Summary:
Judge Ahart revisits his 2005 article, The Limited Scope of Implied Powers of a Bankruptcy Judge: A Statutory Court of Bankruptcy, Not a Court of Equity, 79 Am. Bankr. L.J. 1, in light of the Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct.
Summary:
The Debtor granted Woodlands Bank a $1.44 million mortgage. Woodlands Bank was purchased by the FDIC and sold to Bank of the Ozarks, subject to a guarantee that the FDIC would compensate the Bank of the Ozarks for up to 80% of any losses on loans. Subsequently, the Debtor filed Chapter 11. The Bank of the Ozarks filed a Proof of Claim in the amount of $1,488,324.07, but then sent the Debtor two letters stating that the mortgage balance was $1.16 million.
Summary:
Halo entered into interconnection agreements (together referred to as the “ICA”) with BellSouth for the transmission of Halo’s wireless data over AT&T networks. A dispute arose between BellSouth and Halo regarding the ICA, with Halo first filing a complaint against BellSouth (among others) in federal District Court in the Eastern District of Texas seeking to limit BellSouth (and others) from having the ICA dispute in any other forum than the FCC.
Summary:
The Trustee sought a denial of discharge, claiming the Debtor, with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud, concealed property of the estate and knowingly and fraudulently, in connection with a case, made a false oath. At the §341 Meeting, in response to questions from the attorney for the his estranged spouse, the Debtor admitted that he owned a $2,000 horse trailer and a grease gun, wrenches, a pressure washer, a generator, an air compressor, and a tool chest filled with tools, worth approximately $800.00.
Summary:
After consulting with a bankruptcy attorney, the Debtors sold personal property at auction, receiving $14,000 in proceeds. Two days before filing Chapter 7, the Debtors used $12,000 to fund IRAs and the remainder for insurance and vehicle repairs. The Trustee sought to avoid the contributions to the IRAs as fraudulent conveyances.
Following, Ford v. Poston, 773 F.2d 52, 54 (4th Cir.
Summary:
The Debtors own and operate a feed mill. Following initiation of foreclosure proceedings against 442.92 acres of land (which had been in the Debtors’ family for centuries!), the Debtors filed Chapter 11.
Summary:
Sixteen months after filing Chapter 13, the Debtor converted to Chapter 7. Capital One, the lienholder against the Debtor’s vehicle, sent the Debtor a reaffirmation agreement, which would have required immediate and full payment of the $16,149.46 balance. Debtor’s counsel requested Capital One negotiate payment terms, but received no response. No reaffirmation on the original contract terms was offered.
Summary:
The Manuels fell behind on their mortgage and engaged the assistance of Secure Property Solutions (“SPS”) (which is not a party to this action) and Gembala, an attorney licensed in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, in what the Manuels eventually regarded as a “mortgage modification scam.”
The Manuels initially filed suit in federal district court alleging various RICO and North Carolina state law violations.
Summary:
The Debtor’s Chapter 13 plan proposed the surrender of an ATV, but she nonetheless took a deduction, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 707(b)(2)(A)(iii), for the payments due on this secured obligation. Finding that the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Hamilton v. Lanning, 130 S. Ct. 2464 (2010), allows a bankruptcy court to “ account for changes in the debtor’s income or expenses that are known or virtually certain at the time of confirmation." Id. at 2478 (Emphasis added), the 4th Circuit disallowed the deduction from the Debtor’s “projected disposable income” under 11 U.S.C.
