NACBA has filed an amicus brief in the case of In re Maharaj, No. 11-1747 (4th Cir.) challenging the application of the absolute priority rule to individual debtors in chapter 11.
Brief
NACBA files Amicus in Conversion Case
NACBA filed an Amicus brief in the case of DeHart v. Michael, No. 11-1992 (3d Cir.). The case involves a debtor who converted his chapter 13 case to a chapter 7 after paying into his plan for several years. At the time of the conversion, the estate held some undistributed post-petition wages and the trustee argued that the creditors had a vested right to those funds. The lower courts rejected this argument and the trustee brought this appeal. NACBA’s brief argues that, under section 348(f) a chapter 7 estate that has been converted from chapter 13 consists of the property owned by the debtor at the time of the original chapter 13 petition, and, therefore, the debtor is entitled to return of his post-petition wages.
NACBA member, Irv Ackelsberg, filed the brief on behalf of NACBA.
Brief
NACBA Files Amicus Brief on Issue of Claiming 100% FMV for Exemption
In the case of In re Massey, No. 11-60 (B.A.P. 1st Cir.) NACBA has filed an amicus brief arguing that pursuant to the plain language of the Bankruptcy Code and the Supreme Court’s decision in Schwab v. Reilly, 560 U.S. __,130 S.Ct. 2652 (2010) a debtor may claim an exemption in property in the amount of 100% of the fair market value. The brief further argues that if the trustee believes that the fair market value of debtor’s interest in the property exceeds the allowed amount for the exemption, that issue is properly the subject of an evidentiary hearing. Finally, NACBA disputes the trustee’s position that post-petition appreciation of a fully exempt is property of the estate.
Brief
New Jersey Supreme Court Finds Post-Foreclosure-Judgment Agreement Subject to CFA
In Gonzalez v. Wilshire Credit Corp., (A-99-09) (065564) (N.J. Sup.Ct., August 29, 2011), the New Jersey Supreme Court found that the state Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 to -195, applies to a post-foreclosure-judgment agreement.In that case, the debtor, an uneducated, disabled woman, who neither spoke nor read English, entered into two new agreements with the servicer of the mortgage secured by her residence. The second agreement specified arrearages greater than the amount found by the trial court, and “packed” the loan with force placed insurance. The court rejected the lender’s characterization of the agreement as a settlement of the foreclosure action and instead determined that the post-judgment agreement was an extension of credit in and of itself and, therefore, constituted a new loan which was subject to the CFA’s prohibition against unconscionable practices. The court noted that the realities of the mortgage industry, in which the original mortgagee rarely continues to hold and service the loan, did not insulate the servicer from the consequences of its fraudulent lending practices. In reaching its conclusion the court cited the article co-authored by NCBRC’s Tara Twomey relating to the role of a servicing agent in the mortgage industry. Adam J. Levitin & Tara Twomey, Mortgage Servicing, 28 Yale J. on Reg. 1, 15, 23, 25-28 (2011).
Opinion
8th Cir. BAP Allows Strip Off in No-Discharge 13
Today the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit reversed a Minnesota Bankruptcy Court in Fisette v. Keller, No. 11-6012, and that a debtor may strip off wholly underwater junior mortgages when the debtor is not eligible for a discharge in chapter 13. Prior to Fisette, the bankruptcy courts in the District of Minnesota had disallowed the strip of of underwater mortgages even when the debtor was eligible for a discharge. See the decision here.
The End of Mortgage Securitization?
This newly released paper suggests that the use of MERS to electronically transfer mortgages introduces significant vulnerability into the securitization process by threatening the bankruptcy remoteness between loan originator and trust.
Click here for the paper.
EZ Tax Transcripts for Loan Modifications
The IRS has created a new Form 4506T-EZ, Short Form Request for Individual Tax Return Transcript, to order a transcript of a Form 1040 series return. The IRS created this streamlined form to help those taxpayers trying to obtain, modify or refinance a home mortgage. Transcripts may also be mailed to a third party, such as a mortgage institution, if specified on the form. Form 4506T-EZ can be used to to request a tax return transcript for the current and the prior three years that includes most lines of the original tax return.
Fifth Circuit Affirms Denial of Attorney Fees to Wells Fargo
In a per curiam decision, the Fifth Circuit, in In re Collins, No. 10-20658 (5th Cir. August 15, 2011), upheld the lower courts’ findings that Wells Fargo was not entitled to attorney fees for filing a proof of claim where it disputed the amount of the debt as listed in the debtor’s proof of claim. The lower courts found that interpretation of the Deed of Trust did not support Wells Fargo’s position, see In re Collins, No. 07-38246, 2009 Bankr. LEXIS 1554 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. June 8, 2009), aff’d sub nom. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Collins, No. H:09-2483, 2010U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85195 (S.D.Tex. Aug. 19, 2010). In affirming, the Fifth Circuit explained that it found no reversible error in that conclusion. NACBA assisted with the debtor’s brief.
NCBRC Files Amicus on Absolute Priority Rule in Chapter 11
NCBRC’s Tara Twomey has filed an amicus brief on behalf of NACBA in the case of In re Friedman, No. 11-1149 (9th Cir. BAP) arguing that the absolute priority rule in chapter 11 does not apply to individual debtors. NCBRC’s brief argues that when Congress enacted the 2005 amendments it made significant amendments to chapter 11 in order to steer debtors toward reorganization rather than liquidation. Application of the absolute priority rule would have the contrary effect. This case presents one of the first opportunities for an appellate court to address whether the 2005 amendments to the Code abrogate the absolute priority rule for individuals. Other cases addressing this issue that are currently in the courts include: In re Maharaj, No. 11-217 (4th Cir.); In re Kamell, No. 11-1246 (9th Cir. BAP); In re Stephens, No. 11-29 (10th Cir. BAP); and In re Cobb, No. 09-25620 (Bankr. C.D. Cal.). Click here for the brief.
NCBRC Files Amicus in Vehicle Ownership Expense Case
NCBRC has filed an amicus brief in In re Scott, No. 10-33131 (Bankr. S.D. Ill), involving the calculation of projected disposable income for vehicle ownership expense where the debtor’s actual contractual payments were less than the deduction allowed under the IRS Local Standards. NCBRC’s brief relies on the plain language of section 707(b)(2)(A)(ii)(I) for the position that a chapter 13 plan need not calculate pdi based upon the lesser of the IRS allowed deduction or the debtor’s actual payments. This position is further supported by the statute’s legislative history and is not undermined by the decision in Ransom nor is it contrary to bankruptcy policy. NCBRC’s brief was written by Jim Haller. Click here for the brief.