Source: http://www.ncbrc.org/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 22:46:27+00:00

Document:
The debtor, who had only a remainder interest in her mother’s property and was not a signatory to her mother’s reverse mortgage, was not a “borrower” entitled to remain in the residence after her mother’s death without paying the underlying debt. Reverse Mortgage Solutions v. Nunez, No. 18-22204 (S.D. Fla. March 21, 2019).
A Utah bankruptcy court upheld a chapter 7 debtor’s attorney’s bifurcated fee agreement in the face of a motion for sanctions by the U.S. Trustee. In re Hazlett, No. 16-30360 (Bankr. D. Utah Apr. 10, 2019).
In a unanimous, narrow, decision, the Supreme Court held that an entity merely carrying out nonjudicial foreclosures is not a “debt collector” within the meaning of the FDCPA. Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP, 586 U.S. ___, No. 17-1307 (March 20, 2019).
The district court found that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in holding the student loan servicer in contempt for failing to apply the student debtor’s payments outside the plan in accordance with pre-petition payments as required by the debtor’s confirmed chapter 13 plan. Penn. Higher Educ. Assistance Agency v. Berry, No. 18-444 (D. S.C. March 5, 2019).
This opinion was based on the consolidated appeals of seven cases. Each of the seven debtors filed a petition for bankruptcy under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code in the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The uniform confirmation order in this district (in most cases) is that upon confirmation, the property of the estate remains property of the estate. City of Chi. v. Marshall, 281 F. Supp. 3d 702, 704 (N.D. Ill. 2017).
Thereafter, the debtors incurred fines as the registered owners of vehicles involved in parking or traffic violations of Chicago’s Municipal Code. In each bankruptcy case, the City of Chicaco sought payment of the outstanding post-petition traffic fines as administrative expenses pursuant to § 503 of the Bankruptcy Code, which, pursuant to § 507(a), would give these claims priority status (second only to domestic support obligations), ahead of pre-petition creditors in the distribution of the assets of the bankruptcy estates. Id.
Six of the seven cases were heard before Bankruptcy Judge Barnes. Judge Barnes oral ruling rejected Chicago’s argument. “He found that the City’s attempt to collect post-petition fines as administrative expenses had “a dangerous irritative effect, which is that the debtor could continue even after the first administrative expense claim for the life of the plan to incur additional tickets and they could be added to the plan,” depleting the assets available to unsecured creditors. (Citation omitted.) Judge Barnes concluded that “the traditional set of circumstances holds true, which is the debtor remains responsible for these claims,” and that the City had the same collections options as any post-petition creditor: it could move for relief from the stay and pursue state court remedies, or it could seek dismissal of the bankruptcy case. (Citation omitted.)” Id. at 705.
The seventh case was heard by Judge Hollis. She also rejected Chicago’s argument in a written opinion, In re Haynes, 569 B.R. 733 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2017), finding that post-petition traffic tickets did not qualify as administrative expenses.
These cases were consolidated on appeal to the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois which affirmed the Bankruptcy Courts’ decisions. City of Chi. v. Marshall, 281 F. Supp. 3d 702 (N.D. Ill. 2017).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 503
 § 507
 v.