Critical Case Comment

By Henry E. Hildebrand, III, Chapter 13 Trustee for the Middle District of TN (Nashville)

Where a Chapter 13 plan provides that a mortgage payment will be paid “outside the plan,” the plan does not “provide for” the mortgage payment and, accordingly, the discharge under § 1328 is not applicable to the mortgage obligation. Dukes v. Suncoast Credit Union, 909 F.3d 1306 (11th Cir. December 6, 2018) (Carnes)

Case Summary

Mildred Dukes filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy in 2009 and proposed a plan that would deal with two outstanding mortgages with Suncoast Credit Union. The only . . .

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

Or Sign In Below:

No Author Biography has been linked to this Article.

Critical Case Comment – Debtor Bears Burden of Proof to Be Ones Own Disbursing Agent

Henry E. Hildebrand, III

January 21, 2024

There is a presumption that the trustee will make disbursements under a confirmed Chapter 13 plan and the debtor bears the burden of demonstrating sufficient grounds to justify acting as her own disbursing agent.

Members

2019 Legislation Affecting Bankruptcy Practice

August 18, 2019

By Lawrence R. Ahern, III, Brown & Ahern (Nashville, TN) PART I Overview Introduction Four bankruptcy-related bills have been passed by both the House and the Senate this term. The legislation was sent to the President for signature on August 13, 2019.1 The bills were not controversial and had bipartisan support. The legislation affects both business and consumer cases. One...

Members

Legal Aid and Who Are Our Chapter 13 “Customers”

January 31, 2021

By Rachel Jones, Staff Attorney to Chapter 13 Standing Trustee Chris Micale, Western District of Virginia (Roanoke) The events of 2020 have had a devastating impact on the very low-income population. The working poor are struggling, particularly those working in sectors such as hospitality and tourism. State and Federal funding and local programs such as food banks and community action...

The Effect of “Success” (or the Lack of It) on Attorneys’ Fees – Part 1: Judicial and Legislative Background

Lawrence R. Ahern, III

September 18, 2022

Introduction In In re Village Apothecary, Inc.,1 the Sixth Circuit last month reduced an attorney's fees by half, where the professional's services were not "successful." The results obtained (or, actually, the lack of results) justified cutting the fees of attorneys for a Chapter 7 trustee by 50%. Why It Matters to Chapter 13 People This analysis of the implications of...

Members

From the Editor

March 17, 2019

By Wm. Houston Brown, United States Bankruptcy Judge (Retired) Confirmation - Bankruptcy court could not sua sponte object to confirmation. Distinguishing between “self-executing” provisions of the Code and those sections that were not “self-executing,” and discussing Espinosa’s impact on that distinction, District Court held that the bankruptcy court could not sua sponte object to confirmation based on the above- median...

Members

ABI Commission on Consumer Bankruptcy – Post-Petition Changes in Value

July 14, 2019

By Henry E. Hildebrand, III, Chapter 13 Standing Trustee (Nashville, TN) One of the issues raised at the public hearings of the Commission concerned Chapter 7 trustees that would not take prompt action to abandon exempt or partially exempt assets but, would retain assets in the hope that there might be equity in the future to sell the asset for...

Members

Fraud Imputed to Partner – Bartenwerfer v. Buckley

The Honorable William Houston Brown

February 26, 2023

On February 22, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, 598 U.S. _____, 2023 WL 2023 WL 2144417 (Feb. 22, 2023), affirming the Ninth Circuit’s decision and resolving “confusion in the lower courts on the meaning of § 523(a)(2)(A).”1 Two Justices joined the opinion with the understanding that the Court was only addressing fraud in the context...

Members

From the Editor – Confirmation

March 8, 2020

By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired) Plan did not properly address 910 creditor’s liens. Finding that the plan did not satisfy one of the three options for addressing a secured claim under § 1325(a)(5), specifically failing to provide for the 910 creditor’s retention of lien, the Panel observed that in response to the creditor’s objection to confirmation, the debtors...

Members

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

Hale Andrew Antico

December 11, 2022

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...

Members

Critical Case Comment – No Approval No Pay

Henry E. Hildebrand, III

May 15, 2022

It is incumbent upon nonbankruptcy attorneys, including personal injury attorneys, to verify on PACER that their client is not a debtor and that the cause of action as to which they represent their client is not property of the estate; failure to obtain approval of the bankruptcy court for representing a debtor or settlement of a personal injury action is...