After Chicago v Fulton: Not Only Cars - A Survey of Fulton Rulings and a Weakened Automatic Stay • NACTT Academy

After Chicago v Fulton: Not Only Cars – A Survey of Fulton Rulings and a Weakened Automatic Stay

Intro: What is a Fulton ruling?

When Chicago v Fulton (In re Fulton), 141 S Ct. 585 (Sup Ct, 2021) was first decided by the Supreme Court, there was a consensus among bankruptcy attorneys that the erosion of the automatic stay with regard to turnover was only about cars. That is, Fulton was a narrow ruling that was only about impounded vehicles seized prepetition, and wouldn’t really impact or weaken the automatic stay otherwise. Two years on, that . . .

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

Or Sign In Below:

Hale Andrew Antico, Esq.

Bankruptcy Attorney in Los Angeles, CA

Hale Andrew Antico is honored to be chosen to serve his third term as President of cdcbaa, the largest association of Los Angeles bankruptcy attorneys dedicated to representing consumer debtors. Prior to that, he served as President of the Southern California Bankruptcy Inn of Court. He has been representing debtors filing Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases in the greater Los Angeles area for twenty years.

The Gambling Debtor – What is a Chapter 13 Trustee to Do?

Stacey A. O’Stafy

January 28, 2024

Gambling was one of the earliest forms of entertainment, likely pre-dating recorded human history and before man invented minted currency. . . . gambling alone is not evidence of bad faith! Another article on this topic: If You’re Gonna Bet the Farm, Maybe Play Against the House

Members

One Woman’s Opinion

December 13, 2020

By Margaret A. Burks, Chapter 13 Standing Trustee for the Southern District of Ohio (Cincinnati) Chapter 13 works. Some people wish to continually criticize Chapter 13. They criticize the success rate. They criticize racial bias. They criticize how Chapter 13 works. They also criticize the fact that Chapter 13 appears less voluntary than it was before access to Chapter 7...

Looking Beyond Taggart: Is the Contempt Standard for a Stay Violation the Same as for a Discharge Injunction Violation?

May 5, 2019

By Lawrence R. Ahern III, Brown & Ahern (Nashville, TN) Background 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 the creditor's belief was...

Members

Memorial Day 2023

The Academy

May 28, 2023

Memorial Day 2023 Honoring the Sacrifices of All Who Served

Plan Confirmation, Valuation of Claims, and Burden of Proof

Robert G. Drummond

November 10, 2024

Some courts require debtors to prove collateral value as part of plan confirmation, while others shift the burden to creditors if debtors cast doubt on claim validity. Here Drummond looks at a new decision casting the burden on the debtor.

Members

Critical Case Comment – Sec. 328 vs. Sec. 327 Not Exactly a Smack Down

Henry E. Hildebrand, III

July 17, 2022

A referral fee by retained special counsel paid to debtor’s attorney violates the prohibition in § 504 in that the referral fee constitutes an unauthorized splitting of attorney’s fees. (Williamson) In re Davis, 638 B.R. 198 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. March 31, 2022) Case Summary Four years after Lisa Davis filed her Chapter 13 petition, she was involved in an auto...

Members

Critical Case Comment – Bad Faith to Not Pay Both Tests?

Henry E. Hildebrand, III

February 27, 2022

Chapter 13 debtor is not obligated to pay both the disposable income pool and the best interest of creditors test pool to achieve confirmation, only the larger of the two; it is not a manifestation of bad faith that the debtor does not pay both the disposable income pool and the best interest of creditors test amounts. (Altenberger) In re...

Members

From the Editor – Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

February 2, 2020

By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired) Limitations period for actions under FDCPA. Construing the statute of limitations for actions against debt collectors under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), the Supreme Court held that “absent the application of an equitable doctrine, the statute of limitations in § 1692k(d) begins to run on the date on which the alleged...

Members

Engaging a Non-Profit to Solve the Chapter 13 Trustees PSLF Conundrum

March 8, 2020

By Ed Boltz, The Law Offices of John T. Orcutt, P.C. (Durham, NC) and Sarah Beth Withers, Inner Banks Legal Services (Washington, NC) DISCLAIMER: This article is not meant to provide specific advice about the formation of a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation or the tax or other consequences of such. At most, this is intended to encourage Chapter 13 trustees and...

Members

Impact of the Repeal of Cares Act Chapter 13 Plan Modifications: Is It a Death Knell for Cases Beyond 60 Months?

Michael B. Joseph

January 8, 2023

Under the CARES Act 11 USC § 1329 was amended to include a temporary provision that permitted confirmed chapter 13 plans to extend the plan term to up to 84 months. To do so, debtors were required to show they were affected by COVID, § 1329(d).i The maximum term under 11 USC §1329(c) has always been 60 months. Under the...

Members