the court emphasized that the debtor's attorney's conduct
The volume of critics and supporters of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA) has finally begun to settle down.
In Perlin v. Hitachi Capital Am. Corp (In re Perlin),[1] the U.S.
Court rules for some states, such as Michigan, allow for a judgment creditor to seek judgment against a garnishee for failure to answer a writ of garnishment.
Almost two years after the implementation of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA), it would appear that some of its provisions are meeting their objectives better than others.
The more I look at the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA), the more I am beginning to
We are very much in the early innings on issues involving 910 claims under the hanging paragraph of 11 U.S.C. §1325(a)(9).