The Unintended Filing Bar – Don’t Ignore MFR on Surrendered Property

Consider if you will that your client has just filed a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy. They have intelligently chosen to surrender a luxury item - a boat or 4-wheeler or even that extra vehicle they don’t need.

Because the creditor would like to preserve the value of the collateral by obtaining possession quickly, they file a Motion for Relief shortly after the case is filed.

You hardly take notice of the motion because once you glance at the Motion for Relief and realize it is for collateral your client has already surrendered, you no longer . . .

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

Or Sign In Below:

Molly Simons

Senior Bankruptcy Counsel, Sottile & Barile Attorneys at Law (Loveland, OH)

Molly Simons has been a licensed attorney since 2008 after graduating from Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, Cleveland State University. With an undergraduate degree in Hospitality Food Service Management from Kent State University, Molly is a unique attorney as she approaches the practice of law with a hospitality background. Client’s satisfaction is of the utmost importance to her. Molly’s primary focus for the first ten years of her practice was consumer Chapter 13 and Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. She joined Sottile & Barile, Attorneys at Law in 2018 and has happily represented creditors in the bankruptcy process ever since.

Molly is licensed in the States of Ohio, Kentucky, and West Virginia and is admitted federally in all federal jurisdictions for Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, West Virginia, Colorado and Wisconsin. She is currently the Co-Chair of the Bankruptcy Committee with the Cincinnati Bar Association and was recently accepted to the Attorney Advisory Committee for the Southern District of Ohio 2022-2025 Term.

Perhaps her most important role is that of Mother to her two beautiful children who never fail to keep her super busy and proud.

Who Gets the Trustee’s Fee and When?

August 8, 2021

By Henry E. Hildebrand, III, Chapter 13 Trustee, Middle District of TN (Nashville) Chapter 13 trustee is not compelled to return the percentage fee taken from a Chapter 13 case when the case is dismissed prior to confirmation. Harmon v. McCallister, 2021 WL 3087744 (9th Cir. BAP July 20, 2021) (Gan) Case Summary Douglas and Christine Harmon filed a Chapter...

Members

Creditors’ Rights and Debtors’ Protections at the Intersection of Consumer Bankruptcy and UCC Article 9

October 25, 2020

By Lawrence R. Ahern III, Brown & Ahern (Nashville, TN) Part V – Consumer Foreclosure Procedures (Continued) Introduction In the world of consumer bankruptcy, trustees and debtors' counsel often are uncomfortable with the rules in Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). In this space, we have looked at several places where Article 9 meets the Bankruptcy Code. In...

Members

Critical Case Comment – A Mixed Bag of Inheritance

Henry E. Hildebrand, III

June 18, 2023

When a debtor fails to disclose a post-petition asset as required by Local Rule and the terms of her plan, the trustee may seek a modification of the plan notwithstanding the expiration of the applicable commitment period; the best interest of creditors test applies only at commencement of the case and not to a plan modification; a trustee’s motion to...

Members

Avoidance Powers In Chapter 13 – Part 3 of 6

January 13, 2019

By John P. Gustafson, United States Bankruptcy Judge, Northern District of Ohio, Western Division (Toledo, OH) Click here for Part 1 of 6 Click here for Part 2 of 6 Click here for Part 4 of 6 Click here for Part 5 of 6

Members

Pump the Brakes: Bad Faith Debtors Are Not Gaming the System (Part II)

January 27, 2019

By Kathryne M. Shaw1 Boleman Law Firm, P.C. (Virginia Beach, VA) Click here for Part 1 In Part I of this article, we reviewed In re Holman, in which the debtors violated their confirmation order and exhibited bad faith . . . It looks like you are not signed in or registered! This content is only available to members. Join...

Members

Critical Case Comment – $67k Windfall to Debtors. Fraudulent??

Henry E. Hildebrand, III

April 24, 2022

In re Frank, 638 B.R. 463 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2022) A Chapter 13 trustee’s request to dismiss a Chapter 13 case upon discovery of an undisclosed asset held by the debtor cannot be granted after the debtor completes payments under the plan. (Brown) Case Summary John and Jessica Frank filed a Chapter 13 petition on April 8, 2018. Prior to...

Members

Bankruptcy Courts Grapple with the “COVID-19 Discharge” – Appendix B

April 18, 2021

Bankruptcy Courts Grapple with the “COVID-19 Discharge” APPENDIX B Side-by-Side Comparison of 11 U.S.C. § 1328(b)-(i) and 11 U.S.C. § 1141(d)(5)(B)-(C) 11 U.S.C. § 1328(b)-(i) Discharge 11 U.S.C. § 1141(d)(5)(B)-(C) Effect of Confirmation (b) Subject to subsection (d), at any time after the confirmation of the plan and after notice and a hearing, the court may grant a discharge ....

Members

Critical Case Comment – Siegel v. Fitzgerald

Henry E. Hildebrand, III

June 19, 2022

Congress’ enactment of differing fees for U.S. Trustee states and Bankruptcy Administrator states violated the uniformity provision of the Bankruptcy Clause of Article I of the Constitution. (Sotomayer) Siegel v. Fitzgerald, 2022 WL 1914098 (S.Ct. June 6, 2022) Case Summary In 2008, the retail chain, Circuit City Stores, filed a Chapter 11 petition. In 2010, Circuit City’sliquidating plan was confirmed...

Members

How to Manage Incompetent, Unprepared, and Unreasonable Creditor Bankruptcy Counsel

The NACTT Emeritus Trustees

March 19, 2023

Recently, the Emeritus Trustees (“ETC”) commented on “How to Manage Incompetent, Unprepared, and Negligent Bankruptcy Counsel”. We now turn to ETC to share their collective wisdom when addressing the issues raised by incompetent, unprepared and unreasonable creditor counsel. CREDITOR ATTORNEY REPRESENTATION ISSUES Several ETC Trustees list the following as problematical during their tenure. Attorney claims lack of authority from creditor...

Members

A Look at Setoff and Recoupment as Fourth Circuit Permits IRS to Grab Exempt Overpayment Refund

July 19, 2020

By Lawrence R. Ahern III, Brown & Ahern (Nashville, TN) Introduction In Copley v. United States,1 Chapter 7 debtors attempted to exempt under Virginia law their right to a prepetition federal income tax overpayment refund. After the bankruptcy filing, the IRS set off the overpaid funds to satisfy the debtors' tax liabilities under 26 U.S.C. § 6402. In a matter...

Members