In a blow to creative lawyering, the Supreme Court ruled today that a structured dismissal which allocates value contrary to the priority scheme of the Bankruptcy Code may not be approved. Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., No. 15-649 (U.S. 3/22/17). You can find the opinion here.
Wednesday, March 22, 2017
Friday, March 17, 2017
District Court Rules that Proceeds of a Texas Homestead Sold Post-Petition Lose Their Protection After Six Months in a Chapter 7 Case
Overruling a bankruptcy court decision, a District Judge in the Western District of Texas has ruled that proceeds from sale of a homestead can be recovered if not timely reinvested in a Chapter 7 case. The Court ruled that the Frost decision applied equally in both a Chapter 13 and a Chapter 7 setting. Lowe v. DeBerry, No. 5:15-cv-1135-RCL (W.D. Tex. 3/10/17). The opinion can be accessed through PACER here. The opinion raises serious questions about whether an exemption can ever be truly final.
Sunday, March 12, 2017
The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 ("BAPCPA") capped the amount of a homestead exemption which could be claimed by a debtor that acquired a homestead within 1,215 days prior to bankruptcy. Currently, the amount of the cap, as set by 11 U.S.C. Sec. 522(p), is $160,375 in equity per debtor. This cap has resulted in a seismic shift in Texas where the unlimited homestead exemption is part of the State Constitution. Now debtors' attorneys must learn how to count to 1,215 and calculate the allowable equity before filing a bankruptcy petition. However, what of the case where only one spouse files? The short answer is that all community property enters the bankruptcy estate and that the cap is based on the one spouse that filed. This means that the non-filing spouse can be involuntarily divested of her otherwise sacrosanct homestead interest. The Fifth Circuit has now ruled on three different variations of this scenario and in each case, including the recent decision in Wiggains v. Reed (Matter of Wiggains), No. 15-11249 (5th Cir. 2/14/17), which can be found here, the non-filing spouse has come up short.
Friday, March 03, 2017
Law Office of Michael Baumer
This is a very long post describing some recent case law with respect to home equity litigation in Texas. These events are significant to a consumer bankruptcy practice, but if the subject is of no interest, you may want to skip it.
The Texas Supreme Court issued two opinions on May 20, 2016 regarding issues related to the home equity loan forfeiture provisions of the Texas Constitution. These opinions make significant changes to Texas case law regarding applicability and enforcement of those provisions. The first case was Garofolo v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C., 497 S.W.3d 474 (Tex.2016) and the second is Wood v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 2016 WL 2993923 (Tex.2016). It is important that the cases are read in sequential order as Wood relies on Garofolo in reaching its conclusion. (All references to the Texas Constitution herein are to Article XVI, section 50(a)(6) and its subsections unless otherwise noted.)
Thursday, February 02, 2017
This continues a series on the bankruptcy opinions of Neil Gorsuch, President Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court seat vacated by the death of Antonin Scalia. One point which is clear is that Judge Gorsuch strongly believes that rules should be followed and is not sympathetic to arguments that procedural failures may be excused.
Wednesday, February 01, 2017
Newly minted Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch sat on the Tenth Circuit for ten years. During that time, he signed on to eleven opinions regarding bankruptcy, which means that he wrote about bankruptcy around once a year. None of his opinions are particularly well-known. (In contrast, fellow finalist Thomas Hardiman authored the opinion in Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors vs. CIT Group/Business Credit, Inc. (In re Jevic Holding Corp.), 787 F.3d 173 (3rd Cir. 2015) which is currently before the Supreme Court). However, these opinions demonstrate his crisp writing style and offer some insights into his judicial thinking. I am going to look at one of his opinions in depth and follow up with a separate post on his remaining decisions.
Saturday, January 21, 2017
The case for The Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, No. 15-30125 (Bankr. D. Minn.) has been an extremely contentious one. The Debtor and the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors have different ideas on how to compensate sexual abuse claims and have submitted competing plans. Not surprisingly, both parties objected to the other's disclosure statement. The orders entered by Judge Robert Kressel show remarkable wisdom about how the disclosure statement process works in the real world.