National Consumer Bankruptcy Rights Center

Protecting The Rights Of Consumer Debtors In Bankruptcy

bankruptcy

by on

Absolute Right to Dismiss v. Bad Faith

Section 1307(b) grants debtors an absolute right of dismissal which is not limited by the court’s inherent power to punish bad faith conduct. Nichols v. Marana Stockyard & Livestock Market, No. 20-60043 (9th Cir. Sept. 1, 2021).

After the debtors filed their chapter 13 petition, they were indicted on a scheme to defraud the Marana Stockyard & Livestock Market. In order to avoid disclosing information that might harm their federal criminal case, the debtors declined to attend their 341 meeting of creditors, provide tax returns, or submit a proposed plan. Marana, acting as a claimant in the bankruptcy case, eventually moved to have the case converted to chapter 7 and the debtors responded with a motion to stay the bankruptcy proceedings. The bankruptcy court denied the motion for stay and granted the motion for conversion “for cause.” The debtors then moved for voluntary dismissal under section 1307(b) which provides: “On request of the debtor at any time, if the case has not been converted . . ., the court shall dismiss a case under this chapter.”

Denying the debtors’ motion for voluntary dismissal, the bankruptcy court relied on In re Rosson, 545 F.3d 764 (9th Cir. 2008), where the circuit court held that there was an implied bad faith exception to a debtor’s right to voluntarily dismiss. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. [Read more…] about Absolute Right to Dismiss v. Bad Faith

by on

Retroactive vs Prospective Relief from Stay

The bankruptcy court erred when it denied prospective relief from stay based on the same analysis it used when it denied the mortgage creditor’s retroactive annulment of stay motion. Wilmington Savings Fund Soc’y v. Fairbanks, No. 21-1019 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Aug. 12, 2021) (unpublished).

When the debtor defaulted on her mortgage payments, she hired Home Matters USA to communicate with the foreclosure trustee. Home Matters assured her that, due to Covid foreclosure restrictions, her home would not be sold at auction. Home Matters failed to adequately protect her and her mortgage creditor, Wilmington Savings Fund Society, held a nonjudicial foreclosure auction where it sold the property for $7,000 in excess of the total debt. The sale was the first indication to the debtor that her property was not protected from foreclosure. In an effort to save her home, she immediately filed a chapter 13 petition. Three days later, the foreclosure trustee executed the deed and the purchaser recorded it within the statutory fifteen-day period. A month later, Wilmington moved for retroactive annulment of the stay to validate the transfer, or, in the alternative, for prospective relief from the stay to allow the foreclosure trustee to make the transfer again. The bankruptcy court denied both the retroactive and prospective stay motions. Wilmington appealed to the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit. [Read more…] about Retroactive vs Prospective Relief from Stay

by on

Court Requires Debtor to Pay Discharged Mortgage through Plan

In a poorly-reasoned opinion ignoring basic principles of bankruptcy, the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York held that a junior mortgagee’s lien could be stripped in the debtor’s chapter 13 case, but the claim must be treated as a general unsecured claim despite the fact that the debtor discharged her personal liability on the debt in a prior chapter 7 bankruptcy. In re Hopper, No. 21-70139 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2021). [Read more…] about Court Requires Debtor to Pay Discharged Mortgage through Plan

by on

District Court Upholds Local Rule Requiring Statements of Compliance

Finding the requirement to be procedural rather than substantive, the District Court for the Northern District of California upheld the district’s General Order requiring chapter 13 bankruptcy debtors who elect to pay their mortgages directly rather than through the trustee to submit regular notifications of compliance to the bankruptcy court. Gordon v. Bronitsky (In re Gordon), No. 21-643 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2021). [Read more…] about District Court Upholds Local Rule Requiring Statements of Compliance

by on

Eligibility for REPAYE Relevant Consideration for Student Loan Discharge

The 51-year-old debtor with no mental or physical impairments, no dependents, and a history of underemployment, could not discharge her over $650,000 in student loans as undue hardship but must participate in the offered income-based repayment plan. Parvizi v. U.S. Dept. of Ed., No. 18-30578, Adv. Proc. No. 19-3003, 2021 WL 1921121 (Bankr. D. Mass. May 12, 2021), motion to amend judgment granted, July 28, 2021.

