The District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia found that the trustee had the power under section 724(b) to require turnover of debtor’s 2002 Lincoln LS for the purpose of selling it to pay a substantial portion of the tax debt even though the tax lienholder had not sought relief from stay for that purpose. Sheehan v. Posin, No. 11-160 (N.D. W.Va., April 23, 2012). In reversing the decision of the bankruptcy court, the district court relied on the plain language of section 724(b) concluding that the trustee’s power to require turnover under section 542 for sale of property securing a tax lien was not contingent upon the lienholder taking the affirmative step of seeking relief from stay.
Stern v. Marshall Construed
Interpreting the Supreme Court decision in Stern v. Marshall, 131 U.S. 2594 (2011), the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky found that it had subject matter jurisdiction over debtor’s state common law counterclaims but did not have jurisdiction over the counterclaims based on Kentucky’s usury and consumer protection statutes. In re Tolliver, No. 09-2076 (Bankr. E.D. Ky. February 2, 2012). The issue arose in an adversary proceeding in which debtor objected to a proof of claim filed by Ocwen Federal Bank, as servicer to Bank of America. Debtor filed counterclaims advancing state statutory and common law claims based on Ocwen’s alleged charging of unauthorized and duplicative fees and costs and improperly inflating debtor’s balance causing her to default. [Read more…] about Stern v. Marshall Construed
Maryland Consumer Protection Laws Reign in Bank’s Unlawful Debt Collection Activities.
In an effort to have its cake and eat it too, J.P. Morgan Chase Bank (Chase) sought to take advantage of state laws permitting the recovery of deficiency debts upon repossession and sale of a vehicle, while at the same time seeking to avoid other state laws that impose conditions upon lenders for the recovery of those debts. The Fourth Circuit said no. Epps v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, No. 10-2444 (4th Cir., April 5, 2012). [Read more…] about Maryland Consumer Protection Laws Reign in Bank’s Unlawful Debt Collection Activities.
Riverside Bankruptcy Court’s Sua Sponte Dismissal Reversed
The District Court for the Central District of California reversed the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of the debtors’ chapter 13 case after debtors filed a notification of conversion to chapter 7. Taylor v. Danielson (In re Taylor), No. 11-1879 (C.D. Cal April 13, 2012). The court distinguished Marrama v. Citizens Bank of Mass., 549 U.S. 365 (2007) where the Supreme Court found that a debtor does not have an absolute right to convert a case from chapter 7 to chapter 13 under section 706(a). In Marrama, the Court reasoned, in part, that conversion from chapter 7 to chapter 13 could result in a debtor either escaping the consequences of bad faith by voluntarily dismissing under chapter 13, or benefiting from the conversion despite bad faith by gaining access to estate assets to the detriment of creditors.
Conversions from chapter 13 to chapter 7 are distinguished by the fact that upon such conversion the trustee has control over estate assets and the court retains jurisdiction over the debtor, so the concerns that were dispositive in Marrama are not present. Additionally, the Bankruptcy Rules treat conversions from chapter 7 to chapter 13 differently than conversion from chapter 13 to chapter 7. Rule 1017(f)(2) contemplates judicial scrutiny over conversions from chapter 7 to chapter 13, while, in contrast, Rule 1017(f)(3) provides that a “chapter 13 case shall be converted without court order when the debtor files a notice of conversion under . . . [§] 1307(a).”
NCBRC’s Tara Twomey assisted in the writing of debtors’ brief.
