Cars, Fines, and Chapter 13 in the Windy City

By Herbert L. Beskin, Chapter 13 Trustee for the Western District of Virginia (Charlottesville)

The Seventh Circuit thought that it had finished dealing with the intersection of cars, fines, Chapter 13, and the City of Chicago when it rendered its decision earlier in 2019 in “Steenes I.” In re Steenes, 918 F.3d 554 . Alas, it was not to be, and the saga added a sequel in November: “Steenes II.” Steenes and Dudley v. City of Chicago, 942 F.3d 834.

Chicago makes a car’s owner, not the driver, liable for many fines . . .

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.

Escrow 102 – Part 3 of 4

October 10, 2021

By Michael J. McCormick, Esq., McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce, LLC (Roswell, GA) Escrow 101 – Part 1 Escrow 101 – Part 2 Escrow 101 – Part 3 Escrow 102 – Part 1

Members

Turnover by Motion? How About Under Rule 6008?

February 28, 2021

By Joseph A. Bledsoe, III (“Jody”), Chapter 13 Standing Trustee for the Eastern District of North Carolina (New Bern) In the aftermath of City of Chicago v. Fulton, discussions abound as to whether it is sufficient for a chapter 13 debtor to seek return of his vehicle, repossessed prepetition, via a motion for turnover. Most seem to believe a motion...

Members

Meet New Trustee Brian Tucci

Nicole P. Novak

August 14, 2022

In April, Brian Tucci started his appointment as the Chapter 13 Standing Trustee for Baltimore, Maryland. He is a native Marylander with deep roots in the Maryland bankruptcy community. Brian succeeded the late Robert S. Thomas, II and Robert’s predecessor, the late Ellen Crosby. Brian earned his undergraduate degree at the University of Maryland and his J.D. at Western Michigan...

Members

Three Last Things Trustees Should Know About the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 – Part V

November 17, 2019

By Lawrence R. Ahern, III, Brown & Ahern (Nashville, TN) Introduction This series focuses on four bankruptcy-related bills that were enacted during the 116th Congress and signed into law on August 23, 2019.1 One bill, the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (SBRA),2 appears in its entirety in Appendix B to this series and was summarized in

Members

From the Editor – Attorney Sanctioned

June 14, 2020

By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired) Attorney sanctioned for filing identical schedules in two cases without updating financial information. The same attorney represented a debtor in two cases filed sixteen months apart, but the attorney filed essentially identical schedules in both cases, violating Rule 9011 by failing to make reasonable inquiry before filing the second case. The schedules in...

Members

Delinquent Utilities and Disconnection Under New Bankruptcy Provision

January 24, 2021

By Cathy Moran, Esq. (Redwood City, CA) Bankruptcy debtors with delinquent utility bills got a measure of protection from interruption in their service under an amendment to the Bankruptcy Code in the omnibus spending bill enacted December 27,2020. Individual debtors cannot have their utilities disconnected as long as they make some payment for service provided promptly after the commencement of...

Members

Bankruptcy Court Strikes Back: Awarding $825,940.55 in Sanctions for Bad Faith Filing

M. Jonathan Hayes

March 24, 2024

Bankruptcy Court in Texas awards sanctions of $825,940.55 for bad faith filing and prosecution of a proof of claim. (Yes it’s an 11 but still, $825k!)

Members

Today’s AI Stands to Create Work for Lawyers

Cathy Moran

June 25, 2023

Most lawyers were torn between wincing and laughing when a lawyer filed a brief packed with case authority created out of whole cloth by an AI bot. Meanwhile, a segment of the bar is fretting that we will be replaced by powerful artificial intelligence. My concern, based on a couple of casual forays into AI, is not that I will...

Members

The Case of the Naked Client

Cathy Moran

December 10, 2023

“The bankruptcy petition came to my desk for review with no entry for “clothing and wearing apparel”. Funny, I think I’d remember if I’d interviewed any naked people lately.” Although filled with Attorney Moran’s wit, there is an important lesson here! Feel free to add your own ‘naked client’ story in the comments section below the article.

Members

From the Editor – Claims

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