Summary: Following receipt of an Reaffirmation Agreement from World Omni, the Macys completed and signed the statutorily prescribed form and both returned the documents to World Omni and filed a copy with the bankruptcy court. The bankruptcy court sua sponte held that the filing of the Reaffirmation “absent a signature of an authorized representative” of World Omni was improper and of no binding effect, despite that it may be necessary for a debtor to establish that the requirements of 11 U.S.C.
Summary: The bankruptcy court issued a show cause order to the Debtor’s attorney for signing a certification that a reaffirmation would not be an undue hardship for the Debtor. The court held that in regards to a reaffirmation the debtor’s attorney must file an Affidavit stating that the Reaffirmation: 1. Represents a fully informed and voluntary agreement by the debtor; 2. Does not impose an undue hardship on the debtor or a dependent of the debtor; 3.
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: B-Line purchased a charge account that the Debtors originally had with Kay Jewelers, which had been listed as a creditor on Schedule F of the Debtors’ petition, with a balance owing of $860.61. Following the filing of the Debtors’ bankruptcy, B-Line solicited a reaffirmation from the Debtors, including a warning/threat that “If the Jewelry purchased under this secured account have been destroyed, gifted or transferred, or sold, [B-Line] may have a non-dischargeability cause of action against you/your client(s) under 11 U.S.C.
Summary: Debtor filed a reaffirmation agreement with Ally for a vehicle with the bankruptcy court, despite showing that her monthly income minus monthly expenses resulted in a negative net income, indicating a presumption of undue hardship. The reaffirmation stated that the Debtor intended to adjust her expenses to afford the car payments. The Debtor’s attorney did not complete the certification in the reaffirmation that there was no undue hardship. Due to the absence of the attorney certification, the bankruptcy court set the reaffirmation for hearing.
Summary: This article discusses the "fix" that Congress attempted to make in BAPCPA in 11 U.S.C.