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"
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]
The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (CAA), which passed in Congress on Dec. 27, 2020, introduced some noteworthy additions to the Bankruptcy Code. One such issue is the changing relationship between chapter 13 debtors and mortgage lenders when it comes to forbearance requests under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act).
