Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur, adipisicing elit. Soluta dolorem consequuntur corporis pariatur rem aliquam similique animi fugiat iure explicabo eius omnis minima labore natus, repellat aut odio fuga vero. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur, adipisicing elit. Soluta dolorem consequuntur corporis pariatur rem aliquam similique animi fugiat iure explicabo eius omnis minima labore natus, repellat aut odio fuga vero.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur, adipisicing elit. Soluta dolorem consequuntur corporis pariatur remaliquam similique animi fugiat iure explicabo eius omnis minima labore natus, repellat aut odio fuga vero.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur, adipisicing elit. Soluta dolorem consequuntur corporis pariatur remaliquam similique animi fugiat iure explicabo eius omnis minima labore natus, repellat aut odio fuga vero. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur, adipisicing elit. Soluta dolorem consequuntur corporis pariatur remaliquam similique animi fugiat iure explicabo eius omnis minima labore natus, repellat aut odio fuga vero.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur, adipisicing elit. Soluta dolorem consequuntur corporis pariatur remaliquam similique animi fugiat iure explicabo eius omnis minima labore natus, repellat aut odio fuga vero. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur, adipisicing elit. Soluta dolorem consequuntur corporis pariatur remaliquam similique animi fugiat iure explicabo eius omnis minima labore natus, repellat aut odio fuga vero.
ABI MEMBERS ONLYABI Membership is required to access the full summary. please log in using your ABI Member credentials.
Not a Member yet? Try Us Out!
Sign up to receive Rochelle's Daily Wire and try out our membership for 30 days. When you do — you'll see why our members "Think ABI First."
Learn More
Significantly interfering
Significantly interfering with a debtor's contractual rights arising from a prepetition contract is an "exercise of control" and therefore a stay violation. Thanks for the terrific overview! It would be interesting to see where the line is drawn between a mere contract breach and a change in the status quo.
Particularly following
Particularly following Trantham v. Tate, A Chapter 13 plan could certainly include a provision that requires that mortgage servicers continue to provide debtors with online access to their accounts in the same manner as prior to bankruptcy.
Additionally, unmentioned in this opinion is that 11 USC 1322(b)(2) prohibits the modification of mortgages secured only by real property secured by the debtor's principal residence. This primarily protects mortgages (subject to far more exceptions than mortgage servicers like to admit- mobile homes, escrows as collateral, matured mortgages, rental properties, etc.) from cram-down.
But 1322(b)(2) is a sword that cuts both ways and prohibits mortgage servicers from also seeking to change the terms of a note because the homeowner has filed bankruptcy. In this context, that would make discontinuation of any services required under the Note and/or Deed of Trust an illegal modification by the servicer.