July 7 - Members and Subscribers - Welcome to the new and improved abi.org! - If you have not already done so, please reset your ABI password to access the site. Click "Login" and then "Forgot Password"
The Bankruptcy Code contemplates the filing of a joint petition to commence a bankruptcy case for a married couple under § 302(a). Such spouses enjoy the benefit of a single filing fee[1] and the convenience and cost savings of the joint administration of their case for everything from using a single docket for the two estates, compiling the filed claims against both estates and the combining of notices to each of their creditors.[2]
Bankruptcy Code § 707(a) provides that a chapter 7 case may be dismissed “for cause,” including for (1) unreasonable delay, (2) nonpayment of fees or (3) failure to timely file certain information. However, “cause” is not defined, and the statutory examples are illustrative, not exhaustive. Currently, there is a circuit split as to whether bad faith can be “cause.”
The City of Chicago is finding itself entangled in a set of legal issues surrounding the Bankruptcy Code and the enforcement of parking tickets through civil fines, impoundment and license suspension. The interplay of Chicago parking ticket debt and consumer bankruptcy is making for a fascinating legal showdown. Driving these questions is the city’s strategy of aggressively enforcing and collecting pre- and post-petition parking ticket fines and circumventing the hurdles historically imposed by the automatic stay.
As attorneys are aware, the debtor almost always wants to keep a vehicle when filing a chapter 13 case. Then, post-confirmation, the debtor’s income changes, the vehicle has engine problems or the debtor hits a deer, and the debtor wants to give the vehicle back to the creditor and get a different one.
While a split among the circuits continues to persist with respect to whether the Bankruptcy Code permits a “ride-through” option in the context of a chapter 7 debtor’s statement of intention, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Shefferly, J.) recently sided with courts holding that the Bankruptcy Code does not permit a “ride through” or “stay and pay” option, and outlined the legal consequences for a debtor who fails to perform duties related to personal property securing a debt.[1]
[1]Lamar, Archer & Cofrin, LLP v. Appling[2] is the last of three bankruptcy cases to be heard and decided on the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2017 merits docket,[3] but the ruling has the potential to be the most far-reaching bankruptcy decision of the term.
In Slater v. U.S. Steel Corp,[1] the Eleventh Circuit recently revisited its past rulings on judicial estoppel and revamped the standard to be applied when a debtor is pursuing a lawsuit that was not disclosed in bankruptcy. Although the appellate court reaffirmed the previously adopted test, the court’s opinion in Slater provides further guidance for trial courts in considering judicial estoppel.
