INTRODUCTION
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear Bullard v. Hyde Park Savings Bank (In re Bullard), U.S., No. 14-116 (cert. granted 12/12/14). The Court's decision in this case will resolve a circuit split with regard to whether an order denying confirmation of a bankruptcy plan is a final order appealable pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1). The decision has the potential to impact Chapter 13 and Chapter 11 cases.
Section 1322(c)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code1 allows debtors to cure defaults and reinstate a
mortgage on their principal residence "until such residence is sold at a foreclosure sale that is
conducted in accordance with applicable nonbankruptcy law."2
Like many provisions of the
Bankruptcy Code, this one appears fairly straightforward at first glance; a debtor has the right to
cure and reinstate a home mortgage until the property is sold at a foreclosure sale.
Who Will Think of the Tenants: Split in Authority Regarding the Interplay Between Bankruptcy Code Sections 363(f) and 365(h)(1)(A)
The recent Eleventh Circuit case of In re Brown, 746 F.3d 1236 (2014) held that 11 U.S.C. § 506(a)(2)'s replacement value standard applies even when a Chapter 7 or 13 debtor surrenders collateral under 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(5)(C). The Eleventh Circuit's decision in In re Brown has an important role in how personal property collateral will be valued in Chapter 7 and 13 cases in the Eleventh Circuit and thus its reasoning is important for creditors to understand.
In Crawford v. LVNV Funding, LLC, the Eleventh Circuit became the first federal circuit court of appeals to hold that filing a proof of claim on a time-barred debt in a bankruptcy case violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”).[1] See No. 13-12389,__ F.3d __, 2014 WL 3361226 (11th Cir.
On June 9, 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Exec. Benefits Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Arkison (In re Bellingham Ins. Agency, Inc.), 573 U.S. ___ (2014), affirming the Ninth Circuit and holding that, while the Constitution does not permit a bankruptcy court to issue a final ruling in certain circumstances, it is permitted to issue proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to be reviewed de novo by the district court.
Energy Future Holdings Corp. filed a prepackaged ("pre-pack") chapter 11 in April 2014 seeking a complete restructuring and quick-exit from bankruptcy, aiming to be in and out of bankruptcy in under 11 months. In May 2014, the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware confirmed the prepackaged disclosure statement and reorganization plan of Quiznos, and on May 23, 2014, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York approved a $570 million loan in the Momentive Performance Materials prepack bankruptcy.
Bankruptcy Court holds that Section 521(a)(2) is more than a mere notice statute and that a chapter 7 debtor’s stated intent to surrender real property under that provision means that a debtor must allow the mortgagee to take possession through foreclosurewWithout interference or impediment
Before the Supreme Court this term is the question of whether a beneficiary individual retirement account (an “Inherited IRA”) is exempt from a debtor’s bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(3)(C) and (d)(12)2 of the Bankruptcy Code. The issue turns on 1) whether the funds in an Inherited IRA are “retirement funds,” and 2) whether an Inherited IRA is considered tax exempt under the Internal Revenue Code (the “Tax Code”).
The United States Supreme Court recently denied certiorari to an Eleventh Circuit appeal which would have addressed the issue of whether section 506(d) of the Bankruptcy Code permits a chapter 7 debt to “strip off”1 a wholly unsecured junior lien in Bank of America, N.A. v. Sinkfield.2 As a result, wholly unsecured junior creditors will continue to suffer the harsh consequence of having its junior lien completely “stripped off” in Eleventh Circuit bankruptcy cases, despite other Circuits around the country holding to the contrary.