Blogs
If you are a struggling homeowner and have not yet found relief, you should pay close attention on Thursday, June 26th. The U.S. Treasury Secretary, Jacob J. Lew, will be announcing expanded programs to help homeowners and renters. Help for homeowners to stay in their homes and help for renters to obtain home loans in+ Read More
The post Help For Homeowners Announcement From The Treasury Coming June 26th appeared first on David M. Siegel.
If you are in Chapter 13, the vehicle operating budget you are allowed will be too small. That’s (almost) a mathematical certainty. Here’s why. The census bureau shows–no surprise–that people who are working spend on average double on transportation gasoline and maintenance than people who aren’t. (For more, see this from the American […]The post Chapter 13: Your vehicle operating budget is too small. by Robert Weed appeared first on Robert Weed.
Whether Your Bankruptcy was filed in Portland or Eugene, there is no need to be nervous about your 341 hearing. In our next blog article, we will discuss exactly what you need to bring to the hearing and the kind of questions that you are likely to encounter.
The video below at the following link will give you a good feel for the format of the meeting of the creditors in your bankruptcy and the kind of questions that your bankruptcy trustee might ask: http://www.uscourts.gov/Multimedia/Videos.aspx?video_url=http://www.uscourts.gov/video/source/BankruptcyBasics/bankruptcy-eng_5-creditors_low.f4v&video_image=/uscourts/video/BankruptcyBasics/images/preview5.jpg&video_id=bb5 Remember to bring your photo identification and proof of your social security number.
The original post is titled , and it came from Portland Bankruptcy Attorney | Northwest Debt Relief .
Bankruptcy Relief Recently, I met with a man who was running a small business out of a storefront. Well it turned out that he was unable to survive at that current location. The problem was that he had a lease that expired five years into the future. So here he was with a business that+ Read More
The post Not Everyone Qualifies For Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Relief appeared first on David M. Siegel.
Yesterday, June 18, 2014, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision in the case of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. vs. Scantling (In re: Scantling) on an issue where there has been a split of authority in the courts for many years. The Court held that a chapter 13 debtor (a "chapter 20" debtor) who was not entitled to a chapter 13 discharge (due to prior chapter 7 case within 4 years) could avoid wholly-unsecured (wholly "underwater") junior mortgages. By this decision, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Bankruptcy Court of the Middle District of Florida's decision.
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the following in making its decision:
- Pre-BAPCA practice in "chapter 20" cases - lien avoidance was allowed
- In re Tanner (2000) - 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
- 11 U.S.C. §§ 506, 1322(b), 1325 (a)(5)
- Dewsnup v. Timm (1992) - U.S. Supreme Court
- Nobelman v. American Savings Bank (1993) - U.S. Supreme Court
- Changes made by BAPCPA (2005) - a chapter 13 debtor not entitled to a discharge if filed within 4 years of a chapter 7 case
- Reviewed the split of authority on the issue - the majority and minority views
- Adopted the majority view
- Noted its unpublished opinion in In re Malone (2014) - chapter 7 debtor able to avoid wholly unsecured mortgage lien (Court held it was bound by its prior published decision)
Jordan E. Bublick is a Miami Bankruptcy Lawyer with over 25 years of experience in filing Chapter 13 and Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Cases and Mortgage Modifications (305) 891-4055
Yesterday, June 18, 2014, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision in the case of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. vs. Scantling (In re: Scantling) on an issue where there has been a split of authority in the courts for many years. The Court held that a chapter 13 debtor (a "chapter 20" debtor) who was not entitled to a chapter 13 discharge (due to prior chapter 7 case within 4 years) could avoid wholly-unsecured (wholly "underwater") junior mortgages. By this decision, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Bankruptcy Court of the Middle District of Florida's decision.
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the following in making its decision:
- Pre-BAPCA practice in "chapter 20" cases - lien avoidance was allowed
- In re Tanner (2000) - 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
- 11 U.S.C. §§ 506, 1322(b), 1325 (a)(5)
- Dewsnup v. Timm (1992) - U.S. Supreme Court
- Nobelman v. American Savings Bank (1993) - U.S. Supreme Court
- Changes made by BAPCPA (2005) - a chapter 13 debtor not entitled to a discharge if filed within 4 years of a chapter 7 case
- Reviewed the split of authority on the issue - the majority and minority views
- Adopted the majority view
- Noted its unpublished opinion in In re Malone (2014) - chapter 7 debtor able to avoid wholly unsecured mortgage lien (Court held it was bound by its prior published decision)
Jordan E. Bublick is a Miami Bankruptcy Lawyer with over 25 years of experience in filing Chapter 13 and Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Cases and Mortgage Modifications (305) 891-4055
Yesterday, June 18, 2014, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision in the case of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. vs. Scantling (In re: Scantling) on an issue where there has been a split of authority in the courts for many years. The Court held that a chapter 13 debtor (a "chapter 20" debtor) who was not entitled to a chapter 13 discharge (due to prior chapter 7 case within 4 years) could avoid wholly-unsecured (wholly "underwater") junior mortgages. By this decision, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Bankruptcy Court of the Middle District of Florida's decision.
