Bankruptcy cases differ from typical lawsuits in a variety of ways, including the parties involved. Whereas standard lawsuits generally involve a plaintiff and a defendant, bankruptcy cases have a different cast of “players,” including the debtor or debtor in possession, creditors, the bankruptcy trustee (i.e., Chapter 7 trustee, Chapter 13 trustee, etc.), committees, and the United States Trustee. Often, these players will retain attorneys to represent their interests in bankruptcy cases. Understanding the roles of each of these players will help you navigate the bankruptcy system.

For the past few years, the federal circuit courts have struggled with the issue of whether a creditor retaining possession of bankruptcy estate property violates the automatic stay. For example, is a creditor required to automatically turn over a vehicle as soon as the bankruptcy petition is filed, or can the creditor retain possession of the vehicle while awaiting an order of the bankruptcy court adjudicating turnover in an adversary proceeding?

On December 21, 2020, Congress passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (CAA 2021). Similar to the March 2020 CARES Act, several temporary changes to the Bankruptcy Code are included in Title X of the CAA 2021. Below, we examine four of the CAA 2021’s most significant changes to consumer bankruptcy laws.

On December 9, 2020, Congressional Democrats, including Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), proposed sweeping legislation that would overhaul consumer bankruptcy law. The proposed changes generally make it easier for consumers to access the bankruptcy system and discharge their debts. Below is a discussion of 10 critical changes proposed in the Consumer Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2020 (CBRA).

1. Chapters 7 and 13 Are Replaced with New Chapter 10

Guest Author: Karlene A. Archer of Karlene A. Archer Law P.L.L.C.

Consumers that have pending Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases undoubtedly suffered from financial hardship prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. For many of those consumers, the pandemic may have exacerbated that hardship. The CARES Act’s mortgage forbearance provisions allow some breathing room for consumers that anticipate a temporary inability to pay their mortgage. These provisions also apply to consumers in bankruptcy and in that sphere present unique difficulties.

The circuit courts continue to wrestle over the duties imposed by the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay on creditors concerning turnover of a debtor’s impounded vehicle. Is a creditor required to automatically turn over the vehicle as soon as the bankruptcy petition is filed, or can it retain possession while awaiting an order of the bankruptcy court adjudicating turnover in an adversary proceeding?

The Fifth Circuit’s recent decision in Crocker v. Navient Solutions is a stark reminder to for-profit student lenders and servicers that bankruptcy caselaw continues to evolve relating to discharge. In Crocker, the Fifth Circuit joined the trend of cases holding that private student loans are dischargeable in bankruptcy.

Federal law has long excepted student loans from discharge in bankruptcy in all but the rarest instances, recognizing the problems (and costs) associated with allowing borrowers to wipe out defaulted debts through a bankruptcy filing. However, as the issues of access to college and affordability become frequent topics in political discourse, new ideas for radical changes to the treatment of student loan debt in bankruptcy have been proposed. Lenders and servicers need to be up to speed on those proposals and ready to adjust their operations if any become law.

After an individual debtor receives a bankruptcy discharge, a creditor may not seek to recover the discharged debt. Under section 524(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code, a discharge injunction permanently enjoins creditors from trying to collect discharged debts and prohibits a creditor from collecting any debt where the debtor has been discharged of personal liability.

The Supreme Court reminded bankrupt debtors on Monday that mere rejection of a contract does not turn back the clock to avoid contractual obligations. This was the thrust of its holding in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, which held that a rejection of an executory contract—in this case, a trademark license—under Section 365(a) constitutes a breach of the contract, not a rescission.