The second priority lien held by a junior lien holder is a property interest sufficient to trigger the protection of the automatic stay.In re Three Strokes L.P., 379 B.R. 804 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2008). Inasmuch as a senior lien holder’s foreclosure proceedings would have the effect of extinguishing the debtor’s second lien interest, a court may only lift the stay and permit the foreclosure to proceed upon such senior lien holder’s showing of adequate protection.

The Seventh Circuit recently decided that a mortgage that assigns future rental income to the mortgagee creates a security interest that takes priority over a federal tax lien.  Bloomfield State Bank v. United States, No.

In a recent decision, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York concluded that an investor in a Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit ("REMIC") lacked standing to object to the sale of a chapter 11 debtor's real property, despite that the property served as collateral for loans held in trust by the REMIC for the benefit of its investors.

Recently, some bankruptcy courts in Ohio have given mortgage lenders something new to be concerned over: Is the form of your notary’s certification proper? Everyone in the mortgage industry is aware of the wave of cases challenging the validity or effectiveness of certain mortgages or mortgage assignments on account of sub-standard execution, notarization and recordation practices.

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Kentucky recently found that a vendor’s filing of a prepetition notice of lis pendens served to place any hypothetical judicial lien creditor, execution creditor, or purchaser of real property on notice of its equitable lien against the property for the unpaid portion of the purchase price. This prepetition notice of lis pendens prevented the debtors-in-possession from avoiding the vendor’s lien in exercise of their strong-arm powers under 11 U.S.C. § 544.

In Hardesty v. CitiFinancial, Inc.,1 the Sixth Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy court’s denial of the trustee’s request to avoid the debtors’ mortgages with the creditor based on allegedly defective certificates of acknowledgement in the mortgage documents under Ohio law.

The Indiana Lawyer Announced on March 31, 2011, that the Fair Finance Co.’s bankruptcy trustee had reached a $371,000 settlement with an Indianapolis attorney who was accused of defaulting on a 2003 loan from the business. The trustee had sued the Indiana attorney and his wife, saying that the couple failed to pay off a $250,000 loan that matured in 2006. Accrued interest had raised the amount owed to over $370,000.

A Cuyahoga County, Ohio trial court did not abuse its discretion when it appointed a receiver for a “defunct” foreign corporation that the trial court found “persists for the purpose of winding up its affairs in Ohio.”In re: All Cases against Sager Corporation (2010), 188 Ohio App 3d 796, appeal accepted for review (2011), 127 Ohio St. 3d 1503. The Court of Appeals found it undisputed that corporate assets existed after the foreign corporation had been dissolved, “and that these assets may afford insurance coverage to Ohioans injured by exposure to Sager’s products”.

On December 23, 2010, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the 6th Circuit, upheld the Eastern District of Kentucky’s Bankruptcy Court’s order that post petition rents, revenues or other funds derived from leased real property is property of the estate under 11 U.S.C. §541 and can be used as cash collateral under 11 U.S.C. §363. However, post petition rents can be used as cash collateral only if the debtor can provide adequate protection for the use of those rents through an existing equity cushion in the property.

In Ransom v. FIA Card Servs., N.A., --- S.Ct. ----, 2011 WL 66438 (U.S. 2011), the United States Supreme Court took up the question of whether a Chapter 13 debtor who owns his or her vehicle outright (“free and clear”) may claim an allowance for car ownership costs and thereby reduce the amount that he or she will repay creditors. In her first opinion, Justice Kagan answered simply—no. The Ransom opinion has been seen as a victory for not only credit card companies like the one involved but other creditors, as well.