The Unintended Filing Bar - Don’t Ignore MFR on Surrendered Property • NACTT Academy

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.

From the Editor – Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

February 2, 2020

By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired) Class action certification on predominance. The Eleventh Circuit remanded, finding that the District Court had abused its discretion in refusing to certify a class on a predominance theory for former debtors who had obtained discharge of personal liability on residential mortgages and who asserted violations of the FDCPA by a loan servicer. The...

Members

What’s It Worth to You?

Cathy Moran

August 21, 2022

If all the children in Lake Woebegon are above average, all the small businesses our clients run are quite valuable.If the Chapter 13 trustee is asking the question, anyway. I rail when the Chapter 13 trustee’s business questionnaire asks, “how much would you sell your business for.” Phrased that way, the question implicates all kinds of facts that aren’t in...

Members

Critical Case Comment– Reverse Mortgage May be Modified

Henry E. Hildebrand, III

May 22, 2022

A reverse mortgage, having fallen due as a result of the death of the borrower, is not protected from modification by the borrower’s heirs by virtue of § 1322(c)(2). (Halfenger) In re Sandoval, 2022 WL 982182 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. March 31, 2022) Case Summary Juan Sandoval filed Chapter 13 and proposed a plan which dealt with his principal asset, a...

Members

Taggart v. Lorenzen: Supreme Court Stakes Out Middle Ground on Contempt Standard for Discharge Injunction Violations, Leaves Clues About Automatic Stay Violations

June 16, 2019

By Lawrence R. Ahern III, Brown & Ahern (Nashville, TN) Introduction – The Taggart Ruling Last year, the Ninth Circuit in In re Taggart1 ruled that an act in violation of the discharge injunction did not empower a court to find a creditor in contempt, if the creditor believed in good faith that the discharge injunction did not apply—even if...

Members

From the Editor – Classification

August 9, 2020

By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired) Separate classification and preferential treatment of student loan debt. The Chapter 13 trustee and debtors’ attorney attempted to change the traditional approach in the District, seeking approval of a permissible fair discrimination in favor of student loan debt in plans so long as the preferential treatment and discrimination was no more than 20%....

Members

The Hunt for Deductible Interest – Money Too Often Left on the Table

February 16, 2020

By Cathy Moran, Esq. (Redwood City, CA) One of the mysteries of Chapter 13 is why mortgage lenders don’t send an IRS 1098 for mortgage payments made through a Chapter 13 plan. And without that reminder piece of paper, our clients don’t realize that much of what the trustee pays to mortgage creditors is deductible interest. Miss that deduction and...

Members

Post-Petition Causes of Action, Inheritances and Windfalls Are Property of the Estate and Must Be Reported to the Trustee – Part 4 of 5

August 4, 2019

By John P. Gustafson, United States Bankruptcy Judge, Northern District of Ohio, Western Division Click here for Part 1 Click here for Part 2

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

A Fond Farewell to 007 – Frank M. Pees

May 3, 2020

On April 30, 2020, Frank M. Pees will retire from his position as the Chapter 13 Standing Trustee (Worthington) for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. Mr. Pees has been a Trustee since his appointment in 1978. Throughout his career, he has been actively involved in the National Association of Chapter 13 Trustees, serving as President (in 1987), and...

Members

In re Fulton: Seventh Circuit Affirms Its Position with Majority of Circuits on Passive Retention of Property as Violation of Sections 362 and 542

June 30, 2019

By Lawrence R. Ahern III, Brown & Ahern (Nashville, TN) Introduction In In re Fulton,1 the Seventh Circuit has restated its position on passive violation of the automatic stay, holding that failure by the City of Chicago to turn over impounded vehicles after the owners' bankruptcy filings violated Bankruptcy Code sections 362 and 542. Fulton – Background and Ruling The...

Members