36153 Ryan Glenn Ziegler v. Her Majesty the Queen (Criminal law – Dangerous offender)
35888 R.V. v. R.P. (Family law – custody)
In Topfer v. Topfer (In re Topfer), Case No. 5-18-ap-00066 RNO (M.D. Pa. July 25, 2018), the Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania remanded a three-and half year old divorce proceeding that had been removed to bankruptcy court. But, the remand became more complicated than it needed to be.
The chapter 7 debtor had removed the divorce action immediately after filing for chapter 7 bankruptcy. Shortly after removal, the non-debtor spouse moved to remand the case on mandatory abstention and permissive abstention grounds.
Several recent decisions serve as a good reminder that it is not only the Probate and Family Court that addresses important T&E issues in Massachusetts.
Reversing a bankruptcy court order in favor of the debtor, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland recently held that a bank that had allowed amounts to be withdrawn from a home equity credit line after the HELOC had been frozen could still recover those amounts from the debtor.
A copy of the opinion is available at: Link to Opinion.
Key points
Challenging the transfer of assets through ancillary proceedings as transactions at an undervalue remains challenging.
The facts
This case centred around a property in Coventry originally owned and developed by a Mr Singh. After failing to pay his builders a substantial amount, on which he was subsequently bankrupted, Mr Singh charged the property to his father and then his sister-in-law.
The Facts
Husband and wife petitioned for divorce in 2008. In January 2009, a statutory demand was served on the husband and a bankruptcy petition was presented in March 2009. In June 2009, husband and wife agreed a consent order whereby the husband was to make periodical payments to the wife and daughter and to repay around £1.4m to the wife.
A prominent High Court case involving TV presenter Trinny Woodall and her late ex-husband’s creditors has provided a useful insight into the handling of debts following a divorce.
Ms Woodall married Johnny Elichaoff in 1999 and after a ten year marriage, the couple divorced in 2009.
During the divorce settlement it was agreed that Mr Elichaoff would pay Ms Woodall and their daughter £24,000 a year and repay a sum of £1.4 million to her.
However, just nine days before the divorce was finalised Mr Elichaoff was made bankrupt and the repayment was later declared void.
The effects of bankruptcy are invariably demoralising and can have wider, sometimes unexpected, results for other members of the family. In no other area can this be as distressing as the potential loss of the family home.
Between family partners, whether or not married, it is usual for the family home to be owned jointly. If one of those partners is declared bankrupt, then, even if the other is blameless in connection with their finances, the effects on that blameless partner and any children can be devastating.
A recent case in the insolvency courts has seen the court considering the possibility of forcing a bankrupt pension holder to draw down funds to be used by their trustee in bankruptcy.
Time will tell whether this type of order will filter into financial settlements on divorce. There are already a number of options for dealing with pensions on divorce that I consider with my clients, particularly when creating bespoke and creative solutions for them. The ability to force someone to draw on their pension would have to be seen as a last resort but would be a tool worth having.