In a 7-1 decision written by Justince Sotomayor, with Justice Thomas dissenting, the Supreme Court ruled that actual fraud under Section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code does not require a false representation and is broad enough to include a fraudulent conveyance.[1]
Editor's Note: In re Perl is a case that may have significant ramifications, which has drawn the following articles by Jesse Valdez, Esq., who examines why the Court reached the correct decision, and by Shannon Doyle, Esq., who argues that the decision missed the mark.
Re: Trustee Sales in the 1st Circuit: A Reply to Attorney David G. Baker’s response to my article in the November 2015 issue of the American Bankruptcy Institute Journal[1] discussing In Re Traverse, 753 F.3d 19 (1st Cir.) , cert. denied sub nom. DeGiacamo v. Traverse, 1358 S.Ct.
Means testing was introduced to the world of bankruptcy with the adoption of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA). The means test is set forth in 11 U.S.C. § 707(b)[1] and is applied to above-median debtors in chapter 13 through 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b).
Hurricane Sandy was the deadliest hurricane in the 2012 hurricane season and the second-costliest hurricane in U.S. history. It was Sandy that came ashore on Oct. 29, 2012, with a vengeance and destroyed the Zairs’ home, which was located within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York.
On Dec. 1, 2015, the new bankruptcy forms went into effect. For creditors’ attorneys, the most notable of these forms is the proof-of-claim form. For debtors’ attorneys, the documents filed to commence the bankruptcy case are the ones that have most drastically changed.
In recent times, proofs of claim, especially those filed by consumer lenders and debt purchasers, have come under increased scrutiny. Rule 3001 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (FRBP) has been amended twice since 2010 to define more specifically what information is required to be included with claims.
In a no-asset chapter 7 case, an unlisted debt is generally discharged.
It is not uncommon for debtors in a chapter 7 case to express their intent to surrender collateral in their statement of intention. In chapter 13 cases, debtors may propose in their plan that they will surrender collateral. In either case, there are instances when a debtor actively defends a state foreclosure action after either receiving a discharge or surrendering the property.
In the wake of the financial crisis of 2008, many homeowners found themselves in dire straits with respect to their residential mortgage loans, and some sought protection in bankruptcy. Even with the ability to cure mortgage payment defaults within a reasonable time,[1] some debtors still lacked the financial ability to maintain their non-modifiable mortgage payments[2] while also making the other payments required under the Bankruptcy Code.
