Although it has been nearly a decade since the New York Court of Appeals issued its decision in Koehler v. Bank of Bermuda Ltd.,[1] making New York an attractive forum for judgment creditors to execute on judgment debtors’ assets held by themselves or others in foreign jurisdictions, the decision stands firm much to the disappointment of out-of-state competing creditors, as one such creditor recently experienced in Kassover v. Prism Ventures Partners LLC et al.[2]

Part III: Modifications Post-Discharge

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that a recent change to Ohio law involving notice of a defective lien had no bearing on a bankruptcy trustee’s ability to avoid the defective lien because such notice is irrelevant to a trustee’s status as a judicial lien creditor.

Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s upholding of the bankruptcy court’s denial of the mortgagee’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Contrary to the Bankruptcy Court’s ruling, the District Court concluded that California's liquidated damages statute does not apply to the default interest rate provision.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit allowed a secured creditor to retain its lien and therefore the proceeds from a sale, even after the secured creditor mistakenly released its mortgage lien. The case is Trinity 83 Development, LLC v. ColFin Midwest Funding, LLC (In re Trinity Development, LLC), slip. op. (7th Cir. March 1, 2019).

A U.S. Bankruptcy Court has denied a creditor’s motion for sanctions against a law firm in the Middle District of Florida which the creditor alleged engaged in serial filings.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently held that a mortgagee’s failure to take a deficiency judgment against a borrower who filed bankruptcy in a concluded state foreclosure action precluded the mortgagee from making a deficiency claim in the borrower’s bankruptcy proceeding.

A copy of the opinion in BMO Harris Bank N.A. v. Anderson is available at: Link to Opinion.

It is an understatement to say that questionable collateral descriptions in Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”) financing statements have spawned much litigation over many years. The drafters of the UCC have refined the law of secured transactions in attempt to provide clear guidance to lenders and borrowers on the correct manner to describe collateral in a financing statement. To be blunt, it does not take a great deal of skill or legal acumen to correctly prepare a financing statement, particularly with respect to providing a legally sufficient collateral description.

Rumors of another recession multiplied as the tumultuous second year of the Trump administration came to a close. Highlights of 2018 included a simmering trade war with China; political upheaval after the House of Representatives was retaken by Democrats in the midterm elections; mayhem in financial markets; and, in December, the beginning of the longest government shutdown in U.S. history, triggered by lawmakers’ refusal to provide $5.7 billion in funding for a U.S.-Mexican border wall.

Those who file UCC records often provide the required collateral description on an attached schedule or exhibit rather than the designated field on the financing statement. This well-established and accepted practice can save time in the filing process and reduce transcription errors. When providing the description using an attached document, the financing statement collateral field will typically incorporate the document by reference using words such as “See Schedule A attached” or words to that effect.