Approximately a year and a half after the debtors abandoned their condominium and stopped paying their homeowners assessments, they filed for chapter 13 bankruptcy. Their plan proposed to transfer title to the secured creditor, Bank of America, and made no provision for payment of ongoing Homeowners Association assessments. Both the bank and the HOA objected to confirmation of the plan. The bankruptcy court sustained the Bank’s objection but denied the HOA’s and confirmed the plan insofar as it did not include payment of ongoing HOA assessments. In re Coonfield, No. 14-2533 (Bankr. E.D. Wash. Sept. 25, 2014). [Read more…] about Ongoing Homeowners Association Assessments Dischargeable
“Public Assistance” Exemption Revisited
In contrast with the recently reported case, In re Vazquez, the BAP for the Eighth Circuit reiterated its analysis of what constitutes “public assistance,” under Minnesota exemption laws to take into consideration whether the recipient of the assistance is “needy.” Christians v. Dmitruk (In re Dmitruk), No. 14-6023 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. Sept. 15, 2014). [Read more…] about “Public Assistance” Exemption Revisited
No En Banc Rehearing in Crawford
The Eleventh Circuit declined to revisit its decision in Crawford v. LVNV Funding, No. 13-12389 (11th Cir. July 10, 2014), where it found that a proof of claim to collect a stale debt in chapter 13 bankruptcy violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. See NCBRC Blog here. On September 18th, the court denied LVNV Funding and Resurgent Capital Services’s petition for rehearing en banc.
Some commentators predicted that the court might take on the rehearing because the decision upset a body of law prohibiting such FDCPA claims. See, e.g., Inside ARM blog here, and Bankruptcy Law Blog here. Specifically, the Crawford decision conflicts with Walls v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 276 F. 3d 502 (9th Cir. 2002), where the court found that the Bankruptcy Code preempts the FDCPA and that, therefore, the debtor’s remedy for violation of the discharge injunction was limited to contempt under section 105 of the Bankruptcy Code.
In Crawford, the court side-stepped the question of preemption stating: “Some circuits hold that the Bankruptcy Code displaces the FDCPA in the bankruptcy context. See Simmons v. Roundup Funding, LLC, 622 F.3d 93, 96 (2d Cir. 2010); Walls v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 276 F.3d 502, 510 (9th Cir. 2002). Other circuits hold the opposite. See Simon v. FIA Card Ser., N.A., 732 F.3d 259, 271−74 (3d Cir. 2013); Randolph v. IMBS, Inc., 368 F.3d 726, 730−33 (7th Cir. 2004). In any event, we need not address this issue because LVNV argues only that its conduct does not fall under the FDCPA or, alternatively, did not offend the FDCPA’s prohibitions. LVNV does not contend that the Bankruptcy Code displaces or “preempts” §§ 1692e and 1692f of the FDCPA.”
Disclose, Disclose, Disclose
If you are filing for bankruptcy, do not forget to mention in your schedules the business interest you recently sold or the property you own in Mexico. That was the lesson learned by a couple of debtors who were denied discharge for just such omissions. Gronlund v. Anderson (In re Gronlund), No. 13-1566 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Aug. 19, 2014) on appeal No. 14- 60053 (9th Cir.); In re Michelotti, No. 12-21679, Adv. Proc. No. 13-40 (Bankr. W.D. Tenn. July 17, 2014) on appeal, No. 14-8048 (B.A.P. 6th Cir.). [Read more…] about Disclose, Disclose, Disclose
“Public Assistance Benefit” Not Tied to Wealth of Debtor
The definition of “public assistance benefit” for bankruptcy exemption purposes is not tied to the affluence of the debtor. In re Vazquez, No. 13-32174 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Sept. 8, 2014). [Read more…] about “Public Assistance Benefit” Not Tied to Wealth of Debtor
Proof of Claim Violates Discharge Injunction
An Alabama district court upheld a sanction award for violation of the discharge injunction based on the creditor’s filing a proof of claim in a subsequent bankruptcy. McLean v. Greenpoint Credit (In re McLean), No. 13-925 (M.D. Ala. Sept. 4, 2014). [Read more…] about Proof of Claim Violates Discharge Injunction
Galaxies Apart…
Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus is the classic guide to understanding relationships between men and women. A similar resource is desperately needed for consumer advocates and some federal regulators (Treasury and the NMS Monitor, specifically) because it seems we are not even working in the same galaxy! As evidence of this cosmic disconnect, Ocwen Financial Corp. recently announced (here) that it had received top marks from the HAMP compliance team in all categories for the second quarter of 2014. This is the same Ocwen that in December 2013 agreed to a consent order with the CFPB and authorities from 49 states who believed that “Ocwen engaged in significant and systemic conduct that occurred at every stage of the mortgage servicing process.” (See CFPB Press Release and Complaint, here). According to the CFPB complaint Ocwen: (1) took advantage of homeowners with servicing shortcuts and unauthorized fees; (2) deceived consumer about foreclosure alternatives and improperly denied loan modification; and (3) engaged in illegal foreclosure practices. It would be great if Ocwen truly remedied all these deficiencies in such a short time, but that’s not the experience on the ground. The glowing report from Treasury’s HAMP team sadly suggests that six years after the mortgage meltdown consumer advocates and regulators are still worlds apart in even understanding how to measure compliance with Obama’s flagship program to help struggling homeowners.
Canadian Retirement Benefits Excluded from Current Monthly Income
A Treaty between Canada and the United States that became effective in 1984 was the basis for a bankruptcy court finding that Canadian Old Age Security (OAS) benefits should be treated the same way as U.S. social security benefits for purposes of application of the Bankruptcy Code. In re McPhee, No.13-36046 (Bankr. E.D. Va. Aug. 26, 2014). [Read more…] about Canadian Retirement Benefits Excluded from Current Monthly Income
Eighth Circuit Joins Sister Courts on Lien Stripping in Chapter 13
Dealing with the issue it side-stepped in Fisette v. Keller (In re Fisette), 695 F.3d 803 (8th Cir. 2012), and joining all other circuit courts to address the issue, the Eighth Circuit held that a wholly unsecured lien may be stripped in chapter 13. Minn. Hous. Fin. Agency v. Schmidt (In re Schmidt), No. 13-2447 (8th Cir. Aug. 28, 2014). [Read more…] about Eighth Circuit Joins Sister Courts on Lien Stripping in Chapter 13
Trustee Must Disgorge Fee Collected in Unconfirmed Chapter 13 Plan
Addressing an issue that “has been percolating through the courts,” an Arkansas bankruptcy court found that when a chapter 13 plan is not confirmed, the standing trustee must return to the debtors his percentage fee based on undisbursed payments on that plan. In re Dickens, No. 12-16982 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. July 25, 2014). [Read more…] about Trustee Must Disgorge Fee Collected in Unconfirmed Chapter 13 Plan