The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently held that a debtor in bankruptcy can pursue claims under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") in district court for trying to collect a discharged debt, reversing a judgment dismissing the FDCPA claims and requiring the plaintiff seek relief in bankruptcy court.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida recently held that:

In a case addressing what it means to "surrender" property under the Bankruptcy Code, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida recently held that a Chapter 7 trustee's abandonment of real property only restores legal title to the debtors as if no bankruptcy petition had been filed, and does not also give the debtors the right to contest the mortgagee's foreclosure if the debtors elected to surrender the property.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in a case of first impression, recently held that section 1328(f) of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA), which bars so-called “Chapter 20” debtors from receiving a discharge at the conclusion of their Chapter 13 reorganization if they received a Chapter 7 discharge within four years of filing the petition for Chapter 13 relief, does not prevent a debtor from voiding a secured creditor’s lien under section 506(d) of the Bankruptcy Code.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida recently held that, at a minimum, “surrender” under Bankruptcy Code §§ 521 and 1325 means a debtor cannot take an overt act that impedes a secured creditor from foreclosing its interest in secured property.

In so holding, the Court found that actively contesting a post-bankruptcy foreclosure case is inconsistent with a “surrender” of the property.

The United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit recently held that filing a proof of claim on a time-barred debt is not, alone, a prohibited debt collection practice under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

A copy of the opinion is available at: Link to Opinion.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that a debt collector’s demand seeking 10 percent interest that was not expressly authorized by the debt agreement did not violate the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act or California’s equivalent Rosenthal Act, because the pre-judgment interest was permitted by state law.

A copy of the opinion is available at: Link to Opinion.

Interesante Resolución de la Dirección General de los Registros y del Notariado de 5 junio 2019. En el origen, se trata de la inscripción de una venta directa de bien hipotecado, hecha en liquidación concursal, por un valor inferior al de tasación, pero sin contar con el consentimiento del acreedor hipotecario, como impone el artículo 155.4 de la Ley Concursal (LCon). Según la administración concursal, este consentimiento no es preciso, pues en virtud del artículo 97 ha desaparecido el crédito hipotecario por no estar incluido en la lista ni haber sido ésta objeto de impugnación.

Sentencia del Tribunal Supremo 227/2019, de 11 abril. Después de la declaración de concurso de la prestataria, la acreedora hipotecaria (una Caja Rural) comunicó un crédito de 117.174,82 euros, que se correspondía a 114.839,44 euros de principal, 1.089,29 euros de intereses remuneratorios y 127,16 euros de intereses de demora. El crédito es clasificado como crédito con privilegio especial. Abierta la liquidación, se procedió a la subasta de las dos fincas sobre las que se había constituido la hipoteca en garantía del reseñado crédito. La subasta se celebró el 11 de marzo de 2013.

Se comenta y se refuta una reciente sentencia del Tribunal Supremo que exige que estos créditos por intereses estén en el concurso especialmente comunicados, y que de otra forma no podrían ser pagados con el producto de ejecución.

1. Los hechos