The pro se chapter 7 debtor entered bankruptcy with a student loan debt of over $650,000 which she sought to discharge as undue hardship under section 523(a)(8). She was 51-years-old, had no dependents, spoke four languages, and had no physical or mental impairments standing in the way of employment. She obtained multiple degrees including a medical degree though she never completed a medical residency. She described years of under-employment, most often in education. She made clear that so long as she could live comfortably, she sought employment for personal fulfillment rather than for maximizing her income. Though she could avail herself of an income-based repayment plan at a rate of $80/month, she chose not to, in part because she blamed the psychiatric residency program from which she voluntarily withdrew for failing to provide her with the education it promised. [Read more…] about Eligibility for REPAYE Relevant Consideration for Student Loan Discharge

by on

Standing Trustee Need Not Disgorge Fees when Plan Dismissed Prior to Confirmation

“[A] standing trustee is entitled to collect the statutory fee under [28 U.S.C.] § 586(e) upon receipt of each payment under the plan and is not required to disgorge the fee if the case is dismissed prior to confirmation.” McCallister v. Harmon, No. 20-1168 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. July 20, 2021) (unpublished).

The debtors made several payments in accordance with their proposed plan but voluntarily dismissed their bankruptcy prior to plan confirmation. The bankruptcy court’s order of dismissal included provision for the debtors’ attorney to collect his fee from the funds held by the trustee. The original order also provided for the trustee to retain the statutory fees she collected under section 586(e). Upon reconsideration of that order, though, the bankruptcy court concluded that section 1326(a)(2), which requires the trustee to retain plan payments until confirmation and return those payments to the debtor after deducting unpaid administrative claims if the case is dismissed prior to confirmation, mandated that the trustee return the fees to the debtor upon dismissal. In re Harmon, No. 19-01424-TLM, 2020 WL 6037759 (Bankr. D. Idaho June 23, 2020). [Read more…] about Standing Trustee Need Not Disgorge Fees when Plan Dismissed Prior to Confirmation

by on

No Punitive Sanctions for Rule 3002.1 Violation

In a decision taking the teeth out of Rule 3002.1’s notice requirement, the Second Circuit found that the Rule does not permit imposition of punitive sanctions. PHH Mortgage Corp. v. Sensenich (In re Gravel), No. 21-1 (2d Cir. Aug. 2, 2021). In a well-reasoned dissent, Judge Bianco argued that the majority incorrectly limited the scope of sanctions available under the Rule.

These three consolidated cases (In re Gravel (21-1), In re Beaulieu (21-2), In re Knisley (21-3)) came before the bankruptcy court upon motions by the Trustee seeking sanctions against PHH for assessing fees against the debtors, in 25 statements per debtor, without complying with the requirement in Rule 3002.1(c) that a mortgage creditor “shall file and serve on . . . the trustee a notice itemizing all fees, expenses, or charges” that the creditor “asserts are recoverable against the debtor” and serve this notice “within 180 days after the date on which the fees, expenses, or charges are incurred.” The trustee also sought sanctions for violations of the court’s Current Orders in the Gravel and Beaulieu cases. Those orders stated that the debtors, who had completed their plans, were current on their mortgages, and prohibited PHH from challenging that finding in “any other proceeding.” (The Knisleys had not yet completed their plan when the trustee filed for sanctions, so there was no similar order involved in that case). [Read more…] about No Punitive Sanctions for Rule 3002.1 Violation

by on

Debtor Cannot Cure Default After Expiration of Plan

The bankruptcy court correctly dismissed the debtor’s chapter 13 case after she missed her final two mortgage payments under her five-year plan, even though, shortly after the plan expired, she paid the arrears in full. In re Kinney, No. 20-1122 (10th Cir. July 23, 2021).

The debtor entered bankruptcy current on her mortgage payments, and her chapter 13 plan provided for continued payments to the mortgagee, HSBC Bank USA,  “under the plan.” A few months prior to completion of her plan, the debtor was injured in a car accident and, for that reason, missed two mortgage payments before the plan expired and two additional payments after its expiration. She then made the back payments and sought discharge. The bank opposed discharge and moved to dismiss her bankruptcy. The bankruptcy court found that it lacked discretion to grant a discharge and granted the motion to dismiss. After her motion for reconsideration was denied, the debtor was granted leave to appeal directly to the Tenth Circuit. [Read more…] about Debtor Cannot Cure Default After Expiration of Plan

by on

“Effective Date of the Plan” for Best Interests Test upon Modification

The best interests test does not provide authority to compel turnover through plan modification of settlement funds from the debtor’s post-petition personal injury case where that money would not be available to unsecured creditors in a case converted from chapter 13 to chapter 7 under section 348(f). In re Taylor, No. 16-40873 (Bankr. D. Kans. July 21, 2021). [Read more…] about “Effective Date of the Plan” for Best Interests Test upon Modification