In re Horvath[1] provides a cautionary tale for debtors who seek to address judgment liens post-discharge, whether strategically or due to pre-filing negligence.
In the wreck of the Great Recession, numerous borrowers sought to avoid their homestead’s foreclosure despite material payment defaults.
One year into the economic crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, unemployment rates have already surpassed the high levels seen during the Great Recession in 2009. [1] Like everyone in this country and around the world, debtors are struggling.
When a debtor reaffirms a dischargeable debt, this means the obligation will survive discharge and continue to be enforceable.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (CAA), which passed in Congress on Dec. 27, 2020, introduced some noteworthy additions to the Bankruptcy Code.
On Oct. 13, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument that may alter the way bankruptcy courts interpret possession and control under Bankruptcy Code § 362(a)(3), and the right of turnover under the ambit of § 542(a). In Chicago v.
The Child Tax Credit statute (CTC), codified in 26 U.S.C. § 24, has received varying degrees of protection in bankruptcy proceedings. Consumer debtors receiving a tax refund attributable to the statute must decide how to treat tax refund proceeds early on in their bankruptcy proceeding.
The extensive 2017 changes to the Bankruptcy Rules included a model chapter 13 plan. These changes were designed to bring more uniformity to chapter 13 practice.
In 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court adopted an amendment to Rule 6007 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure that makes clear that a creditor that files for abandonment of property of the estate under 11 U.S.C. § 554(b) must serve its motion on all creditors pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P.