Consumer Bankruptcy

Lawyer Math, Jointly Owned Property and Judicial Liens, Oh My! Section 522(f) and Co-Owned Property By Hon. Elizabeth L. Gunn 1 and Evanthea Hammer Exemptions are one of the key elements to an individual debtor’s fresh start provided by the Bankruptcy Code. For real

Dilatory actions by a debtor tolled statutes of limitations for a trustee’s suit against a third party.

Tenth Circuit will be deciding whether an entire child tax credit is exempt or only a pro rata portion.

Bankruptcy courts are divided on whether the calculation of a trustee’s commissions includes distributions made to co-owners of property that the trustee has sold.

Virginia’s Judge Keith Phillips sides with courts that bar lenders from cutting deals with trustees to eliminate debtors’ homestead exemptions.

A post-confirmation lawsuit to generate funds to pay a chapter 13 plan establishes ‘related to’ jurisdiction for noncore claims.

The primary purposes of the bankruptcy process are to maximize the payments to a debtor’s creditors and provide debtors with a fresh start.[1] At first glance, the importance of firearm ownership appears unrelated to satisfy the purposes of the bankruptcy process. However, without the ability to exempt essential property from creditors, debtors would be left without the ability to achieve success with a renewed start. The next question then becomes, are firearms essential personal property? The answer to this question lies within subjective personal beliefs, with various degrees of an affirmation or refutation debated across the nation.

In In re Smith, [1] the Third Circuit reminded consumer bankruptcy practitioners of the wrath of res judicata. The debtor owned an encumbered rental property with an assignment of rents to her mortgage lender. The debtor’s proposed chapter 13 plan included a cramdown of the mortgage lender’s claim that reduced the secured portion of the claim from $150,000 to $95,000 — the value of the collateral. The plan further provided that the payment of rents would pay down the secured portion of the lender’s claim.

The lender objected to the $95,000 cramdown value, the application of rents to the secured portion of its claim, and feasibility. After the bankruptcy court sided with the debtor and held that the rents could pay down the secured portion of the lender’s claim, the lender agreed to the $95,000 cramdown value and abandoned its feasibility objections. The bankruptcy court confirmed the plan.