Almost every year, changes are made to the set of rules that govern how bankruptcy cases are managed — the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. The changes address issues identified by an Advisory Committee made up of federal judges, bankruptcy attorneys, and others. Often there are revisions to the official bankruptcy forms as well.
In re RML Dev., Inc., 528 B.R. 150 (Bankr. W.D. Tenn. 2014) –
A mortgagee sought to modify a sale order to (1) modify the bid procedures and (2) confirm that it had a right to credit bid.
In re Walker, 526 B.R. 187 (E.D. La. 2015) –
The bankruptcy court (1) denied a mortgage lender’s request to file a late amendment to a proof of claim that had been filed on its behalf by the debtor and (2) confirmed the debtor’s proposed plan over the mortgagee’s objection that the plan payments were not sufficient to cure the actual arrearage. The lender appealed to the district court.
A chapter 7 trustee sought return of a “good faith” deposit made prior to bankruptcy in connection with a proposed purchase of real estate. The bankruptcy court found against the trustee, as did the district court. So the trustee appealed to the 6th Circuit.
Senior lienholders sued lenders holding junior liens on common collateral, arguing that the junior lienholders violated an intercreditor agreement. The bankruptcy court addressed the issues in the context of motions to dismiss the senior lienholder complaints.
A chapter 13 debtor sought a court determination that a mortgage loan was unsecured because there was a small typo in her name when the mortgage was indexed. The mortgagee brought a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
Applicable state law included the following provisions:
What is a proprietary claim? A proprietary claim is a claim to own a specific asset or sum of money.
In re Ramz Real Estate Co., LLC, 510 B.R. 712 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2013) –
An undersecured mortgagee objected to a debtor’s proposed plan of reorganization on several grounds, including that (1) the plan was not approved by a proper impaired class and (2) retention of equity by the debtor’s members violated the absolute priority rule.