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.
In Perlin v. Hitachi Capital Am. Corp (In re Perlin),[1] the U.S.
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).
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.
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 bett
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).
The frequency with which small businesses fail gives rise to a common scenario: Former small-business owners finding themselves burdened with not only personally guaranteed trade payables, but also with significant amounts of business-re
It’s not what a man doesn’t know that makes him a fool, it’s what he does know that ain't so.
-Josh Billings
Occasionally, a debtor may place a provision in a chapter 13 plan that is contrary to the Bankruptcy Code and the plan is confirmed without objection. It has been a long-held belief that a creditor’s failure to object to the confirmation of a chapter 13 plan waives any objection to the plan once the plan is confirmed.
