Source: https://www.weltmosk.com/blog.php?year=2016
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 12:24:31+00:00

Document:
We have previously reported on the interplay between the Bankruptcy Code and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), and the conflicting case law throughout the country regarding whether a creditor violates the FDCPA by knowingly filing a time-barred proof of claim in a bankruptcy case.
As anticipated, on October 11, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States granted a petition for certiorari in Midland Funding LLC v. Johnson. As we previously reported, in May of this year the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that debt-collectors may face FDCPA liability for knowingly filing a stale proof of claim in a bankruptcy case.
On September 9, 2016, District Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr., sitting in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, held that a debtor’s tax debt relating to a late-filed tax return may be dischargeable in certain circumstances. Biggers v. Internal Revenue Service, 2016 WL 5121893 (M.D. Tenn. Sept. 9, 2016). Read the full opinion here.
This decision widens the judicial split regarding the dischargeability of tax debt for late-filed returns in personal bankruptcy cases. Specifically, the First, Fifth and Tenth Circuits have held that if a debtor’s tax return is filed even one day late, the debt may not be discharged because of the language added to Section 523(a) of the Bankruptcy Code in 2005. However, the Fourth, Seventh, Eighth and Eleventh Circuits adhere to a four-prong test arising out of Beard v. Commissioner, a 1984 Tax Court decision. Courts employing the Beard test focus on the fourth factor, which analyzes whether there was an honest and reasonable attempt to satisfy the requirements of tax law.
Please help welcome our newest team member, Melissa Dlugokencky!
Melissa will be working closely with our bankruptcy, litigation and foreclosure attorneys. She brings to Weltman & Moskowitz proven legal assisting skills, an undergraduate degree from Dowling College and her paralegal certification from Queens College. Before joining us, Melissa concentrated on litigation and transactional matters at Cohen & Slamowitz (n/k/a Selip & Styloanou, LLP), and Baker, McEvoy, Morrissey & Moskovits, P.C. You can reach Melissa at md@weltmosk.com.
We hope you’ll say hello to Melissa the next time you call or stop in.
On August 31, 2016, Bankruptcy Judge Robert Mark, sitting in the Bankruptcy Court located in the Southern District of Florida, held that section 544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code permits a trustee to step into the shoes of the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) to avoid a transfer which occurred ten years prior to the petition date. Judge Mark held the trustee could avail himself of the IRS’s ten-year statute of limitations, rather than the three- to six-year period provided by most state statutes. Mukamal v. Citibank NA (In re Kipnis), 16-1045 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. Aug. 31, 2016).
We’ve previously covered the interplay between the Bankruptcy Code and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). Recent litigation has focused on debtor challenges to time-barred proofs of claim. This has resulted in conflicting statutory interpretation. In a recent decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that debt collectors, defined as a type of creditor under the FDCPA, may face FDCPA liability for knowingly filing a time-barred proof of claim in a bankruptcy case. Johnson v. Midland Funding, LLC, 2016 WL 2996372 (May 24, 2016).
In a recent decision out of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Judge Benjamin Goldgar dismissed Debtor’s adversary proceeding complaint in which the debtor alleged the debt collector violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) by merely filing a proof of claim. In re Murff, 2015 WL 3690994 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. June 15, 2015).
The United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has agreed to resolve another bankruptcy issue which has split the circuit courts. This time, the high court will address a chapter 11 reorganization issue. The most recent SCOTUS decisions have focused primarily on consumer bankruptcy issues.
At issue here is whether bankruptcy courts may dismiss chapter 11 cases when property is distributed in a settlement that does not comply with the priority scheme for distributions set forth in Section 507 of the Bankruptcy Code.
