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.

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.

In the framework of the reform of insolvency law that entered into force on 1 May 2018, the legislator has introduced important amendments regarding the liability of the directors in case of bankruptcy. These amended liability rules apply to directors of companies and not to physical persons who operate without a corporate structure.

1. Liability claim for apparent gross fault

Dans le cadre de la réforme du droit de l’insolvabilité qui est entrée en vigueur le 1er mai 2018, le législateur a opéré plusieurs modifications importantes concernant la responsabilité des administrateurs en cas de faillite. Les règles de responsabilité révisées valent pour les administrateurs de sociétés et non pour les personnes physiques qui bien qu’étant des entreprises, n’ont pas la structure d’une société.

1. Action en responsabilité pour faute grave et caractérisée

In het kader van de hervorming van het insolventierecht die op 1 mei 2018 van kracht is geworden, heeft de wetgever een aantal belangrijke wijzigingen doorgevoerd inzake de aansprakelijkheid van bestuurders bij een faillissement. De herziene aansprakelijkheidsregels gelden voor bestuurders van vennootschappen en niet voor natuurlijke personen die ondernemingen zijn maar geen vennootschapsstructuur hebben.

1. Aansprakelijkheidsvordering wegens kennelijk grove fout

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania recently held that a borrower is not entitled to attorney’s fees under the Pennsylvania Loan Interest Law (“Act 6”) relating to an affirmative defense raised in a mortgage foreclosure action that was subsequently discontinued without prejudice.

The Supreme Court of Wisconsin recently held that claim preclusion does not bar a mortgagee from proceeding with a foreclosure complaint despite a prior litigation which resulted in a dismissal with prejudice if the subsequent litigation is based upon a default and acceleration which occurred after the initial foreclosure proceeding.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a party with a pecuniary interest affected by a bankruptcy court order satisfies the “person aggrieved” requirement for appellate standing even where the party fails to appear and object in the bankruptcy proceeding.

Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of the appeal for lack of standing and remanded the case.