Little can be more frustrating to an association than when a non-compliant homeowner files for bankruptcy. The bankruptcy laws are complex, and navigating them can be a challenge even for the most sophisticated managers. One of the broadest protections for homeowners that file bankruptcy is the “automatic stay.” This provision of the bankruptcy code immediately halts all efforts to enforce any claim against the debtor that may affect the homeowner’s property, including collection of overdue assessments and non-compliance fees.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, in the case of HPIP Gonzalez Holding, LLC v. Sabine Oil & Gas Corp. (In re Sabine Oil & Gas Corp.), recently affirmed three decisions of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, finding that certain mineral gathering agreements could be rejected as executory contracts pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 365(a).

A recent decision from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (the "Court") [1] reversed a controversial 2009 decision from the Bankruptcy Court in the litigation styled Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of TOUSA, Inc. v. Citicorp North America, Inc.

If the summer whizzed by too fast and you are still using your old Circular 230 disclaimer on emails and correspondence, it is time to fix that.

Lenders should be aware of a recent Bankruptcy Court decision that barred a lender from obtaining certain costs when it did not comply with a notice requirement in a mortgage.

On June 5, 2014 the United States Bankruptcy Court in In re Demers, BR 13-11539, 2014 WL 2620961 (Bankr. D.R.I. June 5, 2014) ruled that it is inequitable to shift the costs of a creditor’s error in proceeding with the foreclosure process to the debtor when the creditor sent an unspecific and unclear notice and consequently was not entitled to proceed.

Within one day of each other, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (“District Court”) in Perkins v. Massachusetts Department of Revenue, 507 B.R. 45 (Mar. 7 2014), and the Bankruptcy Appellate Court for the First Circuit (“BAC”) in Gonzalez v. Massachusetts Department of Revenue, 506 B.R. 317 (Mar. 6, 2014), issued contrary appellate rulings as to whether tax liabilities in late-filed state tax returns are dis-chargeable under Chapter 7.

CASE RESULTS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS UNIQUE TO EACH CASE AND DO NOT GUARANTEE OR PREDICT A SIMILAR RESULT IN ANY FUTURE CASE

Q: I’m in the mixing and mastering stages of an independent CD release that I’ve been working on for the past few years. When I register my copyright with the Library of Congress, I will own both the publisher’s and the songwriter’s share of the copyright. Meanwhile, I may be on the verge of filing for bankruptcy. If that happens, do I have to list my songwriter and/or publisher share of the copyright as assets with the bankruptcy trustee?

Whittle Development, Inc. v. Branch Banking & Trust Co.