The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently rejected an attempt by homeowners to collaterally attack a state court mortgage foreclosure judgment, affirming the trial court’s dismissal of an amended complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim, but on alternative grounds.

The Facts

The Facts

Following a statutory demand for unpaid council tax in the sum of £8,067, a bankruptcy petition was presented against Ms Harriet Lock. The council provided Ms Lock with evidence of the council tax liability orders confirming the debt. Ms Lock provided evidence in response, which explained that she was living in social housing and was financially dependent on her daughter. At a first hearing, the court adjourned and ordered that Ms Lock provide a skeleton argument to explain why a bankruptcy order should not be made.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that 12 U.S.C. § 1715z-20(j) did not alter or limit the lender’s right to foreclose under the terms of the valid reverse mortgage contract where the non-borrower spouse was still living in the home.

Accordingly, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s petition for injunctive relief to prevent the foreclosure sale.

It is common knowledge to many that parties to a construction contract have the right to adjudicate at any time. This is a right implied by statute and a right that cannot be fettered. However, it seems the limits of such a right are now somewhat more nuanced. In the recent case of Michael J. Lonsdale (Electrical) Limited v Bresco Electrical Services Limited (in Liquidation) [2018] EWHC 2043 Fraser J has considered how the Insolvency Rules and Adjudication work together and what this means for the right to adjudicate at any time.

In an urgent application, the Court of Appeal held that a CVA should be precluded from becoming effective where an unanticipated claim of €126.7m was submitted after the CVA was approved but before the statutory bar on new claims had lapsed.

The Judgment handed down by the Court of Appeal in Orexim Trading Ltd v Mahavir Port And Terminal Private Ltd (formerly known as Fourcee Port and Terminal Private Ltd) [2018] EWCA Civ 1660, [2018] All ER (D) 101 (Jul) on 13 July 2018 provided important clarification as to the service of claims under s.423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 ("IA 1986") out of the jurisdiction.

The Facts

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently held that a mortgagee’s foreclosure action did not violate an automatic stay imposed during one of the plaintiff’s chapter 13 bankruptcy schedules, where the debtor failed to amend his bankruptcy schedules to disclose his recent acquisition of the subject property from his son.

In so ruling, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the trial court’s judgment in favor of the mortgagee because father and son plaintiffs were judicially estopped from claiming a stay violation.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently held that a debtor’s claim seeking to use a bankruptcy trustee’s § 544(a) strong-arm power to avoid a mortgage on the ground that it was never perfected did not require appellate review of the state court foreclosure judgment, and therefore was not barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit recently applied the “conceivable effect” test in holding that a bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction over a state law fraud claim raised by a third party regarding the validity of a lender’s lien, and therefore, declined to consider the issue on appeal.

In so ruling, the Panel ruled that the state law fraud claim did not invoke “arising under” or “arising in” jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court because the state law fraud claim was not created or determined by the Bankruptcy Code, and could exist outside of bankruptcy.