For tax year 2018, all individual taxpayers will file using the new Form 1040. Forms 1040A and 1040EZ are no longer available. Taxpayers who previously filed these forms will now file...
August 4, 2019
By John P. Gustafson, United States Bankruptcy Judge, Northern District of Ohio, Western Division Click here for Part 1 Click here for Part 2
Members
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
June 27, 2021
By Henry E. Hildebrand, III, Chapter 13 Standing Trustee (Nashville, TN) It constitutes an unfair discrimination, violative of 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(1), for a Chapter 13 plan which would pay more to a student loan than to the remaining general unsecured creditors. (Somers) In re Kane, 603 B.R. 491 (Bankr. C.D. Kan. June 18, 2019) Case Summary Ronald Kane filed...
Members