Browse All Articles

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia issued a public reprimand to a debtor’s attorney after concluding that his representation failed to meet the minimum competency standards required in Chapter 13 practice.

Objections matter. Court rejected proposed 0% interest, finding it bad faith and ordering the debtor to pay servicer 5.1666% instead.

In preparation for our upcoming** webinar addressing means test conundrums, Attorney Davis brings readers a foundation of appellate decisions. **Save the Date: February 18th 2:00 Eastern

The payment method change that made Chapter 13 work better for everyone.

Chapter 13 plan, confirmed to pay a 2% dividend to unsecured creditors, cannot be modified under § 1329 when a joint debtor passes away resulting in a substantial increase in non-exempt equity in the surviving debtor spouse.

The final in our series of key decisions every bankruptcy practitioner should recognize—both by name and by the issues they resolve. This week’s ‘memory work’ is: Baker Botts v. ASARCO; Northern Pipeline v. Marathon Pipe Line; Exec. Benefits Ins. v. Arkison; and Wellness v. Sharif

On November 24, 2025, the United States Postal Service quietly revised its policy on when mail is postmarked — a change that could have big implications for anyone who relies on postmarks to prove they mailed something on a specific date.

Consider the following Christmas miracle: Bob Cratchit has a long-term mortgage with Scrooge & Marley Bank. Bob Cratchit dies and there is a default on the mortgage. The mortgaged residence then passes to his son, Tiny Tim, by operation of law. Tiny Tim files for chapter 13 and includes the defaulted mortgage with Scrooge & Marley Bank in his plan. Scrooge & Marley Bank argues it has no claim against Tiny Tim because privity of contract is lacking, and Scrooge & Marley Bank therefore has no debtor-creditor relationship with Tiny Tim. How might the court rule?

Modification of a confirmed Chapter 13 plan cannot be based on speculative, uncertain, and anticipated conditions; the “best interest of creditors test” is determined at the time of confirmation of the original plan and not the confirmation of a modified plan.

In the continually evolving field of consumer bankruptcy law, a series of Supreme Court decisions shape how cases are administered nationwide. Over the coming weeks, we will highlight key decisions that every bankruptcy practitioner should recognize—both by name and by the issues they resolve. This week’s ‘memory work’ is: Ritzen Group; Taggart; Midland Funding v. Johnson; Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding; and Husky v. Ritz