National Consumer Bankruptcy Rights Center

Protecting The Rights Of Consumer Debtors In Bankruptcy

Discharge Injunction

by on

Discharge Injunction Claim Subject to Arbitration – Overturned on Reconsideration

Discharge of the credit card debts did not render the arbitration clause of the credit card agreement unenforceable and, where the clause was valid and not in conflict with the Code, the credit card companies’ motion to compel should have been granted. Belton v. GE Capital Consumer Lending Inc., No. 15-1934, consolidated with In re Bruce, No.15-3311 (S.D. N.Y. Oct. 14, 2015). [Read more…] about Discharge Injunction Claim Subject to Arbitration – Overturned on Reconsideration

by on

Cautionary Tale: Pro Se Debtor Stuck with Reaffirmation Agreement

The court was powerless to permit the pro se debtor to rescind her reaffirmation agreement with her car creditor where she failed to rescind the agreement within the sixty-day time limit outlined in section 524(c)(4). In re Galloway-O’Connor, 2015 Bankr. LEXIS  3283, No. 15-70981 (Bankr. E.D. N.Y. September 29, 2015). [Read more…] about Cautionary Tale: Pro Se Debtor Stuck with Reaffirmation Agreement

by on

Pernicious Scam Targets Bankruptcy Filers

A new scam targeting bankruptcy filers has emerged in several states under which con artists, posing as the intended victim’s bankruptcy attorney or a staff member, are calling and telling the consumer to wire money immediately to satisfy a debt. The callers may threaten the consumer with dismissal of their ongoing bankruptcy case, discharge revocation, or even arrest. Callers tend to be sophisticated and well-informed with knowledge of details about the case, perhaps through access to PACER, including the judge’s name and case status.

One bankruptcy attorney reported the following scenario. His client received a call during non-business hours using “spoofing” technology to make it appear on Caller ID that the call was coming from the bankruptcy attorney’s office. The caller identified himself as an associate of the intended victim’s attorney and explained that a creditor was opposing discharge and that, to prevent the unraveling of the case, the attorney had negotiated a settlement outside bankruptcy under which the debtor must immediately wire money directly to the creditor. Failure to do so was likely to result in dismissal or discharge revocation. Fortunately, the client suspected a scam and hung up.

In light of this and other scams, it would be wise for bankruptcy attorneys to explain to all clients the specific method of communication they employ when contacting clients. Clients should be warned that under no circumstances would a bankruptcy attorney or staff member telephone and ask for a wire transfer immediately to satisfy a debt. Nor would the bankruptcy attorney or staff member ever threaten arrest if a debt is not paid. Clients should be advised that the best thing to do upon receipt of one of these calls is to hang up without giving out any personal or account information and contact their bankruptcy attorney as soon as possible. Recipients of these calls should also contact their state Attorney General’s Consumer Assistance Program.

by on

POC Violates Discharge Injunction

Filing a proof of claim for a deficiency judgment that was discharged in a previous bankruptcy violates the discharge injunction. Green Point Credit v. McLean, No. 14-14002 (11th Cir. July 24, 2015). Green Point Credit, LLC and Green Tree Servicing LLC (Green Tree) filed a proof of claim for a debt that had been discharged in McLean’s previous bankruptcy and the McLeans filed an adversary proceeding seeking damages for violation of the discharge injunction. Four days later, Green Tree, acknowledging that the claim had been filed in error, withdrew it. The bankruptcy court found that Green Tree violated the discharge injunction and awarded compensatory damages for McLean’s emotional distress, attorney’s fees, and a “coercive” sanction. The district court affirmed. [Read more…] about POC Violates Discharge Injunction

by on

Discharge Precludes Deficiency Judgment from Post-Discharge Foreclosure

Does the debtors’ chapter 13 discharge extinguish their liability for a deficiency arising from a post-discharge foreclosure sale of their principal residence by a secured creditor whose claim was paid outside the plan? The Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina said that it does. In re Rogers, No. 08-8341 (Bankr. E.D. N.C. July 8, 2013).

The issue came before the court when the creditor moved for an order that the earlier discharge did not relieve the debtors’ of personal liability on the post-discharge deficiency. The first hurdle the debtors overcame was the court’s finding that, for discharge purposes, the debt was “provided for” by the plan. The mortgagee had filed a proof of claim and the plan specified that the debtors would continue the payments on the mortgage outside the plan according to the terms of the lending documents. There was no deficiency to be cured through the plan. In Rake v. Wade, 508 U.S. 464, 473-74 (1993), it was established that any plan that describes treatment of a debt, even if that treatment is outside the plan, “provides for” the debt.

The court next found that even though the debtors’ payments on the debt extended beyond the life of the plan, section 1322(b)(5)’s “cure and maintain” provision was not implicated because there was no arrearage to cure through the plan. Therefore, section 1328(a)(1), which states that debts provided for under section 1322(b)(5) were nondischargeable, did not prevent the outcome sought by the debtors.

Finally, the court rejected the argument that by relieving the debtors of the burden of paying the deficiency, the court was “modifying” its rights in violation of section 1322(b) as interpreted by the Court in Nobelman v. American Savings Bank, 508 U.S. 324, 326 (1993). The court found that, in confirming debtors’ plan which merely referenced the lending agreement, the court had not altered the creditor’s rights in any way not permitted by the Code. While the discharge released the debtor from personal liability under Dewsnup v. Timm, 502 U.S. 410, 414 (1992) and Johnson v. Home State Bank, 501 U.S. 78, 84 (1991), in rem liability remained post-discharge and the creditor was able to avail itself of its rights under state law to foreclose based on that liability. The court concluded that, as it had found in its earlier decision in In re Lane, No. 97-06850-8-JRL (Bankr. E.D. N.C. July 13, 2006), “[t]he discharge extinguished their personal liability with respect to any past, present or future judgment arising from SECU’s claim, which was provided for under the debtors’ plan and discharged under § 1328(a).”

Rogers opinion