National Consumer Bankruptcy Rights Center

Protecting The Rights Of Consumer Debtors In Bankruptcy

bankruptcy

by on

ACA’s Shared Responsibility Payment is Priority Tax Debt

The District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana determined that the tax assessment for failure to maintain health insurance under the Affordable Care Act is a nondischargeable priority tax debt under section 507(a)(8)(A)(iii), rather than a penalty dischargeable in bankruptcy under section 523(a)(7) and 1328(a). United States v. Chesteen, No. 18-2077 (E.D. La. Feb. 25, 2019).

As the Chapter 13 debtor, John Chesteen pointed out on appeal, the shared responsibility payment at issue is described numerous times in the ACA as a penalty and is collected the same way other tax penalties are collected. The district court noted, however, that statutory descriptions, while informative, are not dispositive of whether a payment is a tax or a penalty. Rather, courts rely on the underlying purpose of the payment. A “tax” is a burden placed on the taxpayer for the financial support of the government, and a “penalty” is a punishment for an unlawful act. [Read more…] about ACA’s Shared Responsibility Payment is Priority Tax Debt

by on

Federal Lien Broader than State Lien for Avoidance Purposes

Federal law defines a lien more broadly than Missouri law, and for that reason, the debtor was able to avoid a judgment lien as impairing the exemption he claimed on his residence, which he owned as a tenancy in the entireties with his wife, even though state law did not recognize the creation of the lien. CRP Holdings A-1, LLC v. O’Sullivan, No. 17-3226 (8th Cir. Feb. 1, 2019).

Chapter 7 debtor, Casey O’Sullivan, and his wife acquired their residence as tenants in the entirety. CRP obtained a foreign judgment for $765,151.18 against the debtor and registered the judgment in the debtor’s resident county to obtain a judicial lien against the property. When Mr. O’Sullivan filed for bankruptcy, he claimed an exemption for the property and sought to avoid CRP’s judicial lien under section 522(f)(1) as impairing that exemption. The bankruptcy court found that the judgment lien, even though unenforceable, placed a “cloud” on the debtor’s title and could therefore be avoided as impairing his bankruptcy exemption. The BAP affirmed. [Read more…] about Federal Lien Broader than State Lien for Avoidance Purposes

by on

Bankruptcy Court Abused Discretion in Failing to Confirm Plan

In a terse opinion, the Fifth Circuit balanced the evidence relied on by the bankruptcy court against various additional factors and concluded that the bankruptcy court abused its discretion when it denied the debtors’ Chapter 13 plan for lack of good faith under section 1325(a)(3). Booker v. Johns (In re Booker), No. 18-30526 (5th Cir. Feb. 11, 2019) (unpublished).

In holding that the debtors’ plan was proposed in bad faith, the bankruptcy court relied on the fact that the debtors proposed to pay unsecured creditors at 4% while retaining their 1998 fishing boat, motor, and trailer. The debtors proposed a new plan that was less favorable to them which the bankruptcy court confirmed. The debtors appealed, and the district court affirmed. [Read more…] about Bankruptcy Court Abused Discretion in Failing to Confirm Plan

by on

Nebraska Bankruptcy Court Rules §506(b) Is Not A Blank Check for Over-Secured Creditors, Knocks off $38,355.85 of Excessive Fees and Charges

The Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nebraska recently reviewed the reasonableness of the fees claimed by a mortgage creditor on an over-secured loan. Before filing for protection under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code, the Debtor owned two properties, one residential and the other business, and pledged them as collateral for an SBA loan through the creditor. He subsequently fell behind on payments and was not able to pay the balloon amount. The properties are collectively valued at $220,000.00 and the principal and interest balance at filing was less than $70,000.00. The creditor’s claim also included $13,592.20 for late charges and $41,365.85 for expenses for appraisals, assessments, and other fees. The Debtor objected to the reasonableness of the charges and expenses.

To read more and access the opinion click here.

by on

Bankruptcy Court Addresses Eligibility, Non-formal Notice of Bankruptcy and a Creditor’s Affirmative Duty to Correct Technical Violations of the Automatic Stay

A bankruptcy court recently ruled on several issues of importance to all potential debtors. First, the court examined the effect of a prior dismissal order (for failure to timely file certain schedules, statements or other documents) on a subsequent bankruptcy petition. Specifically, the court examined the small slice of cases where the automatic stay does not apply in a second case when the Debtor is not an “eligible Debtor” under 11 U.S.C. § 109(g). The court also examined the split in authority on who bears the burden of proof of proving eligibility.

Further the court examined whether a creditor, who unknowingly completed a foreclosure sale during the second case, violated the automatic stay by not promptly undoing the sale upon notification of the bankruptcy. Further the court extensively discussed the different non-traditional methods that creditors can receive binding notice of a bankruptcy and their responsibility thereafter. The court also examined whether a technical violation can turn into a willful violation and whether a creditor has an affirmative duty to correct a technical violation.

