%1

By: Bryan Kotliar
St. John's Law Student
American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review Staff 

Recently, in In re Siler,[1] the court allowed a debtor whose monthly disposable income created the presumption of abuse under the means test to remain in chapter 7 since the creditors would not receive any distribution under a chapter 13 plan.[2] Generally, if a debtor cannot rebut the presumption of abuse, the case must be dismissed or converted to chapter 13, which is why the Bankruptcy Administrator[3] moved to dismiss.[4] However in this case, under a chapter 13 plan, the debtor would be entitled to deduct her ERISA contributions and 401(k) loan obligation repayments from her monthly disposable income—deductions not available for her CMI calculation under chapter 7.[5] Because of these deductions, creditors would not receive any distribution under an alternate chapter 13 plan.[6] Therefore, the court held that the debtor was entitled to remain in chapter 7, notwithstanding the language of 707(b), because dismissing or converting her case to chapter 13 would create absurd results contrary to Congress’s intent.[7]

By: Elisa M. Pickel
St. John's Law Student
American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review Staff

Recently, in In re Brubaker[1] a Florida bankruptcy court held that funds related to checks that had not cleared were property of the estate under section 541(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code.[2] In Brubaker, the debtors wrote several checks before filing for chapter 7 relief.[3] As of the filing date, these checks had not cleared, and therefore the funds remained in the debtors’ bank account.[4] The bankruptcy court rejected the debtors’ argument that these funds transferred on the dates that the checks were presented to the recipient, and thus were not property of the estate. Instead, the court noted that funds do not transfer until the checks are honored. Thus, the court held that funds remaining in the account were property of the estate since the debtors’ bank had not honored the checks.

By: Justin Zaroovabeli
St. John's Law Student
American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review Staff

Recently, in In re Reiman,[1] a Michigan bankruptcy court held that a trustee could not revoke abandonment of property that he later discovered to have additional value.[2] The Reimans, the debtors, listed both their house’s value and a secured claim above their house’s value on their chapter 7 schedules.[3] After the trustee filed his no-asset report, the bankruptcy case closed and the debtors received a discharge.[4] The property eventually foreclosed at a bid price below the house’s fair market value and the trustee moved to re-open the case to recover any additional value in the house.[5] Although the court re-opened the case,[6] the court denied the trustee’s motion to revoke abandonment because the trustee’s no asset-report was not influenced by an unforeseeable change or mistake of law.[7] The court also noted that policy considerations typically favored finality in bankruptcy cases.[8]

By: Rebecca Rose
St. John’s Law Student
American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review Staff

Recently, in Matthys v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC (In re Matthys),[1] a bankruptcy court held that a debtor does not have a private right of action against the creditor who listed the debtor’s full social security number on its proof of claim. This holding is consistent with what the majority of courts have held in similar cases.[2] While the joint debtors in Matthys sought relief under various statutes, including Bankruptcy Code sections 105 and 107,[3] the court found that no private right of action existed.