Tag: anti-modification

Bankr. E.D.N.C.: In re Hurlburt- Anti-Deficiency Mortgage Statute does not Circumvent Anti-Modification Provisions

Summary:

Mr. Hurlburt sought to cram down the claim of a seller-financed purchase money deed to the value of his principal residence. While this would have been impermissible under 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2), because the note was due, Mr. Hurlburt argued that 11 U.S.C. § 1322(c)(2) allowed such treatment even though Witt v. United Companies Lending Corp., 113 F.3d 508 (4th Cir. 1997) interpreted that section to allow only modification of the payment and not cram down. As this was a seller-financed purchase money deed, the anti-deficiency provisions of N.C.G.S. § 45-21.28, limited the lien-holder to only collect against the collateral.… Read More

Tagged with: , , , , ,

Bankr. E.D.N.C.: In re Bradshaw- 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2) Anti-modification inapplicable if Mortgage Takes Escrow Account as Collateral

Summary:

The Debtors principal residence was found to be worth $136,000 with a first mortgage of $116,254.11 held by PNC and a second mortgage, held by Asset Ventures, LLC, in the amount of $27,000. This second mortgage additionally took as collateral the Debtors’ escrow account.

Following In re Bradsher, 427 B.R. 386, 388 (Bankr. M.D.N.C. 2010), the court held that as an escrow account is additional personal property, the anti-modification provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2) did not apply and allowed the bifurcation of Asset Ventures’ claim, with $19,745.89 secured and unsecured in the amount of $7,254.11.

For a copy of the opinion, please see:

Bradshaw- 11 U.S.C. Read More

Tagged with: , , , , ,
Top