To read more click here.

by on

Maryland Bankruptcy Court Holds Failure to Produce Writings Doesn’t Invalidate Credit Card Claims

The Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland recently ruled whether several claims based on open-ended credit card agreements could be disallowed for failure to provide the Debtor’s documents supporting the claim. The Debtors’ counsel had requested the creditors to deliver copies of the writings on which each of the claims was based and other documents including copies of all monthly statements to copies of all notices of transfer of the account. When the creditors failed to supply the information, the Debtors objected to those claims and asked that they be disallowed.

To read more and access the opinion click here.

by on

District Court Addresses Due Process in Fee Hearing

The district court found that the Chapter 7 trustee’s legal representative was deprived of due process when the bankruptcy court reduced a portion of its fees without providing notice and an opportunity to be heard. Arnall, Golden, Gregory, LLP, v. Stroud, No. 18-3755 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 28, 2019).

Appellant, Arnall, Golden, Gregory, LLP, sought $13,607.09 in attorney fees for services performed for the Chapter 7 trustee in connection with the debtor/appellee’s motion to reconvert her case to Chapter 13. After a fee hearing, the court found that $3,575.50 of the appellant’s fees were for services constituting trustee duties and that $3,000 of the $6,000 in fees claimed for work on litigation of the conversion motion, were not reasonable and necessary. The court thus reduced the fees to $7,000.00. [Read more…] about District Court Addresses Due Process in Fee Hearing

by on

Tuition Deadline Agreement Did Not Create a Student Loan

An agreement establishing a tuition payment deadline was not a lending agreement and therefore, the debt created by the debtor’s failure to pay her summer tuition did not constitute a non-dischargeable student loan under section 523(a)(8). Hazelton v. UW-Stout, No. 18-159 (W.D. Wisc. Feb. 1, 2019).

To attend classes at UW-Stout, Kelly Hazelton signed an “Email Authorization/Payment Plan Agreement” which provided that she pay for summer classes in full by the end of the first week of class. Ms. Hazelton failed to pay for her 2015 summer classes but finished all the coursework necessary to satisfy the requirements for her degree. She and her husband filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and received a discharge, but despite knowing of the bankruptcy, UW-Stout refused to issue her degree. It also garnished her 2016 tax refund. The Hazeltons filed an adversary complaint seeking sanctions for violation of the discharge injunction, but the bankruptcy court found the debt was a student loan that was excepted from discharge under section 523(a)(8). [Read more…] about Tuition Deadline Agreement Did Not Create a Student Loan

by on

Bankruptcy Court holds Debtor is Entitled to Chapter 13 Discharge even if Co-Debtor is Delinquent on Post-Petition DSO Payments

A bankruptcy court recently reviewed the issue of whether a debtor can receive a discharge under § 1328 even if her co-debtor husband is delinquent on a post-petition DSO payment. The court examined the requirements for discharge using the plain language of § 1328(a).

In this case, the debtors, Mr. and Mrs. Hernandez, filed a joint Chapter 13 bankruptcy. At filing, neither owed a DSO. Approximately two years into their confirmed plan, Mr. Hernandez became liable for a DSO and subsequently fell behind in those payments. Both parties were aware of the DSO and neither reported the delinquency to their attorney nor the trustee.

After completion of the plan payments, Mrs. Hernandez moved for entry of discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 1328(a). The Trustee objected arguing Mrs. Hernandez was unjustly enriched and that failure to amend the plan demonstrates bad faith. No party disputed that all plan payments were made.

To read more and access the opinion click here

by on

Bankruptcy Court Rejects Ditech’s Standing to file Mortgage Claim

A bankruptcy court recently expunged a claim of Ditech Financial LLC (Ditech) asserting that it was the creditor and the servicer of a note secured by an investment property (the “Property”) owned by the Debtors. Ditech filed a petition for bankruptcy in Case No. 19-10414 (Bankr. S.D.NY February 11, 2019). The order was entered in another proceeding before a different judge after Ditech’s bankruptcy was filed.

In this case, the Debtors filed a Chapter 11 and sought to sell the Property free and clear of all liens under 11 U.S.C. § 363. Ditech filed its claim. The Debtors successfully objected to Ditech’s claim because Ditech had not demonstrated it had standing. Ditech then filed a motion to reconsider which was granted. Meanwhile, the court granted the motion to sell the Property but kept the proceeds in escrow pending the new hearing on the standing issue.

Ominously, the court’s opinion began with “Throughout this case, Ditech Financial LLC (“Ditech”) has shown disdain for this Court and [the] debtors…”

To read more and get the opinion click here.