We previously reported on the split among the federal circuit courts of appeal concerning circumstances under which a debtor’s discharge with regard to a particular debt may be denied based on actual fraud if, prior to filing, the debtor transferred assets away from creditors without directly misleading them. In Husky International Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz, the United States Supreme Court settled the split of opinion among the lower courts, holding that debtor’s actual misrepresentation is not a necessary prerequisite to demonstrate “actual fraud” under section 523(a)(2)(A). Husky Inter. Elect., Inc. v. Ritz, 136 S.Ct. 1581 (2016).
In 2013 the Supreme Court held that funds held in an inherited non-spousal IRA were not exempt under Section 522 of the Bankruptcy Code. You can read our blog article on Clark v. Rameker here. However, in a New Jersey bankruptcy court decision handed down last month, Bankruptcy Judge Christine M. Gravelle held that an inherited IRA is not property of the debtor’s bankruptcy estate, regardless of whether it would be characterized as an exempt asset under the Bankruptcy Code. In re Norris, 2016 WL 2989234 (Bankr. D.N.J. May 20, 2016).
On March 11, 2016, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that a tenant debtor’s pre-petition lease termination may be voidable as a fraudulent conveyance or a preferential transfer in the tenant’s subsequent bankruptcy case. In re Great Lakes Quick Lube LP, 816 F.3d 482 (7th Cir. 2016).
In this case, fifty-two days prior to filing for bankruptcy protection, Great Lakes Quick Lube LP (“Debtor”), surrendered two profitable commercial leases to its landlord for various business-related purposes. Following Debtor’s chapter 11 filing, its official committee of unsecured creditors commenced an adversary proceeding seeking to void the lease terminations, arguing the lease terminations were either preferential or fraudulent transfers. After trial, the Bankruptcy Court ruled in favor of Debtor holding, among other things, that the lease terminations did not constitute transfers. The decision was directly appealed to the Seventh Circuit.
We have previously reported on Bernard Madoff’s massive Ponzi scheme and the resultant “clawback” lawsuits pending in the bankruptcy and district courts for the Southern District of New York.
In a decision dated March 14, 2016, Bankruptcy Judge Stuart Bernstein granted partial relief to an investment fund seeking to dismiss a “clawback” lawsuit filed by Irving Picard, the trustee for Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, LLC (“BLMIS”). Judge Bernstein found that Trustee Picard could not recover fictitious profits and principal recoveries in the six years before bankruptcy because there was no showing the investment firm had “actual” knowledge of Madoff’s fraud.
Post-petition claims of condominium associations for common charges have always held a protected status when a consumer debtor files for bankruptcy relief. Under 11 U.S.C. §523 (a)(16), as amended in 2005, chapter 7 debtors who retain legal, equitable and/or possessory ownership interest in their condominium unit remain liable for post-petition condominium charges.
A 3% cost of living adjustment became effective for new bankruptcy cases filed on and after April 1, 2016, according to the Judicial Conference of the United States. This means certain dollar amounts relating to small business chapter 11 cases, preference claims, means testing, and property exemptions went up. These adjustments to the federal Bankruptcy Code are automatically issued every three years to keep up with inflation.
In a recent decision of relevance to lenders, Garfield v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (“Ocwen”), 2016 WL 26631 (2d Cir. Jan. 4, 2016), the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that a debtor may commence a lawsuit to dispute a lender’s collection practices under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) after receiving a discharge in bankruptcy.
A chapter 7 debtor in Louisiana recently succeeded in avoiding a $180,000 judgment lien on her home after a bankruptcy judge concluded that the United States Supreme Court's holding in Dewsnup v. Timm, 502 U.S. 410 (1992) is not applicable to non-consensual judicial liens. In re Mayer, 2015 WL 7424327 (Nov. 20, 2015).
We have previously reported on judicial treatment of student loan debt dischargeability in bankruptcy—more specifically, how federal courts construe section 523(a)(8) of the Bankruptcy Code, which prohibits bankruptcy courts from discharging most student loan debt “unless excepting such debt from discharge under this paragraph would impose an undue hardship on the debtor and the debtor’s dependents.” 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §523
 v. 
 v. 
 § 523