The childhood riposte “none of your beeswax” has some legal analogs; among them is the doctrine of standing. Standing limits the scope of legal rules, including the automatic stay. [1] Many courts agree that acts in violation of the automatic stay are not voidable but void. [2] If this is true, who may assert that voidness? Whose “beeswax” is an automatic stay violation? In Bank of New York Mellon v.
In a pair of decisions, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Texas took on two fundamental issues arising in an adversary proceeding for nondischargeability concerning a judgment for defamation arising out of alleged sexual misconduct. In Joseph Mazzara v. Donna Shute Provencher,[1] the bankruptcy court grappled with the following issues: (1) whether defamation findings in state court are binding in bankruptcy; and (2) whether messages in “private” Facebook groups are discoverable.
February 2020 brought some good news for borrowers hoping to discharge their student loans in bankruptcy with Judge Cecelia Morris’s decision in Rosenberg v. N.Y. State Higher Educ. Servs. Corp.[1] That hope seemed to be quashed again by the Second Circuit in March in an appeal by a different debtor in Tingling v.
On March 25, 2021, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a chapter 7 discharge prohibits the holders of a nondischargeable debt from suing the debtor post-discharge to collect a judgment. Specifically, the ruling in Suvicmon Dev. Inc. v. Morrison[1] directs that a fraudulent-transfer action is not synonymous with execution of a judgment, simply because the underlying debt is excepted from discharge.
In re Horvath[1] provides a cautionary tale for debtors who seek to address judgment liens post-discharge, whether strategically or due to pre-filing negligence.
In the wreck of the Great Recession, numerous borrowers sought to avoid their homestead’s foreclosure despite material payment defaults. Many took advantage of chapter 13, which empowers, inter alia, an individual with a regular income to cure precisely such failures over time under § 1322 (b)(5).
One year into the economic crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, unemployment rates have already surpassed the high levels seen during the Great Recession in 2009. [1] Like everyone in this country and around the world, debtors are struggling.
When a debtor reaffirms a dischargeable debt, this means the obligation will survive discharge and continue to be enforceable. [1] To protect debtors from compromising their fresh start by making unwise agreements to reaffirm and repay otherwise dischargeable debts, the Bankruptcy Code sets out lengthy disclosure requirements for reaffirmation agreements. [2]