Trustee May Use Any Law Available to Avoid a Transfer

By Herbert L. Beskin, Chapter 13 Trustee for the Western District of Virginia (Charlottesville) *Special thanks to Gretchen D. Holland for editing this article.

Facts

In Vieira v. Gaither (In re Gaither), Bankr. D. S.C., # 18-01317-dd, Adv. Pro. 18 80040-dd, Chapter 7 case; 11/30/18 opinion (Duncan); 2018 Bankr. LEXIS 3816, the Debtors’ son died in an aviation accident in 2014. The Debtors were made the personal representatives of their son’s estate, and in that capacity filed a lawsuit for damages 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.

MEMORIAL DAY

The Academy

May 26, 2024

Max’s Knowledge Nugget

Max Gardner

November 13, 2022

Question: May a servicer charge to generate a payoff quote? Answer: 1026.36(c)(3) Payoff statements. In connection with a consumer credit transaction secured by a consumer's dwelling, a creditor, assignee or servicer, as applicable, must provide an accurate statement of the total outstanding balance that would be required to pay the consumer's obligation in full as of a specified date. The...

Members

District of New Jersey

The Academy

December 15, 2024

Appointment of Mark E. Hall as Bankruptcy Judge Click here for background

2022 Bankruptcy Procedure Year in Review: Revised Statute and Rules and Selected Cases – Part 3 Rules Related to SBRA (Continued)

Lawrence R. Ahern, III

December 4, 2022

Introduction This series reviews developments in bankruptcy procedure during 2022. Amendments to 16 rules and new one new rule take effect December 1, 2022, absent Congressional action. Many reflect changes necessitated by the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (SBRA),1 and have been in place in the same or similar form on an interim basis since that legislation took effect.

Members

From the Editor – Curing Default

October 27, 2019

By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired) Debtor could cure default beyond 60 months. Agreeing with In re Klaas, 858 F.3d 820 (3d Cir. 2017), bankruptcy court had discretion to permit debtors to cure plan default, allowing a reasonable grace period beyond the 60 months of confirmed plan. Dismissal of the case for plan default was not required under §...

Members

Finding Your Village: An Introductory Guide to Bringing Fair Credit Reporting Act Claims for Clients Post-Bankruptcy

Emily Connor Kennedy

July 24, 2022

I hope that you’ve enjoyed the articles from Mark Leffler and Steve Relyea discussing how our firm began litigating against creditors in bankruptcy court and mortgage servicers in federal district court. In this (final) installment, I will discuss our entry into Fair Credit Reporting Act litigation. Our firm’s history with Fair Credit Reporting Act litigation is intertwined with the relationships...

Members

Arbitration in Bankruptcy: Reading Opinions & Tea Leaves in Recent Supreme Court & Lower Court Actions

March 10, 2019

By Lawrence R. Ahern III, Brown & Ahern (Nashville, TN) PART III: The Lower Courts Struggle with Arbitration Guidelines Introduction Click here for Part I Click here for Part II

Members

What Does the Bankruptcy Code Say About Interest and Unsecured Debts

Hale Andrew Antico

March 24, 2024

“. . . the law is so clear that of course it's not allowed. However, some courts have twisted themselves into pretzels to create a creditor right to postpetition unmatured interest.” The article explores this not so simple issue by examining relevant sections of the Bankruptcy Code and case law from various circuit courts.

Members

The Dangers of Extending a Plan Too Long – Or Alternatively, Why Take as Little Time as Possible

April 26, 2020

By Joseph A. Bledsoe, III, Chapter 13 Standing Trustee for the Eastern District of North Carolina (New Bern) Under section 1113(b)(1)(C) of the CARES Act, upon the request of a debtor, and after notice and a hearing, a plan confirmed may be extended up to 7 years from the date the first payment under the original plan came due if...

Members

Progeny of Law v. Siegel: Sixth and Ninth Circuits Say Right to Dismiss Chapter 13 Case is Absolute, Not Qualified by Section 105

September 26, 2021

By Lawrence R. Ahern III, Brown & Ahern (Nashville, TN) "Equity is not an old man, with a long grey beard, sitting under a tree. Equity has rules."1 Introduction Section 105 When enacted in 1978, the Bankruptcy Code in section 105 included an "all writs" statute for the Bankruptcy Courts: The court may issue any order, process, or judgment that...

Members

Trustee May Use Any Law Available to Avoid a Transfer

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

MEMORIAL DAY

Max’s Knowledge Nugget

District of New Jersey

2022 Bankruptcy Procedure Year in Review: Revised Statute and Rules and Selected Cases – Part 3 Rules Related to SBRA (Continued)

From the Editor – Curing Default

Finding Your Village: An Introductory Guide to Bringing Fair Credit Reporting Act Claims for Clients Post-Bankruptcy

Arbitration in Bankruptcy: Reading Opinions & Tea Leaves in Recent Supreme Court & Lower Court Actions

What Does the Bankruptcy Code Say About Interest and Unsecured Debts

The Dangers of Extending a Plan Too Long – Or Alternatively, Why Take as Little Time as Possible

Progeny of Law v. Siegel: Sixth and Ninth Circuits Say Right to Dismiss Chapter 13 Case is Absolute, Not Qualified by Section 105

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: