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 court emphasized that the debtor's attorney's conduct in the case was above reproach (honest and straightforward), and held that it should not be inferred "as a criticism of the integrity of [the attorney] or his law practice."
The volume of critics and supporters of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA) has finally begun to settle down. There is an emerging issue that several national associations of debt and credit counseling agencies are possibly endorsing as a marketing tool for their membership. Now lawyers are joining the arena of a particular section in the law and using part of it to entice consumers to realize the light at the end of the tunnel of debt. However, that light can be a locomotive coming the other way.
In Perlin v. Hitachi Capital Am. Corp (In re Perlin),[1] the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed a bankruptcy court’s order denying a creditor’s motion to dismiss the debtors’ chapter 7 petition. Creditor Hitachi Capital moved to dismiss the Perlins’ chapter 7 petition pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §707(a), which permits dismissal after notice and hearing only for cause.
Court rules for some states, such as Michigan, allow for a judgment creditor to seek judgment against a garnishee for failure to answer a writ of garnishment. Grounds for liability are based on contempt of court and damages incurred by the judgment creditor due to the garnishee’s failure to respond to the garnishment. (See M.C.R. 3.101). In the context of bankruptcy, an issue has arisen in some jurisdictions as to whether enforcement of a judgment against a garnishee is a violation of the automatic stay as to a judgment debtor who files for bankruptcy.
Almost two years after the implementation of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA), it would appear that some of its provisions are meeting their objectives better than others. In the case of residential tenancy issues, the number of new disclosure requirements, coupled with submissions required to overcome the exceptions to the automatic stay, have had their intended effect. In reviewing this particular area of BAPCPA, the number of reported cases is scant, reflecting the limited issues subject to challenge.
The more I look at the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA), the more I am beginning to think that we have all been misled by those who either did not know or did not care to know any better. During the past 20 months, we have been bombarded with questions about whether “projected disposable income” (PDI) is an historic fact or a future prediction. We have been puzzled and
We are very much in the early innings on issues involving 910 claims under the hanging paragraph of 11 U.S.C. §1325(a)(9). Until the relief of appellate decisions enters the game, there may not be a lot of uniformity of this bankruptcy law.