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the following in making its decision:
- Pre-BAPCA practice in "chapter 20" cases - lien avoidance was allowed
- In re Tanner (2000) - 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
- 11 U.S.C. §§ 506, 1322(b), 1325 (a)(5)
- Dewsnup v. Timm (1992) - U.S. Supreme Court
- Nobelman v. American Savings Bank (1993) - U.S. Supreme Court
- Changes made by BAPCPA (2005) - a chapter 13 debtor not entitled to a discharge if filed within 4 years of a chapter 7 case
- Reviewed the split of authority on the issue - the majority and minority views
- Adopted the majority view
- Noted its unpublished opinion in In re Malone (2014) - chapter 7 debtor able to avoid wholly unsecured mortgage lien (Court held it was bound by its prior published decision)
Jordan E. Bublick - Miami Bankruptcy Lawyer - Kendall & Aventura Offices - (305) 891-4055 - www.bublicklaw.com
Bankruptcy Avoidance Powers The chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee is the individual appointed by the Department of Justice to oversee the administration of your chapter 7 bankruptcy case. The trustee’s main duty is to examine the debtor under oath in a section 341 meeting of creditors and determine whether or not there are any assets to+ Read More
The post Chapter 7 Trustee Has Bankruptcy Avoidance Powers appeared first on David M. Siegel.
Chicago Utilities You can file bankruptcy on your past-due utility bills. You may owe money to Comed and are close to a shut off. You may owe money to Nicor gas and are close to a shut off. You may owe money to AT&T and are already shut off. No matter what your situation, if+ Read More
The post Filing Bankruptcy On Your Chicago Utilities appeared first on David M. Siegel.
On May 8, 2014 the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals released an interesting ruling denying a claim for damages filed by Chapter 13 debtors against their mortgage company. The Lodge v. Kondaur Capital Corporation and McCalla Raymer arose when a mortgage company started foreclosure proceedings against Mr. & Mrs. Lodge who were then debtors in an active Chapter 13 case.Under the automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy Code, of course, lenders cannot initiate or continue collection activity against a debtor who has filed Chapter 13 unless and until the lender first convinces the bankruptcy judge to lift the automatic stay.In Georgia, most foreclosures are non-judicial meaning that to start foreclosure a lender needs to notify the debtor and run a written notice of the pending foreclosure in the legal newspaper of the county where the property is located. In the Lodge case, the mortgage company started the foreclosure process and bought the ad.The day after purchasing the ad, the lawyer for the mortgage company, McCalla, Raymer, recognized the mistake and immediately canceled the foreclosure process. Unfortunately for them, however, it was too late to stop the ad from running.When the ad ran, it was picked up by several of the foreclosure notification companies that operate in the Atlanta area and the Lodges began receiving solicitations from home buyers and bankruptcy attorneys offering to help them avoid foreclosure.The Lodges thereafter sued the mortgage company and McCalla, Raymer in federal district court alleging that they suffered from emotional distress due to the violation of the automatic stay and for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.The district court denied the Lodges’ claim and the case was thereafter appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Circuit Courts of Appeal are the highest appellate court in the country except for the Supreme Court, so Circuit Court opinions are binding on all district and bankruptcy courts in the 11th Circuit (which includes Georgia).
Click here to read the decisionA copy of the 11th Circuit’s opinion is here – just click on the picture on the left. As you can see, they denied the Lodge’s claim for emotional distress because the Lodges failed to introduce specific evidence of damages. There were no doctor’s notes, proof of reduced income or any other evidence save their testimony that they were damaged.Thus, even though there was a clear violation of the automatic stay, no damages were awarded because no proof of injury was submitted.What do you think? Is this a case where the mortgage company got off too easy for ignoring the automatic stay – the core protection of the Bankruptcy Code? Were the debtors being punished for having “unclean hands” – arising from their failure to make on-going mortgage payments as required by their Chapter 13 plan. Is it reasonable to put the burden on cash strapped debtors to pay for medical care to produce evidence of damages? Will this decision give license to mortgage companies to be less concerned about the significance of the automatic stay? Or did the 11th Circuit get it right by insisting on evidence of damages and not just a showing of a stay violation.The post Appeals Court Denies Damage Claim for Clear Violation of the Automatic Stay appeared first on theBKBlog.
Updated daily, this blog will keep you informed on the latest bankruptcy news! 
Learn more about how Bankruptcy works and what you need to know.