Every Massachusetts homeowner should be aware of the opportunities that are available for protecting the equity in the family home. A recent bankruptcy case, In re: Nealon, reminds us of one such opportunity – the Massachusetts homestead exemption — and its power to stave off creditors, especially when the homeowner takes the simple steps necessary to maximize the amount entitled to protection.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has now joined the Courts of Appeals from the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Tenth Circuits, and the Eighth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) in holding that the absolute priority rule found in 11 U.S.C. § 1129(b)(2) (“the Absolute Priority Rule”) applies to limit individual debtors’ rights to retain prepetition property of their estate where their Chapter 11 plans propose to pay unsecured creditors less than the full amount of their allowed unsecured claims. Zachary v.
On February 16, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey handed down an important victory for condominium associations in the matter of Whispering Woods Condo. Ass'n v. Rones (In re Rones), reversing a published U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey decision which would have enabled delinquent condominium owners to "strip or cram down" their entire association debt in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy with the exception of six months of maintenance fees.
On November 5, 2015, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California issued a “Memorandum re Plan Confirmation” in In re Bowie, Case No. 15-10144 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. Nov.
An overvalued property may now have a bigger impact on a secured creditor’s bottom-line during bankruptcy. Splitting with the Seventh Circuit, the Fifth Circuit in Southwest Securities, FSB v.
(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Feb. 12, 2016)
Individuals may want to think twice before seeking relief under chapter 11 following a recent decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In Zachary v.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently held that a bankruptcy court clearly erred in its finding that a debtor proposed a Chapter 11 plan in good faith, when the secured mortgagee would be paid only in part and very slowly after 10 years with no obligation by the debtor to maintain the building and obtain insurance, while a second class would be paid in full in two payments of $1,200 each over 60 days.
(S.D. Ind. Feb. 3, 2016)
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida recently denied a mortgagee's motion to reopen a Chapter 7 case to compel the surrender of real property, citing a five-year delay in filing the motion.
In so ruling, the Court agreed with an earlier ruling from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida (In re Plummer, 513 B.R. 135 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2014)), distinguishing "surrender" from "foreclosure," and holding that a creditor cannot use the Bankruptcy Code to circumvent the obligations imposed by state law.