The bankruptcy court for the Northern District of Mississippi differentiated between the shifting burdens of proof under Rule 3001, which deals with proofs of claim generally, and Rule 3002.1, relating to notice of changes to mortgage payments on the debtor’s residence. In re Taylor, No. 12-11463 (March 27, 2013).
[Read more…] about No Presumption of Validity for Payment Changes under Rule 3002.1
Creditor Sanctioned to the Tune of $50,000.00
In In re Powell, No. 10–03859 (Bankr. E.D. N.C. June 26, 2012), the court put a leash on the creditor’s dogged pursuit of the debtors. The court found that the creditor, Bank of America, and its servicer, violated the discharge injunction and the automatic stay when it foreclosed on the debtors’ residence after they filed bankruptcy, and relentlessly dunned them for payments post-discharge.
After the debtors obtained their bankruptcy discharge, the creditor began sending monthly billing statements seeking to collect on the mortgage for property the debtors had surrendered. The debtors’ attorney responded with several warning letters and finally with a motion to the court for sanctions. Except one letter claiming to be a debt collector under the FLSA, the creditor otherwise responded like a mindless automaton. It continued its monthly collection efforts unabated. At the hearing on the motion, which the creditor did not attend, one of the debtors testified to the stress and anxiety caused by the continued billing and the ever-increasing amount owed. The court invoked its contempt power under section 105, under which four conditions must be met: 1) there must be a valid decree of which the contemnor had actual or constructive knowledge; 2) the decree must be in the movant’s favor; 3) the contemnor must have violated the terms of the decree, with knowledge of such violations; and 4) the movant must have suffered harm as a result. Finding that each of these conditions was met, the court awarded attorney fees of $3,000.00, damages in the amount of $2,500.00, and sanctions in the amount of $50,000.00.
Are subprime loans making a comeback?
An article in Sunday’s Los Angeles Times suggests that lenders in markets with rising property values, such as California, are looking to increase their subprime lending. While current mortgage interest rates are around 3.5%, these subprime loans come with interest rates starting at 7.95% and going up from there. As with the old subprime products, high fees are common for this next generation of subprime loans. So what’s different? Most new subprime loans require much higher down payments and evidence of the ability to pay.
Seventh Circuit Deals a Blow to Debtors Who Inherit IRAs
In a departure from the majority of courts, the Seventh Circuit has found that debtors cannot exempt inherited IRAs. In re Clark, No. 12-1241 & 12-1255 (April 23, 2013). [Read more…] about Seventh Circuit Deals a Blow to Debtors Who Inherit IRAs
Acceleration Clause Clears Way for Modification
A bankruptcy court in Maryland found that an acceleration clause in a deed of trust, making the remaining debt immediately due, triggered the modification clause of section 1322(c)(2). Fed’l Nat’l Mtg. Ass’n v. Griffin (In re Griffin), No. 12-19863 (March 18, 2013). [Read more…] about Acceleration Clause Clears Way for Modification
Some Hope for Student Loan Debtors
Two recent student loan cases shine a ray of hope for debtors crushed by education-based debts. See Kreiger v. ECMC, No. 12-3592 (7th Cir. Apr. 10, 2013) and Roth v. ECMC, No. 11-1233 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Apr. 16, 2013).
[Read more…] about Some Hope for Student Loan Debtors
Trustee May Not Sell Estate Property Free and Clear of Liens
When the sale price exceeds the value of the property but is less than the aggregate of all liens secured by that property, section 363(f)(3) does not authorize sale of the property. In re Jaussi, No. 12-34062 (Bankr. D. Colo. March 18, 2013). In Jaussi, the chapter 7 trustee moved to sell debtor’s land valued at $39,000.00 to the senior mortgagee for $1,500.00 . Between the mortgage holder and two judgment lienholders, the property was encumbered to the tune of $44,040.56 with $40,181.00 of that amount owed on the mortgage. The motion sought to make the sale free and clear of the two junior judgment liens.
The court found that the sale was not permitted by the Code. Specifically, the sale did not fall under either of the two relevant conditions set forth in section 363(f), under which a trustee may sell estate property free and clear of liens when: “(1) applicable nonbankruptcy law permits sale of such property free and clear of such interest,” or “(3) such interest is a lien and the price at which such property is to be sold is greater than the aggregate value of all liens on such property.”
[Read more…] about Trustee May Not Sell Estate Property Free and Clear of Liens
Post-Confirmation Funds Returned to Debtor after Conversion to Chapter 7
What happens to funds paid into a confirmed chapter 13 plan that are still in the trustee’s possession when the bankruptcy is converted to chapter 7? That is the question recently answered by the district court for the Western District of Texas. The trustee had distributed the funds to creditors post-conversion and upon motion by the debtor, the bankruptcy ordered turnover to the debtor. Relying in large part on the Third Circuit case of In re Michael, 699 F.3d 305 (2012) in which NACBA participated as amicus, the district court affirmed. Veigelahn v. Harris (In re Harris), No. 12-540 (W.D. Tex. March 22, 2013).
