Bankruptcy Courts Grapple with the “COVID-19 Discharge” APPENDIX A 11 U.S.C. § 1328 Discharge (Text added by CAA, effective: December 27, 2020 and subject to one-year sunset, appears in italics.) (Mandatory and precatory directions to the court, critical to the statutory analysis in In re Ritter, appears in bold.) (a) Subject to subsection (d), as soon as practicable after completion...
From the Editor
Print This Article
Link to Post:
By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired)
Debtors’ attorney fees not authorized under Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA).
Although the Chapter 13 debtors had prevailed before the Ninth Circuit, In re Sisk, 962 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2020), their application for attorney fees as prevailing parties under EAJA was denied. That Act did not authorize awards of attorney fees to debtors against the bankruptcy and appellate panel courts that had ruled against them. Those courts did not fall within the EAJA’s definition of “United States,” and the prior actions were not against the . . .
It looks like you are not signed in or registered! This content is only available to members.
Or Sign In Below:
Related Articles
The PUMP Act
Cyber Security – You Are The Weakest Link
Representing Elderly Clients in Bankruptcy – Part 2 of 3
Practice Pointers for Arguing Motions
Character Counts
Quick Confirmation – BAP Says Not So Fast
9th Circuit BAP: Actually, Absolute Right to Dismiss Means Absolute
Bankruptcy Courts Grapple with the “COVID-19 Discharge” – Appendix A
Lawyers are People Too: An Interview with Aki Koyama, Staff Attorney to Chapter 13 Standing Trustee Kathy Dockery
Chapter 13 Trustee Duties, Powers, And Limitations – Part 3