By now (unless you’ve been living under a rock), we’re all familiar with the expression, “Netflix and chill.” It’s everywhere. Flooding your Instagram feed with duplicitous memes. Halloween costumes. Really, really bad pick-up lines. Like the many trite colloquialisms that have come before it, Netflix and chill’s ubiquity has begun to wane with overuse and time.

As an example of the conflicting and contrasting court rulings on the effect of surrender in bankruptcy (see our prior update), the District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Fifth District, recently dismissed a borrower’s appeal from a final judgment of foreclosure because the borrower admitted during the course of his bankruptcy proceeding that he owed the mortgage debt and stated his intention to surrender the mortgage

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida recently denied a creditor’s motion to compel the debtor to surrender mortgaged property and also denied the debtor’s motion to stay the case, holding that a chapter 7 debtor who indicates surrender of real property in his statement of intention is not obligated to surrender that property to the lienholder, whether or not the property is administered by the chapter 7 trustee.

In In re Intervention Energy Holdings, LLC, the question before the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware was whether an investor who “bought and paid for [one] Common Unit (including all rights related thereto),”

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York recently held that a confirmable Chapter 13 plan cannot both “vest” title to real property and “surrender” that property to a secured lender, and that the secured lender may refuse to accept the vesting in satisfaction of its claim.

Thus, the Court held that a debtor may not force the transfer of title in collateral to a secured creditor in satisfaction of the secured creditor’s claim, without the consent of the secured creditor.

(6th Cir. June 6, 2016)

The Sixth Circuit affirms the B.A.P. and dismisses the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Following the principal creditor’s objection, the bankruptcy court denied the trustee and debtors’ motion to approve a settlement of a legal malpractice claim held by the estate. The debtors appealed. The court finds that the appealed order was not a final order that could be appealed because the debtors were free to propose a new settlement for approval. Opinion below.

Judge: Kethledge

Key Notes:

The question of what constitutes “equal treatment” is a question as old as law itself. Though a favored topic by the Aristotles and the Rousseaus of the world, the question is not entirely esoteric. The concept plays a central role in the law of bankruptcy – courts occasionally describe the principle of equitable distribution between similarly situated creditors as one of the “pillars” of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 502(e)(1)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code allows debtors to seek disallowance of certain types of contingent claims to avoid being twice liable on a single obligation. It has the added benefits of facilitating debtors’ efficient exit from bankruptcy and ensuring that unsecured creditors are paid in a timely fashion. Debtors commonly seek Section 502(e)(1)(B) relief for claims involving environmental remediations or tort lawsuits, for example personal injury actions.

A recent decision out of a New Jersey Bankruptcy Court highlights a loophole in the Bankruptcy Code which may allow Chapter 7 debtors to keep significant assets out of the hands of trustees and creditors.