Critical Case Comment – If Objection, Arrears Gotta’ Be Equal Monthly Installments • NACTT Academy

Critical Case Comment – If Objection, Arrears Gotta’ Be Equal Monthly Installments

When a mortgage servicer objects to the plan based on its failure to pay mortgage arrears in equal monthly payments, § 1325(a)(5)(B) requires the debtor to amend to pay the arrears in equal monthly payments. (Hanan) In re Randell, 638 B.R. 104 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. January 19, 2022)

Case Summary

Ms. Randell proposed a rather conventional Chapter 13 plan, seeking to “cure and maintain” a mortgage on her residence that had fallen into arrears. In a preliminary hearing on confirmation, the affected mortgage creditors verbally objected to the proposed . . .

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.

Bankruptcy Court Broadly Interprets “Engaged in Business” Requirement for Subchapter V Eligibility

May 23, 2021

By Lawrence R. Ahern, III, Brown & Ahern (Nashville, TN) Introduction The Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado ruled recently, in a case styled In re Ikalowych,1 that while eligibility for subchapter V of Chapter 112 requires that 50% of a debtor's debt must arise from commercial or business activities, the debtor was not required to be directly involved...

Members

Critical Case Comment – You Gotta Tell SOMEBODY!

Henry E. Hildebrand, III

December 18, 2022

Where a debtor fails to disclose to the Court or the trustee a forbearance on his mortgage that he was to pay directly, the Court would grant the trustee’s motion to modify to recapture as much as possible of the surplus funds the forbearance generated. (Kenney) In re Ilyev, 2022 WL 2965029 (Bankr. E.D. Va. July 26, 2022) Case Summary...

Members

CFPB Settles with Student CU Connect CUSO Over ITT Private Loan Program

June 16, 2019

On 6/14/19, the CFPB (Bureau) announced a settlement with Student CU Connect CUSO, LLC (CUSO), a company set up to hold and manage private loans for students at ITT Technical Institute. The Bureau filed a complaint and a proposed stipulated judgment in federal district court for the Southern District of Indiana alleging that CUSO provided substantial assistance to ITT Educational...

Critical Case Comment–Tardy Filed Stay Extension: Too Bad Too Sad

Henry E. Hildebrand, III

January 7, 2024

Court lacks authority to extend stay in a case with a one-time repeat filer within a year of the previous case especially where the matter is tardily raised.

Members

In re Lazaro: Non-Monetary Default and § 1322(b)(5)

James M. Davis

June 4, 2023

Can a debtor provide for a non-debtor’s loan under § 1322(b)(5) even if the plan does not address a non-monetary default on the claim? In re Lazaro suggests the answer may be “yes.” In that case, the Court held not only that the Debtor’s plan could provide to cure a monetary default on a loan taken out by the Debtor’s...

Members

A Sappy Farewell to Jeff Kellner as the Dayton Chapter 13 Trustee

September 29, 2019

By The Honorable Guy R. Humphrey, Southern District of Ohio It is with heavy hearts that we in Dayton, Ohio say our farewells to Jeff Kellner as our Chapter 13 Trustee. Jeff will be concluding his duties as the Trustee on September 30th and handing the reins over to John Jansing on October 1st. Listing Jeff’s contributions to the bankruptcy...

From the IRS – Using Strong Password Is a Strong Defense Against Identity Thieves

December 15, 2019

Two things taxpayers can do to protect themselves from identity theft is to use strong passwords and keep those passwords secure. While many people use fingerprint or facial recognition technology to protect their devices, sometimes it’s still necessary to use a password. In recent years, cybersecurity experts’ recommendations on what constitutes a strong password has changed. With that in mind,...

The Hanging Paragraph – Hanging on Every Word Part 3 of 4

June 28, 2020

By Anthony J. Gomez, CPA, former extern to the Honorable John P. Gustafson, Northern District of Ohio at Toledo Click here for Part 1 Click here for Part 2 IV. The Hanging Paragraph’s effect on Interest Rates When the hanging paragraph is applicable, creditors are entitled to the full value of their secured claims as . . . It looks...

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

The Long Reach of R. 3002.1

Cathy Moran

August 20, 2023

What are the consequences of a secured lender’s failure to comply with R. 3002.1 in a prior case when the debtor files again? Significant, it seems. . . . since their attorney said he “didn’t see the need” to do so. [Can you guess, now, how this comes out?]

Members