A significant body of literature has developed in the wake of Stern v. Marshall[1] and the evolving roles of the courts. Aside from the incurred costs from dragging a bankruptcy judge’s proposals through the district court for review, the practical significance of mandating these steps depends on the tendency of district courts to adopt the bankruptcy court’s recommendations. However, there is a procedural disconnect with respect to the manner in which some courts carry out their roles that can leave experienced practitioners confused — and pro se litigants in peril.

Recharacterization is a judicial doctrine originating in the case law of most state courts. Its main tenet is that “a spade should be called a spade”; that is, if an extension of credit has more of the characteristics of equity than of debt, it should be treated like equity even if it was denominated as debt.

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 Indiana University’s Robert H. McKinney School of Law.

Clients can’t all be sweet little grandmas on Social Security. Sooner or later, every consumer lawyer will end up running into the occasional “bad actor”: someone hoping to dodge criminal fines, restitution or benefits overpayment. Someone who has done something a little sketchy.