%1

A finding that a particular debt is excepted from a debtor’s discharge is not necessarily the end of the struggles between the debtor and creditor in bankruptcy court. Creditors holding debts that were once held to be nondischargeable are not necessarily able to rest on the prior judgment in a subsequent bankruptcy case, and debtors may wish to use chapter 13 to obtain a broader discharge than they received in chapter 7. The Bankruptcy Code offers some guidance on how to handle these situations, but statutory ambiguity has led to unexpected or anomalous results.

[1]The meeting of creditors is similar to an open-book exam. The test date is known, the questions are not a secret, and in a twist, the test-taker holds the answer key. It is an opportunity to get a perfect score, but every so often debtor and counsel are not fully prepared, and the issues are usually preventable.

Although numerous issues intertwining bankruptcy affect divorce claims, some divergent bankruptcy matters need to be brought to the attention of most domestic attorneys representing the party to whom obligations are owed: (1) your client’s divorce-related debt will not be discharged and you do not need file an adversary proceeding to preserve the debt; (2) do not over-litigate your client’s interest to a bankruptcy judge as the same will not be embraced; (3) many times you will not need stay relief to pursue divorce matters; (4) file a proof of claim; (5) be less concerned about a preferenc

Creditors seeking to foreclose in state court on their real property liens frequently find their efforts frustrated by serial bankruptcy filers attempting to use the protections of the automatic stay to delay the foreclosure. To address this problem, § 362(c)(4)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that when a debtor has had two or more cases pending and dismissed within a one-year period, the automatic stay will not take effect. Debtors seeking the protections of the automatic stay must file a separate motion seeking such relief.

An amendment to Rule 3015(c)(1) is currently under review that will permit courts to “opt out” and use a Local Form Plan. Public comment ended on Oct. 3, 2016, and it looks as if Official Form 113, also known as the National Form Plan, and the related Rule amendments will go into effect on Dec. 1, 2017, absent intervention from the Judicial Conference, the Supreme Court or Congress.

Elizabeth Gunn and Margaret A. Burks serve as Co-Chairs of the ABI Consumer Committee. We have an active and lively committee with monthly conference calls to keep events rolling along.

ABI’s first “Consumer Connect” was held on December 2, 2016, in conjunction with the 2016 Winter Leadership Conference. This one day, consumer only program was offered to consumer practitioners at a reduced rate making the quality programming of a national conference available at a fraction of the usual cost.

The Official Form rollout on Dec. 1, 2015, included the handsome new Proof of Claim form, B410. The buzz was that the changes to the form were mostly cosmetic, including a larger font and a computer-friendly format. Part 3 of the Proof of Claim form provides many alternatives as to who may sign the form. They include the creditor, the creditor’s attorney or authorized agent, the trustee or the debtor, and the guarantor or the co-debtor.