Consumer Bankruptcy

Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank, 135 S. Ct. 1686 (May 4, 2015).

Affirming the First Circuit, the unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court, written by Chief Justice Roberts, held that an order denying confirmation was not a final order that the debtor could immediately appeal. The bank holding a mortgage on a multi-family house objected to the chapter 13 debtor’s proposed plan to bifurcate the debt and pay only $5,000 on the $101,000 unsecured portion, while paying the regular mortgage payments to satisfy the secured portion over the life of the original loan.

Annual Spring Meeting 2015: Consumer Bankruptcy and Mediation Committees

Consumer Mortgage Modification Mediation: A Florida Success Story

Silence Is Golden? A Rebuttal

In the January 2015 edition of the ABI Journal, Kathleen Furr and Brett Switzer (hereinafter “the authors”) lauded the decision in In re Rose.[1] In that decision, the court rejected the concept of providing for the vesting of property of a chapter 13 estate in an entity other than the debtor, based solely on state law.[2] The authors relegate the opposite view to a couple of footnotes.

Chapter 7 Trustees, Abandonment, and When Abandonment Is Delayed

[1]Most chapter 7 clients are looking for the quickest and easiest way to discharge their debts, retain or protect their assets and move on with their lives. Difficulties in achieving these results can arise when assets are disclosed or discovered after the bankruptcy filing. This will usually result in negative consequences for the debtor and will frequently prolong their case.

The Effect of Law v. Siegel on Claims of Exemption

Theoretically, an individual bankruptcy debtor may amend property claimed as exempt on his or her Schedule C at any time until the close of the bankruptcy proceeding.[1] The debtor must give notice of the amendment to the trustee and to “any entity affected thereby,” which is usually all creditors.[2] Under 11 U.S.C. § 522(l), a party in interest may object to the debtor’s list of exempt property:

It’s a Commission: Chapter 7 Trustee Fees

[1]Since the enactment of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA), bankruptcy courts have struggled with how to follow certain provisions of the Bankruptcy Code directing the compensation of chapter 7 bankruptcy trustees.[2] On Jan. 12, 2015, the U.S.

The Risky Business Side of Bankruptcy Lawyering: ABI Chapter 11 Reform Commission Recommends Reform Regarding Professional Retention and Compensation

Following a nearly-three-year study, on Dec. 8, 2014, the ABI Commission to Study the Reform of Chapter 11 published a 400-page report containing recommendation and principles for policymakers. This article focuses on chapter 11 reform relating to professional retention and compensation.

"The Effect of a Discharge Injunction on Unpaid Child Support: To Pay, or Not to Pay: That Is the Question"

Editor's Note: David Morris is the senior deputy prosecuting attorney for the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office Child Support Division and an adjunct professor at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law.

An Interview with Judge Sheri Bluebond

Hon. Sheri Bluebond sits as chief judge on the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Central District of California. She is a dynamic figure at most bar events and is revered by colleagues, attorneys and trustees. For example, she recently presented an award at the home of James T. King, a beloved leader of the bankruptcy community, who became bedridden while battling cancer.

Chapter 7 Attorneys’ Fees: Protecting Debtors While Ensuring Attorneys Get Paid

Most debtors that are contemplating chapter 7 are on the brink of economic disaster. They have creditors harassing them, calling them nonstop, garnishing wages and income tax returns, and seizing their vehicles to satisfy judgments. These hardworking individuals simply do not have the extra funds to pay a bankruptcy attorney up front in full to file a bankruptcy case to stop the creditors.

Subscribe to %1