Under Section 521(a)(2)(A) of the federal bankruptcy code, a debtor in a chapter 7 bankruptcy must file a statement within 30 days of the bankruptcy filing notifying the court, creditors and the trustee whether the debtor intends to retain or surrender property encumbered by a mortgage.  In its October, 2016 decision in the case of In re Failla, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, in affirming rulings from the bankruptcy court and the federal district court, held that once a chapter 7 debtor elects to "surrender" mortgaged property, he is precluded from thereafter opposing

(6th Cir. Oct. 25, 2016)

Condominium owners’ associations are unique under Florida law—particularly when it comes to the collection of delinquent assessments and liability. The already complicated bankruptcy process thus becomes even more complex when a condominium owner with unpaid assessments is involved. Assessments that arose prior to the filing of the bankruptcy petition are subject to discharge in the bankruptcy. But, the question then arises as to whether or not the unit owner is liable for post-petition assessments.

On October 4, 2016, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that chapter 7 debtors who file a statement of intention to surrender real property in bankruptcy cannot later contest a foreclosure action, and bankruptcy courts have broad power and authority to sanction violations. Failla v. CitiBank, N.A., case no. 15-15626 (11th Cir. October 4, 2016).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently held that the word “surrender” in the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 521(a)(2), requires that debtors relinquish all of their rights to the collateral.

In so ruling, the Court ordered the borrowers to “surrender” their house to the mortgagee in a foreclosure action, and held that the bankruptcy court had the authority to compel the borrowers to fulfill their mandatory duty under 11 U.S.C. § 521(a)(2) not to oppose a foreclosure action in state court.

Just when courts appeared to be developing a consensus on how to value affordable housing projects in bankruptcy, an opinion from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has muddied the landscape. In In re Sunnyslope Housing Ltd.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has issued yet another suite of regulatory changes related to mortgage servicing. The rules add additional protections for borrowers—and therefore increased requirements for servicers—as well as clarify certain issues that have been the subject of questions and confusion by servicers.

Final Servicing Rule

“[T]he price received at a California tax sale” properly held under state law “conclusively establishes ‘reasonably equivalent value’ for purposes of” the Bankruptcy Code’s (“Code”) fraudulent transfer section (§ 548(a)(1)), held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Sept. 8, 2016. In re Tracht Gut LLC, 2016 WL4698300, at *1 (9th Cir. Sept. 8, 2016). Affirming the lower courts, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that “California tax sales have the same procedural safeguards as the California mortgage foreclosure sale” approved by the U.S. Supreme Court in BFP v.

The enactment of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which ended the many tax shelter advantages previously available to real estate investors, coupled with the savings and loan crises, effectively collapsed the real estate boom of the early-to-mid 1980’s. From 1988 to 1993, countless numbers of real estate loans went into default and many real estate borrowers sought to involuntarily restructure their loans through the “cram-down” provisions of Chapter 11 under title 11 of the United States Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”). 

If you believe the hype, it is only a matter of time before brick and mortar retail succumbs to its online competitors.