Welcome to Part II of our series on the servicing of discharged mortgage debt (catch up on Part I). This part will discuss communications to discharged borrowers and evaluate various disclaimers that can be utilized.
Mortgage servicers are plagued by their nebulous relationships with the borrowers who discharge their personal liability in bankruptcy. Issues arise when the borrower whose debt has been discharged continues to engage with the mortgage servicer. These activities include making monthly payments and requesting and participating in loss mitigation. There are few, if any, bright line rules regarding this common scenario.
On December 22, 2018, the federal funding for certain agencies lapsed, and the United States government entered into a partial shutdown. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), including the United States Trustee Program (USTP), was one of the agencies that shut down. United States Trustees (“UST”) representing the USTP appear and litigate in a multitude of bankruptcy proceedings. USTs also actively participate in out-of-court settlement discussions, plan negotiations, and the like.
The Government has approved the drafting of the Courts and Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Bill 2018. The Bill is intended to give additional protection to home owners with mortgage difficulties.
The origins of the new Bill lie in the Keeping People in their Homes Bill, a Private Member’s Bill from early 2017. The new Bill will amend the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2013 to deal with circumstances where an insolvency remedy is not available to a borrower pursuant to the 2013 Act.
As the effective date for the CFPB’s successor in interest and bankruptcy billing statement requirements quickly approaches, one question we’ve heard multiple times is whether a mortgage servicer is required to know when a confirmed successor in interest is in bankruptcy. The question stems from upcoming provisions in Regulations X and Z that will collectively say, in essence, that a confirmed successor in interest must be treated as if he or she is a borrower for the purposes of the mortgage servicing rules.
Law360
Even if you haven’t purchased any bitcoin, you have likely heard about the cryptocurrency that was approaching $20,000 per coin late last year. The record high was quickly followed by a dramatic fall in value over 16 days in early 2018 — crashing to below $7,000. Since that time, bitcoin has been staging its recovery, and as of this writing, sits at slightly over $9,000 per coin. Not a bad place to be, considering bitcoin’s humble valuation of $.08 per coin back in 2010. It seems that despite its roller coaster persona, bitcoin is here to stay.
The Court of Appeal has decided an important question affecting choices around methods of debt enforcement. In ACC Loan Management v Rickard,1 it looked at whether a receiver by way of equitable execution can be appointed to receive future sums to which the debtor may become entitled.
Municipal bankruptcies under Chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 901-946 (Chapter 9), are rare. These cases are often filed to adjust bonded indebtedness and pension obligations. Congressional authorization for Puerto Rico and its instrumentalities to file for bankruptcy under the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA) was similarly out of concern for excessive bond debt and pensions.
In a recent judgment, the High Court has held that unfair prejudice to an investment fund creditor under a proposed Personal Insolvency Arrangement should be assessed in light of likely investment returns and not the cost of its future capital needs.
One overarching certainty of federal debt collection law seems to be prolonged uncertainty over its appropriate scope. Is this scope about to change yet again? One recent bill called the Practice of Law Technical Clarification Act of 2017, H.R. 1849, seeks to do just that.