Section 1325(b) Requirements Not Applicable to Plan Modification
The Ninth Circuit BAP found that the requirement of section 1325(b) that all of the debtor’s projected disposable be paid into the plan during the applicable commitment period, is not incorporated into section 1329 for plan modification. In re Mattson, No. 11-1478 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. April 5, 2012). [Read more…] about Section 1325(b) Requirements Not Applicable to Plan Modification
Appeal of Sua Sponte Dismissal in Central District California
NCBRC’s Tara Twomey assisted debtors’ counsel in appealing a decision by the Bankruptcy Court of the Central District of California, Riverside Division, in which the court refused to give effect to debtors’ notice of conversion and instead dismissed the case with a 180-day bar to refiling. In re Taylor, No. 11-1879 (C.D. Cal.). In Taylor, the judge dismissed debtors’ chapter 13 case sua sponte the day after the chapter 13 debtors filed a notice of conversion to chapter 7. While acknowledging that the notice of conversion had been filed, the court refused to give the notice any effect. At a continued confirmation hearing, debtors’ counsel commented that the case had been converted the prior day, but the judge responded by saying: “No, it wasn’t. Confirmation denied. Cased dismissed. 109(g) applies.” [Read more…] about Appeal of Sua Sponte Dismissal in Central District California
$3,000,000.00 Award Against Wells Fargo
In Charles Dickens’ “A Tale of Two Cities,” there is a scene in which the wealthy Monsieur the Marquis riding in his carriage through a crowd runs over and kills a small, poor, child. When the crowd cries out in outrage, he carelessly throws a few coins out of the window of the carriage with the words, “It is extraordinary to me, that you people cannot take care of yourselves and your children.” With that, he rides on. Thus begins the French Revolution.
For many years, Wells Fargo has been carelessly throwing coins out its carriage window at the debtors overrun by its policies that unfairly compound their already onerous financial burdens. But, debtors, with the help of the courts, are fighting back.
The recent battlefield was the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana in the case of Jones v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, No. 03-16518 (Bankr. E.D. La, April 5, 2012). In that case Judge Elizabeth Magner reviewed an order for sanctions after remand by the Fifth Circuit, in light of the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Stewart (In re Stewart), 647 F.3d 553 (5th Cir. 2011) (finding that Bankruptcy overstepped its mandate in ordering Wells Fargo to audit every case it was involved in in the district). [Read more…] about $3,000,000.00 Award Against Wells Fargo
Bankruptcy-Only Exemptions Constitutional
In a lengthy and comprehensive opinion, Judge Karlin of the Bankruptcy Court of Kansas, overruled the trustee’s objection to debtor’s claimed exemption for earned income tax credits under a state bankruptcy-only exemption scheme. In re Westby, No. 11-40986, 2012 Bankr. LEXIS 1428, (Bankr. Kan. April 4, 2012).The trustee had challenged the exemption in Westby and several other cases based on the contention that the state exemption violated the Uniformity and Supremacy Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. [Read more…] about Bankruptcy-Only Exemptions Constitutional
MERS Survives Challenge to its Business Model
The Eastern District of New York found that the Bankruptcy Court overstepped its jurisdictional bounds when it entered an advisory opinion that MERS, as “nominee,” had no power to assign mortgages. In re Agard, No. 11-1826 (E.D. N.Y. March 28, 2012). [Read more…] about MERS Survives Challenge to its Business Model
No Requirement upon Conversion to Chapter 7 to Turn Over Tax Refund
The BAP for the Ninth Circuit found that a pre-petition tax refund which was obtained and spent by chapter 13 debtor post-petition but prior to confirmation of chapter 13 plan, was not subject to turnover upon conversion to chapter 7. Warfield v. Salazar (In re Salazar), No. 11-1551 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. March 14, 2012), The court found that the case turned on interpretation of section 348(f)(1)(A) which provides that upon conversion from chapter 13 to chapter 7 the estate consists of property in the possession or control of debtor at the date of conversion. Noting that section 348(f)(1)(A) creates an anomaly whereby a debtor who remains in chapter 13 would have had to have included the refund in the plan, and a debtor who had filed originally in chapter 7 would have been required to turn over the refund, the court found that the plain language of that section pinpoints the date of conversion as the relevant point. Applying rules of statutory construction, the court found that this result was not absurd and that, in the absence of bad faith, the debtors therefore were not required to turn over the tax refund.