Key to the decision was section 348(f) which provides that when a case is converted in good faith from chapter 13 to chapter 7 the property of the estate is determined as of the original petition date. Because the funds at issue had been garnished from debtor’s wages post-confirmation, they were not part of the debtor’s estate upon the original filing of the chapter 13 petition and, therefore, under section 348 would not be part of the chapter 7 estate upon conversion.
The trustee distinguished Stamm v. Morton (In re Stamm), 222 F.3d 216 (5th Cir. 2000), in which funds collected prior to confirmation of the chapter 13 plan were returned to the debtor upon conversion. Here, the trustee argued, the funds were collected post-confirmation thereby giving the creditors a vested interest in them even though the case was later converted. The trustee relied on section 1326(a)(2) which provides that “[i]f a plan is confirmed, the trustee shall distribute any such payment in accordance with the plan as soon as is practicable. If a plan is not confirmed, the trustee shall return any such payments not previously paid and not yet due and owing to creditors . . . to the debtor.” The trustee argued that because Congress specifically provided for the return of funds collected pursuant to a plan that was not confirmed it could be inferred that different treatment should be accorded funds collected after confirmation.
Acknowledging the superficial appeal of the trustee’s position, the court found that the Code sections at issue created an ambiguity that necessitated looking beyond the text. The court found that the legislative history indicated Congress’s intention to encourage debtors to file chapter 13 wherever possible without the inhibiting fear of penalty in the event that the chapter 13 failed and the debtor had to resort to chapter 7. H.R. Rep. No. 95-595 (1977), reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5963, 5966, 1977 WL 9628. In enacting section 348(f) Congress specifically addressed and sought to minimize the potential loss of property that a debtor could face upon conversion from chapter 13 to chapter 7 that would not have been at risk had the debtor filed directly in chapter 7.
The court also rejected the trustee’s argument that there is an inherent unfairness in returning the funds to the debtor upon conversion reasoning that the creditors lost nothing while reaping the benefits of payments made in accordance with the plan up to the time of conversion. Quoting Michael, the court found that the duties of the trustee delineated in section 1326 did not vest any rights in the creditors:
When the debtor transfers funds to the Chapter 13 trustee . . . under a confirmed plan . . . the funds become part of the estate, and the debtor retains a vested interest in them. Though creditors have a right to those payments based on the confirmed plan, the debtor does not lose his vested interest until the trustee affirmatively transfers the funds to creditors. Also, § 1326(a)(2) and (c) only address the obligation of the trustee to distribute payments in accordance with a confirmed plan; they do not vest creditors with any property rights.
Michael,699 F.3d at 313.
Furthermore, section 348(f)(2) protects creditors from unfair manipulation by debtors by including a provision that in the event of a bad faith conversion the estate would consist of property as of the conversion date rather than as of the petition date. As the court in Michael pointed out, the specific expansion of the chapter 7 estate in the event of bad faith, indicates that when the conversion is in good faith, the chapter 7 estate would be as of the petition date.
This is a case that illustrates the power of NACBA’s members to create good law around the country by getting involved in select cases on appeal.
Co-Signed Loans May Receive Special Treatment in Chapter 13
A Chapter 13 plan may provide for full repayment of a co-signed loan even though other unsecured creditors receive less. In re Rivera, No. 12-66 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. Apr. 5, 2013). In Rivera, the debtors proposed a Chapter 13 plan under which one creditor, Villa-Coop, was to receive repayment in full of the unsecured portion of its loan which was co-signed by the debtor’s mother-in-law. The other unsecured creditors would receive repayment of only 4.51 percent on their loans. The trustee objected to the plan because its treatment of Villa-Coop constituted unfair discrimination in violation of section 1322(a)(3) and (b)(1) and that section 1325(b)(1) requires equal distribution of projected disposable income. The bankruptcy court confirmed the plan. In re Rivera, 480 B.R. 112 (Bankr. D. P.R. 2012). [Read more…] about Co-Signed Loans May Receive Special Treatment in Chapter 13
Court Rejects Unsupported Escrow Charges
In In the Matter of Breit, the chapter 13 trustee filed an objection to JPMorgan Chase’s proof of claim relating to the debtor’s residential mortgage. No. 11-32461 (Bankr. N.D. Ind. March 27, 2013). In its POC, Chase claimed an arrearage in the amount of $27,897.09, encompassing unpaid monthly installments of $1,102.53 which represented a principal and interest component of $804.79, and an escrow component of $297.74. Under this calculation, Chase sought $7,145.76 attributable to the escrow deficiency. Although RESPA contemplates the creation of an escrow account to cover, among other things, tax and insurance payments that the mortgage servicer is forced to pay on behalf of a delinquent debtor, the trustee argued that the arrearage claim should be reduced by $3,379.35 because Chase had actually paid only $2,909.37 for those obligations. The court agreed. It rejected Chase’s “mathematical manipulation” (Chase’s phrase) in calculating the pre-petition escrow shortfall and permitted recovery only of those expenditures authorized by RESPA. Thus, even though Chase had met its initial burden of proof with respect to Rule 3001, it failed to counter the trustee’s evidence refuting the POC and therefore failed to meet its ultimate burden of proving the validity of the claim.