Critical Case Comment – Debtor Not Current But May Invoke CARES Remedies • NACTT Academy

Critical Case Comment – Debtor Not Current But May Invoke CARES Remedies

In order to invoke remedies granted under the CARES Act, Chapter 13 debtor need not have been current on the date of enactment as long as the debtor satisfies the conditions in the CARES Act. (Grabill) In re Gilbert, 622 BR 859 (Bankr. E.D. La. Oct. 6, 2020)

Case Summary

Chapter 13 Trustee sought dismissal of a number of cases each of which had filed motions to modify their plans. The debtors were seeking to extend the terms of the plans beyond 60 months because they had been adversely impacted by the . . .

It looks like you are not signed in or registered! This content is only available to members.

Or Sign In Below:

Henry E. Hildebrand, III

Chapter 13 Standing Trustee for the Middle District of Tennessee (Nashville)

Henry E. Hildebrand, III has served as Standing Trustee for Chapter 13 matters in the Middle District of Tennessee since 1982 and as Standing Chapter 12 Trustee for that district since 1986. He also is of counsel to the Nashville law firm of Belcher Sykes Harrington, PLLC. Mr. Hildebrand graduated from Vanderbilt University and received his J.D. from the National Law Center of George Washington University. He is a fellow of the American College of Bankruptcy and the Nashville Bar Foundation. He is Board Certified in consumer bankruptcy law by the American Board of Certification and serves on its faculty committee. He is Chairman of the Legislative and Legal Affairs Committee for the National Association of Chapter 13 Trustees (NACTT). He is on the Board of Directors for the NACTT Academy for Consumer Bankruptcy Education, Inc. and is an adjunct faculty member for the Nashville School of Law and St. Johns University School of Law. In addition, he served as a commissioner to the American Bankruptcy Institute’s Commission on Consumer Bankruptcy.

The NCBJ Is Turning 100

The Honorable Deborah L. Thorne, The Honorable Kathy A. Surratt-States

April 21, 2024

Judge Deborah Thorne, NDIL, and Judge Kathy Surratt-States, EDMO, on behalf of the NCBJ’s DEI Committee, have written two articles about some of judicial firsts.

The Extent of 362(c)(3)’s Stay Termination: Bankruptcy Court Adds an Argument to the Debate

June 28, 2020

By Lawrence R. Ahern III, Brown & Ahern (Nashville, TN) Introduction In In re Dao,1 Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Klein on May 11 ruled on an issue on which the circuits are split and certiorari is pending.2 Judge Klein agreed with the majority view that, under paragraph 362(c)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code, the automatic stay terminated 30 days after the order...

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

New and Revised Bankruptcy Forms

November 10, 2019

By William Houston Brown, Editor and Adviser, NACTT Academy for Consumer Bankruptcy Education, Inc. Several Official and Director’s Forms related to bankruptcy filings are revised and some are new, with some already taking effect on October 1, 2019, others to take effect December 1, 2019, and others taking effect February 19, 2020. Several forms have already been updated on April...

Members

Critical Case Comment – No Such Thing as “Technical” Violation of the Stay

Henry E. Hildebrand, III

February 20, 2022

Bankruptcy Court found violation of automatic stay to be “technical”, thus no damages. Ninth Circuit BAP did not agree. Continuing to pursue state court fraudulent transfer action after transfer or filed for Chapter 7 relief violated the automatic stay; even if the violation of the stay is “technical”, damages, including attorneys’ fees and costs, should be assessed against the violator....

Members

ABI Commission on Consumer Bankruptcy – Judicial Estoppel

June 30, 2019

By Henry E. Hildebrand, III, Chapter 13 Standing Trustee (Nashville, TN) Over the past twenty years, the judicial estoppel doctrine has had a significant impact on people who file bankruptcy. Judicial estoppel has grown to be a significant issue within the consumer bankruptcy system. The Commission was asked to address it. Judicial estoppel is a doctrine created to protect the...

Members

Conflicting Interpretations: A Chapter 13 Trustee’s Compensation After Pre-Confirmation Dismissal or Conversion – Part 2 of 3

Brittani Bushman

February 6, 2022

(Used with expressed permission from the MI Bankruptcy Journal and the Steven W. Rhodes Consumer Bankruptcy Conference) III. Contrasting the Majority and Minority Interpretations The majority and minority approaches differ as to (1) the interpretation of the use of "collect" in § 586(e); (2) the operative effect of parallel provisions in chapters 11 and 12 on the interpretation of §...

Members

Of Tax Refunds, Exemptions, Setoffs, and Roman Gods

April 18, 2021

By Herbert L. Beskin, Chapter 13 Standing Trustee for the Western District of Virginia (Charlottesville) If you’re looking for a well-written and clear appellate opinion about a much-litigated topic, with a bit of ancient mythology thrown in for good measure, this HUD’s for you. The case is Wood v. U.S. Dept. of Housing & Urban Development (In re Larry and...

Members

Mary Ida Townson Appointed U.S. Trustee for Florida, Georgia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands

Guy A. Van Baalen

January 2, 2022

Attorney General Merrick B. Garland recently appointed Mary Ida Townson as the U.S. Trustee for Florida, Georgia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (Region 21). Ms. Townson assumed her duties in June and replaced Nancy Gargula, who is the U.S. Trustee in Region 10 and who had served as the interim U.S. Trustee in Region 21...

Thoughts on the Law: “None of My Business” Or “CU Later”? – Does Refusing to Do Business with a Debtor Violate the Automatic Stay?

February 9, 2020

By The Honorable John P. Gustafson Can a creditor refuse to do business with a debtor, or is such refusal a violation of the automatic stay? The case of Brown v. Penn State Employees Credit Union, 851 F.2d 81 (3rd Cir. 1988) held that a credit union’s refusal to continue to do business with a debtor who caused a loss...

Members