Mortgage

“ In Rem Relief” as Commandeering? Perspectives from Haaland By Nate Juster 1 Is it unconstitutional to force states to record in rem bankruptcy court orders as charges against real property? It could be. In Haaland v. Brackeen , 2 the U.S. Supreme Court considered

The Fourth Circuit agreed with the Sixth and Ninth Circuits by allowing chapter 13 debtors to deduct their actual mortgage expenses, not limited by the local standard mortgage deduction.

In a rising real estate market, chapter 13 debtors risk losing their homes if they sell or convert to chapter 7.

The high court’s ruling on the Takings Clause also seems to mean that real estate tax foreclosures can be avoided as constructively fraudulent transfers.

A discharge in bankruptcy by itself does not start the statute of limitations running on a defaulted mortgage, Colorado Supreme Court holds.

Eighteenth century ‘history and tradition’ might govern the constitutionality of real estate tax foreclosures where the government retains sale proceeds in excess of unpaid taxes.

Ruling the other way would have barred chapter 13 filings after renewing title loans.

Subordinated lenders can’t take a ‘haircut,’ give a ‘tip’ to the trustee, sell a home and eradicate the debtor’s homestead exemption.

Benchnotes By Bradley D. Pack, Aaron M. Kaufman and Christina Sanfelippo Third Circuit Holds that “Financial Distress” Is Requisite Component of Good Faith in Filing a Petition In a move colloquially known as the “Texas Two-Step,” a highly profitable but litigation

Courts are deeply split on a chapter 13 debtor’s ability to keep the appreciation in an exempt home, whether or not the case converts to chapter 7.