In a September 19, 2017 decision from the bench in the matter of Bank of Montreal v. Kappeler Masonry Corporation, et. al.1 (“Kappeler Masonry”), Madam Justice Conway of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) (the “Court”) confirmed that commingling of construction project receipts in a receiver’s estate account is fatal to a Construction Lien Act (Ontario) (the “CLA”) trust claim in the face of a debtor’s bankruptcy.

In what may prove either to be a landmark decision or a mere outliner confined to its unique facts, the Court of Appeal for Ontario (the "Court of Appeal") in Romspen Investment Corporation v. Courtice Auto Wreckers Limited, et al.1 has overturned an earlier decision and lifted the stay of proceedings against a court-appointed receiver to allow a union to proceed with a certification application and an unfair labour practice complaint against the receiver.

The United States Supreme Court recently held that a creditor who files a bankruptcy claim on a time-barred debt does not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). SeeMidland Funding, LLC v. Johnson, 137 S. Ct. 1407 (2017). In the case, the debtor filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code, and the creditor filed a proof of claim asserting that it was owed credit card debt. However, the credit card had not been used in over ten years, outside Alabama’s six-year statute of limitations.

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey recently overruled a creditor’s objection to the debtors’ proposed chapter 13 plan, rejecting the association’s argument that its claim is secured by a consensual lien and may not be modified pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 1322(b)(2). Specifically, the Court found that a lien held by a New Jersey condominium or homeowners’ association can be either a statutory lien (subject to modification) or a consensual lien (not subject to modification) depending upon the circumstances presented. In re Keise, 564 B.R. 255 (Bankr. D.N.J.

The United States District Court for the Western District of New York recently granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s first cause of action alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq. (“FDCPA”), on the ground that plaintiff failed to sufficiently plead that the communications from defendant were sent in an attempt to collect a debt. SeeBurns v. Seterus, Inc., 2017 WL 104735 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2017). In 2005, plaintiff signed a note and mortgage secured by her residence.

The Fourth Circuit recently affirmed a bankruptcy court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) claims, holding that the defendant’s conduct—filing proofs of claim based on time-barred debts—does not violate the FDCPA. SeeIn re Dubois, 2016 WL4474156 (4^th Cir. Aug. 25, 2016). In the case, each of the two plaintiffs filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, and the defendant filed proofs of claim in the plaintiffs’ cases.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently reaffirmed that a foreclosure action commenced more than six years after the loan was accelerated could still be within the applicable statute of limitations. SeeIn re: Gordon Allen Washington; Gordon Allen Washington v. Bank of New York Mellon, As Tr. for the Certificate-Holders of the CWABS, Inc., Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2007-5, 2016 WL 5827439 (3d Cir. Sept. 30, 2016). In the case, the borrowed executed a mortgage and promissory note in February 2007.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently held that a debt collector did not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) by filing a time-barred proof of claim in a bankruptcy proceeding.  See Nelson v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 2016 WL 3672073 (8th Cir.

Secured creditors should take note of Callidus,¹ wherein the Federal Court (the “Court”) held that the bankruptcy of a tax debtor rendered a statutory deemed trust under section 222 of the Excise Tax Act (the “ETA”) ineffective as against a secured creditor who, prior to the bankruptcy, received proceeds from the tax debtor’s assets.

Background

In Aventura², a recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) (the “Court”), the Honourable Justice Penny confirmed that a bankruptcy trustee does not have the authority, pursuant to section 30(1)(k) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the “BIA”), to disclaim a lease on behalf of a bankrupt landlord. Rather, a trustee’s authority to disclaim a lease is limited to situations where the bankrupt is the tenant.