Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC v. Summit Bank, N.A. (In re Francis), 750 F.3d 754 (8th Cir. 2014) –

A lender that attached the wrong legal description to its recorded mortgage sought equitable subrogation and/or reformation of the mortgage in order to obtain a first priority lien on the intended property.

In re Demers, 511 B.R. 233 (Bankr. D. R.I. 2014) –

A chapter 13 debtor objected to the portion of a mortgagee’s claim consisting of expenses related to foreclosure of its mortgage. She argued that since the mortgagee failed to comply with notice requirements under the mortgage, the foreclosure expenses were not valid.

Trauner v. State Bank & Trust Co. (In re Solid Rock Development Corp.), 481 B.R. 221 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2012) –

Thomas v. Citimortgage (In re Thomas), 476 B.R. 691 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2012) –

Grogan v. Harvest Capital Co. (In re Grogan), 476 B.R. 270 (Bankr. D. Or. 2012) –

In Grogan, the debtors planted and harvested Christmas trees.  The bankruptcy court was called upon to determine whether the debtors could exercise their “strong arm” powers under Section 544(a) of the Bankruptcy Code to trump the liens of two of their lenders on the Christmas trees.

Great Lakes Agri-Services, LLC v State Bank of Newberg (In re Enright), 474 B.R. 854 (Bankr. E.D. Wisc. 2012) –

Steven Enright and his wife borrowed money from a bank to buy dairy cows and other improvements for the family dairy farm.  The bank loan was secured by assets of the Enrights, and also guaranteed by Steven’s parents, with the parents’ guarantee secured by a mortgage on the dairy farm itself (which was owned by the parents).

Williams v. City of Milwaukee City Clerk (In re Williams), 473 B.R. 307 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 2012) –

Olsen v. Heaver (In re Heaver), 473 B.R. 734 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2012) –

The short story is that when a deed and mortgage are executed at the same time, but the mortgage is recorded before the deed, the recorded mortgage does not provide constructive notice and can be avoided in a bankruptcy – at least under Illinois law as interpreted by the Heaver bankruptcy court.

Hiraldo v. Banco Popular Depuerto Rico (In re Hiraldo), 471 B.R. 676 (D. P.R. 2012) –

Back in the mists of time, a seller that had a valid reclamation claim but was denied the return of its goods was entitled to an administrative expense claim (a claim with a higher priority than a general unsecured claim and thus a better chance of getting paid) or a lien on the debtor’s assets. The 2005 amendment to § 546(c) of the Bankruptcy Code changed all that by stripping away those alternative remedies.