Summary:
The individual Chapter 11 plan proposed to pay approximately a 4% dividend to general unsecured claims, but separately classified his $235,871.00 in student loans, proposing to pay that class in full. No impaired class accepted the plan.
Accordingly, the plan could only be approved by fulfilling the requirements of 11 U.S.C.
Summary:
Kenneth Jones filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition on behalf of his minor nephew, "John Doe", in 2003. Because Jones had not been appointed as the Debtor’s guardian, the trustee moved for appointment of a guardian ad litem under Rule 1004.1. The case, however, was dismissed prior to any appointment.
Moving to the present, the Debtor contended that as Jones was not his guardian under Rule 1004.1, the bankruptcy was improper and had detrimentally affected his adult life. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
Households often rely on professionals with specialized knowledge to make important financial decisions. In many cases, the professional’s financial interests are at odds with those of the client. We explore this problem in the context of personal bankruptcy. OLS, fixed effects, and IV estimates all show that attorneys play a central role in determining whether households file under Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 of the bankruptcy code.
Sun Trust sued to collect on deficiencies following a foreclosure in North Carolina. The Debtors raised defenses challenging the validity of the debt and the default. The Court of Appeals held that the determination of a valid debt and default at the foreclosure hearing was res judicata. While the Debtors could not have raised these equitable defenses in the hearing under N.C.G.S. § 45-21.16, they could have raised such defenses in a proceeding to enjoin the foreclosure under N.C.G.S.
Debtor was the beneficiary of two Spendthrift Trusts. The Spendthrift Trusts, which were governed by Pennsylvania law, protected both the income and corpus/principal of the trusts for the beneficiaries. As such, 11 U.S.C. § 541(c)(2) provides that "[a] restriction on the transfer of a beneficial interest of the debtor in a trust that is enforceable under applicable nonbankruptcy law is enforceable in a case under this title" and the trusts were outside the reach of the bankruptcy estate.
Abstract:
This Article considers the Supreme Court’s decision in Stern v. Marshall, which limited the power of a bankruptcy judge to decide a common law claim. Stern is best understood as a combination of three arguments drawn from the Court’s prior Article III cases. The first is an argument from history — the past division of labor between the Article III judiciary and non-Article III adjudicators. The second is an argument from expertise — the appropriate selection of disputes that benefit from a specialized non-Article III forum.
Abstract:
Congress regularly makes judgment calls of constitutional dimension. One important example of the interaction between the constitutional analysis of the Court and that of Congress involves disputes over the broad grant of jurisdiction exercised by untenured bankruptcy judges. The legislative history preceding the Supreme Court’s decisions in Northern Pipeline Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. and Stern v. Marshall suggest that Congress’s constitutional interpretation is different in kind from that of the Supreme Court.
Abstract:
This paper discusses the possible meaning and effect of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Stern v. Marshall, in which the Court held that the bankruptcy courts' statutory authority to enter final judgments on certain counterclaims against creditors violates Article III of the Constitution. It was prepared by the authors as a report to the fall 2011 annual meeting of the National Bankruptcy Conference.
The Stern decision is enigmatic.
Summary:
Real property was titled as "Margaret D. Smith and D. Reed and wife, Judy C. Reed Joint Tenants with rights of survivorship." Only Ms. Reed signed the Deed of Trust and mortgage note with Countrywide. After Ms. Smith died and the mortgage was in default, Countrywide sought reformation of the Deed of Trust.
The Court of Appeal held that originally Ms. Smith owned a one-half interest in the property with the Reeds as Joint Tenants with the rights of survivorship. The Reeds owned their one-half interest as tenants b
