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.

Editor’s Note: This is a new one for us at The Bankruptcy Cave. We are starting a series of primers, covering a narrow range of law but with more depth than just “here’s a recent case.” And also, we have our first edition of “The Bankruptcy Cave Embedded Briefs” – top quality briefs on a certain issue, feel free to download to your own form files or come back and grab ’em when you need ’em. Let us know what you think – we are always trying to improve things around here for our readers.

The first Monday of each October marks the beginning of a fresh term for the Supreme Court of the United States. As the 2016 term approaches, the court’s docket has already begun to fill with cases that will impact commercial practitioners. While the court will continue to accept additional cases throughout the upcoming term, it has already agreed to hear at least five cases that may have significant implications for commercial lawyers throughout the country.

In the decision of In re Metroplex on the Atlantic, LLC, 545 B.R. 786 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2016), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York held that an easement is an in rem property interest, subject to sale free and clear under Bankruptcy Code section 363(f).