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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Regarding chapter 13, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) in part allows chapter 13 debtors experiencing a material financial hardship as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic to modify the length of their bankruptcy plan to a maximum of 84 months [1], up to an additional 24 months if the plan was initially s
